Commons Sitting of 15 June 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading—Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment [199].
Second Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [65].
Committee—Summary Jurisdiction Amendment (re-comm.) [173], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended— Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Nos. 1 and. 2) [123 and 196], and passed.
Withdrawn—Franchise Extension (Ireland) [19].

QUESTIONS.
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY — CASE OF CONSTABLE MOLONEY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the name of Constable Moloney, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, has been circulated in a printed document to every constabulary barrack in Ireland as having been dismissed the force for absenting himself when charged with a disgraceful offence; whether the Inspector General of Constabulary has refused to remove his name from this document when so requested; whether,

    1847
    if so, this is the same Constable Moloney who was dismissed the force without trial on the above charge, who subsequently took an action against the Inspector General and was nonsuited on the plea of privilege, and who, eventually, on appeal to the Lord Lieutenant, was reinstated, and his back pay and costs refunded him; and, further, to ask the amount of the legal and other charges connected with the dismissal of Constable Moloney, and from what source they had been, or are to be defrayed?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the constable referred to is the same person that was dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and subsequently reinstated in the mode described in the third paragraph of the Question. The statements in the paragraph are, I believe, correct, except that I think the constable was nonsuited in his action against the Inspector General, not exactly on the plea of privilege, but because the Court, without entering on the merits of the case, held that the dismissal was the act of the Lord Lieutenant, and that no action could lie against the Inspector General. It is also true that after the constable was re-instated, although his discharge was cancelled in the official registry at head-quarters, this was inadvertently omitted to be done in one of the printed documents which are periodically circulated to the Constabulary barracks, showing the rewards or punishments of members of the Force. I have made inquiries into the matter, and have informed the Inspector General of Constabulary that, in my opinion, the record of discharge ought also to have been cancelled in this document, and, of course, care will be taken that the omission is not repeated in similar cases for the future. But it is right to add that Moloney, having observed an article on the subject in a Dublin newspaper with which, I believe, the hon. Member is connected, voluntarily stated that he had not been persecuted or held up to odium since his re-instatement, that no member of the Force had accused him or alluded to the charge on which he had been discharged, and that when he made an application to have his discharge cancelled it was granted; and he complained of newspaper allusions to the subject. I scarcely understand the paragraph of the Question relating to the legal and other charges connected with the consta-
    1848
    ble's dismissal. Of course the dismissal of a constable does not entail such charges, and though a Constabulary Court of Inquiry was held on the case before his re-instatement, no legal charges were incurred on behalf of the Constabulary, and the ordinary costs of holding the Court, which would be very small, would be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.

    THE CONSTABULARY CANTEEN, DUBLIN—CANTEEN FUNDS.—QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What is the present amount of the Canteen Fund at the Royal Constabulary Depôt, Phœnix Park, its average annual increment, and to what purpose it is contemplated eventually to devote it; whether he is aware that the accumulation of regimental canteen funds is, by the Queen's Regulations, restricted to a maximum of £50, they being then devoted to the recreation of those who contributed them; and, whether he purposes instituting a similar regulation for the Constabulary Canteen Fund?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, I stated a few weeks ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), that the canteen fund up to December 31, 1876, amounted to £3,016 4s., and I believe that early in the present year the average profits amounted to about £60 per month. I believe that the accumulation of regimental canteen funds is restricted as stated by the hon. Member. I think it is to be regretted that so large an accumulation has been permitted in this case, and immediately on my attention being called to the subject by the hon. Member for Longford I desired the Inspector General of Constabulary to consider the matter in order that some plan may be adopted by which the interest on the present accumulation maybe utilized for the benefit of the Force, and proper restrictions be placed on such an increase for the future.

    INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)—BALLINAMORE CANAL—QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been directed to a Resolution of the Fermanagh Grand Jury, dated 2nd March 1877, wherein it is stated that

    1849
    the Ballinamore Canal, between Lough Erne and the River Shannon, has been unfit for commercial use since 1860, the canal being the only connecting link between all the northern and western canals of Ireland, and what course the Government purpose taking relative thereto?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have made every inquiry, but am unable to find that any such resolution as that alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member has been forwarded to the Irish Government by the Grand Jury of Fermanagh. I fear, however, that the state of the Ballinamore Canal is by no means satisfactory. It is vested in trustees, whose duty it is to keep it in proper repair. I am informed by the Board of Works that it has fallen into disrepair in consequence of their being no traffic on it, and that its prospects do not appear to them to warrant the outlay of more than £4,000, which, in their opinion, would be necessary to place it in a state of repair. This canal was constructed at a cost of about £282,000, of which more than £224,000 was provided by the Treasury. I do not think any further expenditure upon it could be justified, unless, indeed, those locally interested were prepared to contribute at least a considerable portion of the cost.

  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER.

    QUESTION.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN (for Mr. SEELY)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. T. D. Pigott was lately appointed controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, he having previously been a junior clerk in the War Office; whether the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases), which sat in 1874, made a special recommendation in Clause 130 of their Report that, on a vacancy occurring in the office of controller
    "a gentleman should be charged with the duty who combined general intelligence with practical experience, and possessing the requisite technical experience of stationery and printing;"
    and, whether he can assure the House that Mr. Pigott possesses the qualifications thus described by the Committee?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. and learned Member is correct in supposing that Mr. Pigott has been ap-
    1850
    pointed Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It is also true that the Select Committee mentioned in the Question made the recommendation to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded; but it would be extremely difficult to find a gentleman who combines with technical experience of stationery and printing the official experience so necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of this office. Mr. Pigott has served for 17 years as a clerk in the War Office, and has been selected, on more than one occasion, for duties of an important character, which he has performed with ability and satisfaction to his employers. He was selected as secretary to the important Commission on Army Promotion, presided over by Lord Penzance, and has served as private secretary to more than one Under Secretary of State. His official training, intelligence, and capacity for detail amply qualify him, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, for the post to which he has been appointed.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876— DETENTION OF VESSELS.—QUESTION.
    MR. T. E. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether in the future Returns as to the detentions of vessels under the Act 39 and 40 Vic. c. 80, he can distinguish between the vessels preparing to go to sea in the condition in which they were found by the Board's surveyors and those which had gone into the port at which they were detained for the express purpose of repairing damage sustained at sea?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Such a distinction in the Returns cannot be made, as no such distinction exists. No vessels are detained unless they are preparing to go to sea in an unseaworthy state. There might be a distinction, if it would be of any use, between vessels detained at the commencement of a voyage and those which during a voyage put into a port and get detained while preparing to go to sea again without sufficient repair; but I see no use in it, the sole point of importance being their going to sea in an unsafe state.
    MR. T. E. SMITHthen gave Notice that on a future day he would call attention to the inaccuracies in the Returns furnished to the House by the Board of Trade.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 65.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 65.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to bring before the House the important proposals that had been made by Her Majesty's Government since this Bill was before the House last year. In the first place, there was extension of the time to examine the provisions of the measure before the Bill was brought into operation; and, secondly, there was an exclusion of what were called police burghs under 10,000 of a population from operation under the Bill. With regard to the extended time given for the payment of debt, it was a principle which had been recognized repeatedly in connection with tolls in Scotland, and was in itself a just provision. Parliament had repeatedly, as an equitable principle, allowed time in which the debt should be paid off. Thirdly, the Bill enabled them to arrive at some compromise with regard to an important and difficult question—namely, the incidence of taxation between landlord and tenant. This at one period the Commissioners were unable to support; but they now approved of it so strongly, that it was suggested that the proposal to throw half the burden on the landlord and half on the tenant should not come into operation until time was allowed for existing regulations to expire. Believing that the tolls were, to a large extent, a burden on the tenant, he thought the extension of time would be an equitable adjustment. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in his opening remarks introducing the Bill, said very fairly that the county he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had the honour of representing exhibited some special peculiarities, which led him and led the Home Secretary formerly to say that he thought it required some exceptional treatment. Anxious to meet the Government in a similar spirit, he wished they could adjust in some way the remaining questions. He had never been a strong advocate of tolls. The first Bill he introduced was for toll abolition.
    1852
    [An hon. MEMBER: Permissive.] Yes, permissive; but on considering this question, the difficulties with regard to his own county were brought so prominently forward that he had considerably modified his views. He was quite ready to admit that tolls pressed hardly and severely in particular cases. He was also prepared to admit that if they had what were called homogeneous districts, in which there were no great divisions, the variety of property assessment might become a fair and equitable means of meeting the difficulty of separating the roads—that was, with regard to local road, or what were called in England, highways. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate begged the whole question when he said that, in consequence of the introduction of railways into the country, so great a change had come over the country as to lead to the abolition of the distinction between roads for local traffic and roads for through purposes. He denied that in toto. To a certain extent it was the case. There were in Scotland great trunk roads. There were many roads in populous districts that were connected with large towns and districts, extending over considerable areas. It was quite possible to adjust the area in such a way as to make assessment more uniform. His own county made a proposition of that kind to Glasgow some years ago, by which not only turnpike roads but all the roads within the area of the county should be regarded as one great union, and supported by one assessment. But that proposition was refused. That was not the principle of the Bill of Her Majesty's Government. The principle was to draw a hard line between town and country, to give for the tolls a separate management, and to leave what were called land or agricultural districts out to settle the thing for themselves. He contended that that in itself was not a fair principle. It would throw a great burden upon agricultural districts, as compared with towns. This difficulty had, however, been so fully recognized in the Bill which Her Majesty's Government brought in, that they had introduced a special provision to meet the difficulties of the case, and if those provisions were drawn up in such a clear and unexceptionable form as to leave little to be done, his mouth would have been closed; but they were drawn up in so vague a form that, for his

    1853
    part, he could not gather whether by the 8th clause the Secretary of State was enabled to draw a Provisional Order so as to throw the burden of maintenance of the road on the neighbourhood of burghs, or on the burghs themselves. If it did that, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would persevere; but if it did not, he should attempt in Committee on the Bill to make it answer that purpose. He trusted the Home Secretary would apply his mind earnestly to do justice between man and man. Another reason he had for expressing distrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, that when they came to settle the differences between town and country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown a strong leaning towards the system of mileage. Now, he did not contend that mileage might not, in certain cases, enter into the consideration of this question. There might be burghs—he had one in his own county—which complained of being thrown on their own resources, and which were in a line which would throw a heavy burden upon them. There were other cases where they would merely have the terminus of a line. Would it be contended, as regarded the great Northern line which united Glasgow with England, that the question of debt should be limited to that portion merely within the limits of Glasgow? It was not contended that the mileage alone should be the guide, but he did see a tendency towards that principle. He trusted this would be set right when they came to that portion of the Bill, and that the principle he had brought forward would be fully considered—namely, that a great city should bear its due part of the costs of roads in the neighbourhood, and of the maintenance of those roads. With respect to the remark of the Lord Advocate, that the distinction between local and other roads was neutralized by the existence of railways, railways had, no doubt, caused a great difference in more ways than one. He could point out some instances which would show how unequally a system of assessment would work. Take the case of a tenant-farmer who took his produce into Glasgow by road. Another had the advantage of being in proximity to the railway and paid no toll. One had a heavy burden to pay in toll, but, in case of the abolition of toll, the burden would be thrown on assessment. He
    1854
    would have sensible relief at the expense of his neighbour who used the railway, who would get no relief at all, but rather an increase of his burdens. There were other cases where the Bill would act very unjustly with regard to the mineral traffic. He knew a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, the owner of a large mineral property. All his minerals went by road, and he paid a heavy toll for them. He told him he paid £700 a-year in toll, far more than the increased cost of road, for carrying his traffic. If he were relieved, he would be relieved at the expense of a neighbouring mineral proprietor, all of whose goods went by railway. But there was this peculiarity—that the greater portion of traffic connected with minerals went by rail. There were few who used the road, and many never used the roads at all. There had been some Memorials presented to Her Majesty's Government and also to Parliament on this question, and he thought it was one well deserving of the consideration of the House. They were transferring burdens from a large class of property with a view to the maintenance of roads, and putting them upon property which was entirely independent, or almost entirely independent, of the use of those great lines of traffic. Some of the statements were striking, and were worthy of the attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government and of the House. It was said that there were no fewer than 365 miles of private railway connected with one district, giving an output of 10,168,000 tons, of which the proportion conveyed by road was only 243,000 tons, being little more than 2½ per cent of the whole output. By the Bill on the Table an endeavour would be made to assess this property, and a great many owners of land throughout the country would get large and sensible relief. There were also difficulties connected with towns where there were tramways. If Her Majesty's Government did not see their way through this, he must ask them to adhere to the principle of former Bills for the settlement of this question—namely, that of extra rates on extra traffic. On that principle Her Majesty's Government in the present year had gone backwards. The proposal made last year was that extra traffic should pay extra rates towards the roads. In the present Bill they had allowed all to

    1855
    use the roads for experimental and temporary traffic. He trusted they would look to that matter. They were giving large relief to those who principally used the roads, without placing extra burdens on those who caused the principal wear and tear of the roads. He trusted that some security would be given on these points, and on the equitable adjustment of burdens between town and country. He did trust that some effort would be made by the Government to settle the point he had raised. When the suggestion was first made that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he expressed his concurrence with it, and he still believed that there were matters which could be more fairly dealt with by a Select Committee than a Committee of the Whole House. He hoped, however, that Parliament would endeavour to deal with the subject in an equitable manner; and, if that were done, he would not be under the necessity of asking the House to pass an opinion upon the Bill which he brought forward at the beginning of the Session, but which he had deferred in favour of the Government measure.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEdesired to say a few words on the Bill on behalf of the constituency which he represented. At their last meeting, the Commissioners of Supply for Stirlingshire, seeing the source from which the measure came, decided not to oppose it, and he was glad that they arrived at the conclusion, because to oppose the Bill, introduced as it was by the Government, would not have been a congenial task to him. He had always been strongly opposed to any road rate, on two grounds—first, the great burden thrown on property, both landlords and occupiers, and also for the good old reason, that those who used the roads should pay for them. There were no two counties in Scotland that were in the same state, and what would suit one county would be altogether unsuited for another. His county was what might be termed a composite one; but the difficulty would be to reconcile antagonistic interests. It was not his intention to discuss the details of the measure on the present occasion; but when it got into Committee he would make one or two suggestions which he trusted would soften down some of the inequalities which the Bill now contained.
    COLONEL MURE,looking back at previous attempts at legislation, was obliged to admit that an earnest desire had been evinced to settle the problems with which the Government Bill was intended to deal. In the year 1861, a measure was brought forward for the abolition of tolls, but after being referred to a Select Committee, it fell through. In 1865, another Bill for the same purpose was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho)—whose absence, and the cause of it, they all regretted. In 1869, a third Bill was brought forward with the same object in view; but, while the former measure was of a permissive character, this was compulsory. Then again, in 1873, the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) introduced a measure which passed a second reading by the narrow majority of 9 votes, but was considered so inequitable to Renfrew and Lanarkshire that it was afterwards dropped. At the present moment there were two Bills before the House—that now considered and the one introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke). The Government Bill provided for the abolition of tolls, the consolidation of trusts, and the creation of a fair representative County Board of management of the roads. The measure of his hon. Friend provided all the machinery for the uniform management of the roads and for the establishment of a fair representative Board.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERrose to Order. Was the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to discuss the Bill of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. and gallant Member was justified in referring to the Bill in question for the purpose of illustrating his meaning.
    COLONEL MUREwas obliged to the hon. Baronet for his interruption. As a matter of fact, the two Bills related to exactly the same question. The only difference was, that while the Bill of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire prolonged the trust for 21 years, the Government measure prolonged it for 10 years only. There was some further difference on the question of what should be done in the event of the agreement not being arrived at after the lapse of a certain period. It was the county gentlemen who originally made the roads of Scotland.

    1857
    Many families hampered themselves by the enormous sums of money they expended. In those days Glasgow was glad to recognize that, in order to make commercial progress, it was necessary to have good roads. Since railways, however, had been established, Glasgow had arrived at the conclusion that the highways were not so important as formerly —forgetting that those roads all converged to the railway stations, and were thus indirectly nearly as important as the railways themselves. What he desired to point out was, that if, after a lapse of 10 years, an agreement could not be come to with Glasgow, under the Bill, the whole burden of supporting the roads in the neighbourhood of that city would fall on the occupiers and tenant-farmers in the counties of Renfrew and Lanark. In the event of such a catastrophe occurring, half the burden would fall on the landlord and half on the tenant; but so great was the demand for farms in Scotland, especially in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, that, practically speaking, this heavy burden would in the long run fall upon the tenant. The Government acknowledged, indeed, that the country would suffer. Some time ago the Home Secretary bundled a deputation which waited upon him out of his room. The Home Secretary told them to manage their own affairs, and gave them 10 years to do it. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: I said that I would be glad to assist you in a settlement, by acting as mediator between the parties.] What the right hon. Gentleman told them was, that if they made an arrangement, well and good; but if they did not, a Provisional Order would have to be made, and then an Act of Parliament. His belief was, that at the end of the period they would be unable to arrange with Glasgow, and that the same discontent and antagonism would exist as now. When the Home Secretary was at Glasgow, he received the city authorities, who, of course, desired to throw the support of the roads on the counties; but he had never heard the representations of the county authorities, except when the deputation waited upon him. His right hon. Friend said, in effect, to that deputation, "coûte qui coûte, I mean to abolish tolls." Well, if the existence of tolls produced injustice and conduced to inefficiency, he should be the first to admit that some other means of supporting the roads ought to
    1858
    be adopted. But in Renfrewshire there was no injustice whatever. The inhabitants of the county really paid a fair proportion of the upkeep of the streets in Glasgow. Everything sold in Glasgow by retail or wholesale was charged according to the burdens of keeping shops and warehouses. Therefore in everything the inhabitants of the county bought, they paid their fair share of the upkeep of the streets of Glasgow. Yet it was proposed that Glasgow was practically to use the countyroads for nothing. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what had been done in England. They had in the 14th clause of the Bill introduced last Session done exactly what they wished done in Scotland. What they wanted in Scotland was, to have tolls established in the places where tolls were the only means by which they could establish fair proportions, with regard to the rates for the maintenance of the roads, between the inhabitants. It was impossible to deal satisfactorily with the question in the way proposed by the Government; and he would therefore suggest that this Bill and the Bill which had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire should be referred to a Select Committee, by whom the matter could be settled on a fair and equitable basis.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) that he should be very sorry to oppose any measure introduced by the Government; but without doing that, there were certain occasions when the interests of the constituents might be considered paramount even to the interests of a Government. All that he would ask was what the hon. and gallant Admiral had asked—namely, that from an obligatory Bill, the measure might at once be converted into a permissive one. He (Colonel Alexander) confessed that, as a general rule, he did not much relish permissive legislation, which was apt to result in no legislation at all; but there were exceptions to every rule, and that was pre-eminently the case with regard to that measure, which was decidedly one suitable for permissive legislation, especially as the various counties themselves were not unanimous upon the subject, it being earnestly desired in some, and as strongly opposed in others. And the cause of the widely differing

    1859
    sentiment was not difficult to see; but the circumstances and the interests of counties differed as widely as the circumstances and interests of the inhabitants of these counties, and as there were certain purely agricultural and pastoral counties where the interests were identical, so there were also counties described by the hon. and gallant Member as composite counties, where there were pastoral, agricultural, mineral, and urban interests, and where to compare the advantages of assessment as against tolls would be to institute a comparison between the little finger of Rehoboam and the loins of Solomon. He must point out that permissive legislation on the subject had already been recognized and approved by the House, and already a considerable number of counties in Scotland had obtained private Acts, under which they substituted assessment for tolls; and if other counties had not followed their example, it might surely be inferred that they had not found it their interest to do so. There was a little group of counties that occupied a very peculiar position, and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Colebrooke), in mentioning those counties, left Ayrshire out in the dark. So far as regarded the pastoral portion of the county, the tenants had very little in the shape of tolls, because they used the turnpike roads to a very small extent, transporting their cattle by means of the railway. Now, as the rental of these farms had increased very much during the last few years, it could easily be understood how greatly the burden of assessment would fall upon those poor occupiers. The roads in Ayrshire were very good highways, leading from Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire into Dumfriesshire and Wigtownshire, and surely it was only equitable that those who made use. of these roads should contribute something to their support. He believed that in the counties in which tolls had beeen abolished and assessment established, the roads had not been maintained in such good order as in the counties where tolls had been retained; but, be that as it might, he had no difficulty in proving the exceptional position of his county, and the hardships that would be inflicted upon the landlords of the county if the system of assessment were adopted. He contended that while tolls were a hardship to no
    1860
    one, the assessment for the purpose of rates would be very heavy. The total length of the roads was 1,448 miles, and it had been ascertained that on an average for a period extending over 24 years, the cost of maintenance per mile had been £14 12 s. 8d. Now, assuming the county to keep the roads in as good order as they were at present, it would be necessary for the county to provide annually a sum of £20,189, which would have to be levied upon the total valuation of the county, which amounted to £955,208, and in order to meet that, the assessment would amount to nearly 6d. in the pound, and when they remembered that the total assessment of lands and heritages in the county, for all purposes, was only 3d. in the pound, they would readily understand the reluctance, even the positive dislike, on the part of the county to adopt the system of assessment upon their lands and heritages. The agricultural tenants, whose farms were rising in value, would have to pay sums of money wholly disproportionate to the use they made of the roads; while with regard to another question—the mineral interest, which in his county was very large indeed, and which, he was sure, if that Bill were allowed to pass would be injuriously affected, he had to say that the greater portion of the mineral traffic was carried over the railways and the canals, and where these did not exist, private railways had been constructed and maintained at great cost by mineral proprietors and their lessees. Now, it had been proved by statistics that, upon a total traffic of more than 10,000,000 tons, the portion passing over the roads, and therefore subject to tolls, was only 2·4 per cent, and therefore the enormous increase of burden which, under the Act, would be thrown upon the mineral proprietors might be readily understood from the fact that, whereas they had hitherto paid for the maintenance of turnpike and statute labour roads a sum not above £2,500, under the provisions of that Bill they would be assessed upon a gross rental of nearly £400,000 per annum. That would be a real hardship, and it appeared to him to be monstrously unfair that they should be so heavily taxed to maintain roads which to them were of little moment, and which they so little used. He did not desire to stand in the way of other counties adopting that Act;

    1861
    but he thought some improvement might be effected in the present system without the drastic measure of a total abolition of tolls. He only asked that the county he had the honour to represent, and which 30 years ago obtained an Act under which they were permitted to levy tolls, and under which they had confessedly maintained their roads in most admirable order, might not be forced to adopt an Act which would compel the parties concerned to adopt a system which was totally unsuitable to their requirements, and which would impose grievous hardships on owners and occupiers of land.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that he had for many years taken a great interest in this question, having been one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing tolls in Scotland. One of the Royal Commissioners was the then Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), of whom he need not say, in the presence of those who knew him, that there was not a more intelligent man in Scotland. Mr. Smyth, of Methven Castle, the Convener of the county of Perth, was another Commissioner, along with Sir John MacNeil and Sir Andrew Orr, and those Gentlemen went all over Scotland, and having heard all that was to be said, reported unanimously that the tolls ought to be abolished. Now, a Notice had appeared on the Paper of a Motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and two or three hon. Members had supported the view. He (Mr. M'Laren) thought it would have been far more manly and straightforward to move that the Bill be rejected at once. The idea of referring the Bill to a Select Committee on the 15th of June would be a perfect mockery, as it would never get through. Having given the subject a great deal of attention, he was of the same opinion that he held 14 or 15 years ago, when the Royal Commission sat. He had read a great many articles and pamphlets on the subject. He remembered to have seen in one of the pamphlets that the law agent for one of the counties had spent so much time in London looking after these Bills that his account for expenses amounted to £1,200. Now, if the tolls were at once abolished, there would be no need to come to Parliament to watch over such Bills. All that machinery could be done away with
    1862
    and every one of the multitude of officers could be dispensed with, such as surveyors, clerks, and toll-keepers. Abjuring, however, as he did, the principle of tolls, he had to complain of some of the provisions of the Bill as being most unjust and unfair. He need not mention more than two clauses, one of which—Clause 4—provided that the tolls should be continued for 10 years. He thought that the effect of that, especially in his own county, would be most injurious. In that case, an Act was obtained to continue the tolls for 31 years. There was then a debt of £95,000 upon the roads. The whole of that debt had been paid off. The 31 years expired seven or eight years ago, and that trust was continued by the annual Continuance Bill. The Bill now before the House was called a permissive Bill; but the whole power of deciding whether it should be adopted or not was virtually given to the counties, and the towns would have no voice in the matter. He would illustrate that by taking the case of the county of Edinburgh and that of the boroughs in that same county. The population of the county was 74,000, while that of the boroughs was 254,000. That was to say, the population of the boroughs, which had practically no power, was as three-and-a-half to one compared with the population of the county. Then, as to wealth, the rental of the county was £588,000, while the rental of the towns was £1,833,000, the rental of the City of Edinburgh alone being £1,468,000, or nearly £1,500,000. Thus the Bill was so framed that those who formed the small minority had the whole power to adopt or reject it; and those who had the great preponderance of wealth and numbers, and paid by far the largest share of the tolls, were to have no power at all. That, in his opinion, was a most unjust provision, and unless it was altered, lie should prefer to have no measure at all. As to continuing the trusts for 10 years, nothing could be more unjust. Instead of doing that, a Bill might be introduced, if needful, or, perhaps, a Resolution of the House would be sufficient, for the purpose of letting all expired turnpike trusts in Scotland come before a Committee, as was done in the case of similar English trusts, and then the Committee could decide whether those trusts should be extinguished or continued; but this had

    1863
    never been done in the case of Scotch Bills. He could not see why the practice followed in England in regard to Continuance Bills should not in that matter be extended to Scotland. So far as the Bill went its provisions went in the right direction, but unless satisfactory Amendments were made upon it in these respects, he would feel it his duty to oppose its progress.
    MR. ORR EWING, in reply to some remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), pointed out that, if the outlying districts contributed to the maintenance of the roads in Glasgow, the citizens of Glasgow, on the other hand, had raised the value of property in those districts to its present value by purchasing its produce. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) did not know that the argument was of any weight, but it might be used on both sides. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) had informed the House that he spoke on behalf of his constituency of Stirlingshire. His (Mr. Orr Ewing's) knowledge might not be so great as the hon. and gallant Admiral's; but from what he did know, he differed from the hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely. It was quite true that the Commissioners of Supply in the county of Stirling, by a majority of 1, opposed this Bill, and passed some resolutions as truisms which he considered to be utterly fallacious, but he mixed a good deal with the farmers of Stirlingshire, and he found among them a general, if not a unanimous feeling that the Bill should be supported; he did not mean to say exactly as it was, but that the Bill was correct in principle, and likely to be made a good Bill by some Amendments in Committee. He was not surprised at that approval, because what was the state of matters in the country at present? Through all Scotland they had two kinds of roads—one was the turnpike road, and the other was the statute-labour road. The turnpike roads were formed at the time when communications between the great towns and cities were required to be made, where the traffic was supported by tolls. The statute-labour roads were made in the country and rural districts for the convenience of farm produce, for driving cattle and sheep, and purposes entirely of farming operations. But now those statute-labour roads in Stirlingshire, and
    1864
    in almost every county, were no longer merely subsidiary roads, but in many cases were the most important roads in the county. He knew that in one district where he lived the principal traffic was carried on on the statute-labour roads. Well, how were these roads managed and supported? They were supported by an assessment limited to 3 per cent. That assessment was so small and so trifling, and the amount raised was so insufficient for the maintenance of the roads, that they were in the most disgraceful condition, and often almost impassable. He said it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should pass, although the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire, who began his speech by saying he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, ended by declaring that he was for the maintenance of the system of tolls. The hon. and gallant Member twitted the Home Secretary with that threat which he (Mr. Orr Ewing) sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would abide by—that in some way or other he was determined he would get rid of the unjust and antiquated system of tolls, and substitute assessments.
    COLONEL MUREexplained that he did not indiscriminately support either system. The fact was, that the circumstances of no two counties were exactly alike.
    MR. ORR EWINGunderstood that the hon. and gallant Member was in favour of maintaining the tolls. He wished to inform the House that that assessment of 3 per cent for the maintenance of the statute-labour roads was only paid by the tenant-farmers, and he asked would they continue that system which was a burden of taxation upon the tenant-farmers of Scotland, who had no voice at all in the management of these roads? The county which he had the honour to represent (Dumbartonshire), although there were some differences of opinion with regard to the existing bridges, was unanimous in supporting the Bill, with certain amendments. But the Bill was, no doubt, met with great opposition. That opposition proceeded from the manufacturers and owners of minerals, and also from counties which had many burghs and populous places. The iron and coal masters said only 3 per cent of their enormous traffic passed over the roads. No doubt that was a very small proportion in that

    1865
    sense, but it was a very large proportion of the total amount of traffic which passed over the roads, and they did not take into consideration that part of their traffic which passed over statute-labour roads where there were no tolls. He wished to ask if they were to make any difference between manufacturers and ironmasters and coal owners? Why should other manufacturers pay full assessment if the ironmasters did not? He had railway communication for the whole of his works, and this Bill would impose a heavier assessment upon him than he now paid for tolls; but he took a broad view of the question, and therefore he supported the Bill. He looked upon tolls as unjust, and as interfering with the liberty of people going about, and he was sure, when the Bill passed, everyone of the coal and ironmasters would be thankful to see the system changed. As to the opposition of the county gentlemen, who felt that if this Bill were passed it would relieve the inhabitants of the large towns and cities who at present paid a large proportion of the tolls which were collected at the entrance to those towns and cities, he thought that would be unjust. He thought the just principle to have got over this difficulty would have been to have made all kinds of property in all counties and districts, urban and rural, pay one assessment both for streets and roads, and that committees should have been formed in each town, or city, or district for the management of the roads. That, no doubt, was somewhat cumbersome, and might lead to extravagance, but he had suggested another system which had met with very general approval in his own county. That was that all burghs should extend their charge of the roads for two miles beyond their boundaries, taking the properties which were within the radius, but outside the burgh, into the assessment. He thought that would be a just and fair principle, when this Bill would entirely relieve the inhabitants of the towns from paying tolls. They would thus save a great deal of money which they were at present paying, and at the same time it would be just and fair that the counties should be relieved of a part of the enormously increased expense in the neighbourhood of towns from the large traffic of those towns. He hoped one of those systems would be introduced into the Bill, without which he
    1866
    could not give it his support. He also objected very much to the 4th clause, which made it necessary that four years should go over before this Bill should be brought into operation, even in a county that was anxious to have it at once. He did think that liberty ought to be given to every county, if they thought fit, to adopt the Bill immediately it had passed, and he objected very seriously to that part of the 4th clause which made it permissive for 10 years. That might be necessary for some counties which had a Road Act still in operation; but he thought wherever the Road Act had expired—and he knew it had expired in Dumbartonshire for the last 13 years—the county should not only be allowed, but it should be compulsory to put this Act in operation immediately. He also thought it would be an improvement on Clause 15 to give power to divide counties into districts for management; but there should be one uniform rate throughout the county, or great hardship would be perpetrated. For instance, there were two parishes in the county of Dumbarton, in one of which there would be an assessment of 1s. 2d. in the pound, according to the statistics of Mr. Smollett. That was in the North-west. There were other parishes in the neighbourhood of Glasgow that would be assessed at 2¾d. He thought, looking at the circumstances of those parishes being near Glasgow, having an enormous valuation and a very short distance of roads, it would be unfair that in the same county such a great discrepancy should exist. He also objected to Clause 41, which provided that boroughs under 10,000 of population should be treated differently from boroughs of 10,000 and upwards. He thought that was an invidious distinction, and that it would be better to adopt what he proposed, that these boroughs should support the roads two miles beyond their boundaries. Then he thought that some of the provisions for special cases were very unfair. Take the case of the carriage of wood, for instance. Suppose a gentleman cut down a large quantity of wood one year, and cut up the roads to a considerable extent in carrying it, it would be very unfair to come down on him heavily for that one matter, when for the 30 or 40 previous years during which the wood had been growing he had never used the roads at all. Such distinctions should be knocked

    1867
    on the head, and the Bill should be made at once simple and effective.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he should not have taken any part in the debate but for some remarks that had been made and some extraordinary fallacies that had been brought forward. He promised the right hon. and learned Gentleman a more cordial support for the Bill than he had received from some hon Members on his own side of the House. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Orr Ewing) had made a suggestion, which, to his (Mr. Anderson's) mind, was of a very unfair character, and entirely impracticable, and, at the same time, he said that unless it was adopted he could not support the Bill. He agreed that it was a difficult subject, and he congratulated the right hon. and learned Gentleman on having approached the subject and, generally, on having dealt with it with fairness. Tolls could not be long sustained. They were an antiquated system and most expensive; but it could not be denied that to change a system which had been maintained so long was very difficult, involving, as it appeared, an alteration in the incidence of taxation. The Bill would alter the old plan that those who used the roads should pay for them—a plan which, it could not be denied, was kept up in the more modern system of railroads. He should have been content if the Bill had adopted the method of raising some part of the assessment by a general tax on horses, and to that extent it would have followed the old rule to which he had just referred; but he could not deny that those counties which had adopted Road Acts of their own had not followed that course, and he presumed had seen strong reasons for not doing so. The incidence of taxation would fall heavily on the mineral proprietors, and he thought that some consideration would have to be shown to them. Clause 49 gave power to make an extra charge for extra traffic on the roads. If that principle were admitted, it followed as a logical consequence that they were bound to allow diminished taxation for diminished traffic. Those who had all their traffic done by railways undoubtedly had a good claim to ask for some abatement, if an extra charge were made on account of extra traffic. With regard to the proposal to make the large towns nay for the maintenance of the
    1868
    roads outside their own boundary, he considered it was utterly unjust, and it was the present most unfair system of tolls which had hitherto caused the largo towns to pay an undue share of the taxation, and it was thus to keep up what was at present an injustice that that proposal was made. It had been said that the counties made the roads; but he would ask who made the value of the county property outside the great towns? The great towns had raised the value of the property in their neighbourhoods to eight or ten times what it would have been if they had not been there. The counties were not asked to pay the cost of maintaining the streets. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) had talked about the people of Renfrew paying for the streets of Glasgow, because they sent their produce there, and it was consumed in Glasgow. But every school-boy should know now that the consumer paid the whole cost of an article, and it was undoubtedly the consumer—that was to say, the people of Glasgow—that paid the cost. It was a perfect fallacy to suppose that the people of Renfrew had anything to do with keeping up the streets of Glasgow. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew produced a 10-years-old document, showing the enormous burden that would be cast on Renfrewshire by this Bill. He (Mr. Anderson) remembered how that document was got up, and how fallacious it was shown to be at the time. It was got up to make as strong a case as possible for the landed proprietors of Renfrewshire, and was not worth the paper it was printed on, even at that time, and was worse now. The change proposed was more apparent than real, for the reason that it was in reality the consumer of every article that ultimately paid the cost of it. For the reasons he had stated, and others, he should cordially support the Bill. He should like to see some Amendments introduced, but carrying out the rule he had laid down for others, he would reserve any remarks about them until the Bill was in Committee.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped the Government, when the Bill went into Committee, would see their way to making one change—the applicability of the Bill to burghs of a smaller population than 10,000. A re-

    1869
    striction such as that now proposed was not in the Bill of last year. No populous place of less than 10,000 inhabitants could take advantage of the present Bill; but, by a singular contradiction, the Bill allowed all Royal burghs to take advantage of it. Now there were about 70 Royal burghs in Scotland, and of those, he thought, only about 12 had a population over 10,000, while there were 110 less than 25 Royal burghs with a population of under 2,000. If by the Bill a Royal burgh with a population of only 2,000 was held competent to manage its own roads, surely a burgh which was not a Royal burgh, but which came under the denomination of a populous place, was equally fit to manage its own roads. These places now assessed themselves, and managed their own affairs for lighting, draining, and police purposes, and they should be allowed to manage the roads which passed through them. Now, the county maintained these roads, but it was the interest of the county to maintain only the main roads, leaving the side streets to be maintained as they could; and as these small places had no power to assess themselves, the bye streets were in a state of great disrepair. It would be his duty in Committee to propose an Amendment to make that change, and he hoped the Government would consent to it.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that until that day he had been under the impression that there was almost unanimity on this subject amongst Scotch Members, and he was sure the people of Scotland were unanimously in favour of assessment as against tolls. For his part, it appeared to him to be almost enough to consider the wasteful character of the toll system in order to condemn it. When they were told of the old system that those who used the roads should pay for them, that was surely set aside by the consideration that it was not those who used the roads who paid for them even with the toll system, because one man might have a toll at his gate, and another might drive 15 or 20 miles without a toll. He thought they might say with confidence that the whole of Scotland was in favour of the abolition of tolls. But when they came to apply that principle to particular districts they were met with difficulties, and on that account it always seemed to him that a Bill of this
    1870
    kind was peculiarly one to refer to a Select Committee. If at the beginning of the Session the Government had referred the Bill to a Select Committee, the conflicting interests would have had an opportunity of being heard, and the details could have been thoroughly discussed, and by this time they should probably have been engaged in passing a satisfactory Bill. But he was not so sure of the advantage of sending the Bill to a Select Committee now, because the people of Scotland were anxious to see a Bill on the subject pass; and if they could be sure that they would have time for ample consideration of the clauses in Committee, he thought it would be unsatisfactory at this late period of the Session to send the Bill before a Select Committee. If the Government could promise a sufficient opportunity of discussing the details in Committee, he thought they might very well allow the second reading to pass without moving any Amendment, as they were all agreed on the principle of the Bill.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, his constituents had a great grievance in respect to the present state of the toll question. They had to pay heavy assessments for the tolls in their own districts, and the people complained to him that when they crossed the Border to another county there they found the toll system in operation, and they thought this was a great grievance. The time had come when tolls ought to be abolished. Ever since the late Mr. Pagan, of Cupar, brought this question forward, he had been a party to Bills with the object of abolishing tolls, and he did not think he had ever seen so nearly perfect a Bill as the one which the Government had now introduced, which dealt with the whole question in a very practical way. In the first place, it fixed the period when tolls must be abolished entirely for the year 1887, because that was the date of the expiry of the last Toll Act in Scotland. It was, however, open to the counties and boroughs to agree to abolish tolls before that time, but in that year the whole question would finally be settled. It was a great advantage to the counties that they should have a machinery for abolishing tolls without going for a private Act, which was very expensive. This Act would enable them to do it by a Provisional Order, confirming the terms on which they arranged that the

    1871
    tolls should be abolished. To those who had objected to their abolition he might say that he did not think any county had a vested right in tolls. Tolls were created by Act of Parliament, and Parliament could therefore take them away. This Parliament believed the tolls ought to go. The best course for those who objected to their abolition would be to help to carry this Bill, so that the abolition might be made as equitable as possible. He would like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to this point. Mileage was to be one of the criterions by which counties must pay road debts. In Kinross-shire there was the Great North Road, the trustees of which made a new road, but kept up the old road as well; consequently that county had a double mileage, and therefore the principle of mileage would be unfair to apply to that county. He hoped attention would be paid to that grievance. The way in which the Bill dealt with the extraordinary traffic was one of its best features. It was a fair proposal that the trustees and the parties proposed to be assessed should go before the Sheriff and have the matter settled by him. As to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee at this period of the Session that meant to shelve the Bill altogether. Let them try whether at some Morning Sitting they could not by concessions on both sides come to a satisfactory decision on this question.
    MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he had put on the Paper a Notice that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and lie should be glad if the Home Secretary would give an assurance that he would agree to that course. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] Then he would offer some reasons why he proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He had hardly ever heard a better speech in favour of the object he had in view than that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). The hon. Member approved of the general principle of the Bill. So did he (Mr. Noel); but there were provisions exceedingly difficult to deal with, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh thought them so bad that, if they were not amended, he would oppose the Bill. There could be no stronger argument for referring it to a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) also said he was strongly in favour of the Bill,
    1872
    and he went into details to which he was as thoroughly opposed as was the hon. Member for Edinburgh. Every hon. Member who had spoken had said that they were dealing with a question of great difficulty. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give time this Session for the discussion in Committee of a Bill which presented such difficulties? He was quite certain that a Bill pressed forward in that way would result in something unsatisfactory to two-thirds of the people of Scotland. While hon. Members from Scotland were anxious to see a Roads and Bridges Bill passed, there were still questions involved upon which it was desirable that evidence should be taken. The present measure was, to a certain extent, permissive, and its operation might be postponed for 10 years. He would ask, then what Scotland would lese by postponing legislation for another year, and meanwhile the wants of particular districts might be carefully examined into, and due consideration paid to them. It seemed to him a most reasonable request that at this period of the Session the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It would be most unwise to press forward a measure which affected large interests without having such an examination of details as he held was essential, in order to render any Bill which might be passed satisfactory to the large majority of the people of Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he quite admitted that the question was surrounded with very great difficulties; but, at the same time, he could not concur with the observations that had fallen from the hon. Member who had last addressed the House (Mr. Noel) as to the inexpediency of the House proceeding in Committee to deal directly with the objections raised to the Bill, and not through the agency of a Select Committee. He quite admitted that where questions had not been thoroughly probed, where there was a lack of information on the subject, and where there had been a want of attention to that subject on the part of the public, it might be exceedingly expedient, before proceeding to legislate, that a thorough investigation should take place before a Select Committee of that House. But he could not think that the present subject was analogous in any one particular

    1873
    to such a case. The questions connected with road reform and road legislation in Scotland had been before the public and before that House for at least 15 or 16 years past, and he entirely disputed that there were any facts still requiring investigation, even down to the smallest details of burgh management. He could hardly concur with the observations of the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), to the effect that the afternoon had been entirely thrown away. He thought some good might come of the discussion which they had had, because the main difficulties which arose upon the Bill had been fairly brought before the House. He did not think they should meet with so much difficulty in dealing with details, if certain of those leading questions upon which there was considerable diversity of opinion were fairly discussed and settled. They had undergone a good deal of discussion that day. There was an entire contrariety of opinion on some points, and he thought that in these circumstances such questions ought to be settled by a vote of the House, and not by the Report of a Select Committee. He knew very well there were questions regarding borough revenues; but the House would be able to deal with them in a manner that would be quite satisfactory to the general public of Scotland, if not to both of the sets of the population which had different interests in the matter. He was unwilling to occupy the time of the House; but, at the same time, he thought it proper that he should say a word or two in regard to what the Bill proposed, and the issue it raised upon several points that had been mooted by hon. Members. Undoubtedly, one great question was as to the 10 years clause. The difference of opinion on that point was very manifest; but he did not intend to detain the House by entering into the merits of that clause. The argument on the one side and the other was very plain. Many desired to have legislation immediately operating; whilst, on the other hand, he thought that some time must reasonably be given to those counties which had not yet adopted by private Act the abolition of tolls; because it was very well known that unless some time was given the effect of the immediate operation of the Bill would be to throw upon certain districts, which did not make the roads, part
    1874
    of the expense of roads made by other districts where the debt was not paid off, and those who had made their own roads at their own expense would have to share with others the expense of roads which the latter ought to have paid. Then, again, to some extent the Bill, if it became immediately operative, would interfere with existing covenants, with the existing contracts between landlord and tenant, and with the rights of tenants amongst themselves. These were matters which the House would be able to take into consideration, and on which it would arrive at a correct judgment. Then there was undoubtedly a very important question in regard to the division between burgh and county. He could not think that any scheme would be satisfactory to that House or to the people of Scotland that did not give to certain burghs the control of their own roads. It must be kept in view that where at this moment there were turnpike roads and statute-labour roads within a burgh, under the management of two separate sets of trustees, the Government proposed to combine them, but even then they had the municipality or Commissioners who represented the inhabitants—a body well fitted to be entrusted with the duty. He should say nothing about the area to be made over to the keeping of the burgh authorities beyond this — that the Bill proposed that, nothing to the contrary being stipulated, the area of the burgh should be the area taken charge of by the municipality. If there were any case in which the road authorities of the county were of opinion that to adopt the area according to the burgh limit would be productive of injustice to the county ratepayers, they might approach the burghs and offer to make an arrangement, or failing to come to an understanding, the county authority, after four years, would be entitled to approach the Home Secretary and demand, after the facts on both sides had been ascertained, that a boundary should be laid down by Provisional Order, which Order would have to be brought before that House and sanctioned in the usual form. As regarded the question of rating, he was happy to perceive that the principle of laying one-half on the landlord and one-half on the tenant had been pretty generally approved. And really that rule now obtained so univer-

    1875
    sally in all local and other rates in Scotland, that it would be hardly possible to dispute the propriety of proposing the rate according to that measure. But there were important general questions as to what subjects were to be included in the rate, which, in his opinion, ought not to be left to the decision of a Select Committee. He had done his best to endeavour to devise some means by which anything like a fair differential rate in this matter could be attained, without committing any injustice; but he did not believe it was practically possible to attain it, since every individual case would require to be dealt with upon its merits. The Valuation Act was the basis of all taxation, and much difficulty would ensue, if any other scale were adopted. As for mineral traffic, he could not think it fair that a man who did not use roads at all for the purposes of his mineral traffic in one place, should be made to pay a largely increased rate when he used the roads for the purposes of his property in another place. There might be a clause to the effect that a man paying an ordinary rate for roads ought, when he makes an excessive use of them, to pay for any damage done. With regard to the tax upon horses, he thought that really was only another system of levying toll. It was going to the stable to collect it instead of taking it at the toll-bar. He did not require to say anything upon the subject of tolls themselves, because he thought there was very great unanimity on the part of the people of Scotland in the desire that tolls should be abolished, and although some hon. Members of the House were not of that opinion, yet they had not, he was very glad to say, expressed in that House that day an active and persevering dissent.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYcontended that the sound principle upon which roads ought to be maintained was that those who paid for their maintenance should benefit by them. It would be generally admitted that no class throughout Scotland had benefited more by the making and maintenance of roads than the proprietors of land. There was no doubt that the proprietors in a good many instances made the roads, but they had been paid interest on their money, and in many cases the money expended by them had been repaid many times over,
    1876
    either directly or indirectly. Therefore, he did not think the proprietors were entitled to lay any weight upon that argument. But even if they had not been paid directly, their properties had been so largely improved by the making of roads as to repay them ten times over for any outlay they had made. At all events, no system of assessment would do absolute and theoretical justice. He drew attention to the fact that in the county of Renfrew the law charges incurred for several years past were about one-tenth of the whole expenditure of maintaining the roads. The case was still worse in the county of Lanark. Moreover, the present system of managing turnpike trusts was very inefficient, and anything but economical. There was no responsible authority to look after the management of the roads. They were almost entirely delegated to surveyors, and the consequence was that the money went, and nobody seemed to know how. With an improved system of management, and with trustees elected by, and responsible to, the ratepayers, very great economy might be effected, and greater efficiency secured. He thought the Board proposed by the Bill would be cumbersome and unsuitable for the management of roads. Those counties which had obtained private Acts had left the management of roads to proprietors and farmers, and as that system of management had worked exceedingly well, he thought the Government would have acted wisely if they had adopted that system. With regard to the provision of the Bill, that police boroughs having a population above a certain number should form parts of counties for the purpose of this Bill, he thought no advantage would be gained by the counties under that provision, and that unless an agreement could be come to between counties and such boroughs on the subject, it would be as well that they should remain separate. He expressed great fear that if 10 years' grace were given before tolls were entirely abolished, those at present charged with the management of the roads would allow them to fall into disrepair, in consequence of their bestirring themselves to get as much interest as possible. ["Oh, oh!"] [Colonel MURE protested against the hon. Member's insinuation.] He did not know exactly the value of the hon. and gallant Member's protest;

    1877
    but in the county of Forfar the complaint was general that the statute-labour roads had been starved. Unless the Home Secretary could give the House some satisfaction on these points, it would be a question whether it would not be better to postpone the Bill in the hope of getting in a year or two a Bill which would be more satisfactory.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped an opportunity would be given of dividing on the Question that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, even if they took three years in arriving at a decision upon the subject. There was evidently a great difference of opinion with regard to the Bill, and he thought it very desirable there should be something like agreement. For his part, he could not see why a measure raising so many difficult questions had been introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Many of the counties were perfectly satisfied with the existing state of things. It was a right principle that those who used the roads should pay for them, and so far as he was concerned, he thought that if tolls did not exist, they ought to be invented, as they appeared to him to constitute the fairest way of maintaining the roads in proper condition. The consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House would, he believed, take weeks.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact that the Bill under discussion was one which was very much desired by the great majority of the people of Scotland, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that, not content with having devoted one Morning Sitting to Scotch Business, he would tell the House fairly and frankly whether the Government really meant to push it through this Session.
    MR. MARK STEWARTalso bore testimony to the desire that existed amongst Scotch people that the Bill should be passed into law, and said, he should like to see some provision made whereby burghs with a population lower than 10,000 might obtain the same advantages as burghs with that number of inhabitants and upwards. There was another point alluded to by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) in regard to the qualification of road trustees. That appeared to be the same as the qualifications of the Commis-
    1878
    sioners of Supply. In many counties that qualification was far too high, and consequently many excellent men of business among a comparatively lower class of tenant-farmers would be always unrepresented at the road meetings. There were some other points which would come up in detail when the House went into Committee; but he rose chiefly to direct the attention of the Government to the point that this Bill might be allowed partially to apply. As the Bill was drawn it could only be made to apply wholly, and thus few of those counties would be found willing to adopt it, which had gone to the great expense of obtaining private Acts of Parliament for themselves. He trusted that the Bill would become law in the present Session.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that as no English voice had as yet been raised in the debate, he would ask leave to say a few words. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) was in favour of a system of tolls, because, he said, that by that system those paid for the roads who used them. That was a transparent fallacy which ought not to be left unanswered. It was quite true that under the toll system those who paid tolls were persons who used the roads; but it was equally true that an enormous number of persons used the roads who never paid tolls; and, place your turnpike gates where you would, you could never get rid of this fact, and of the consequent inequality of the toll system. It was on that account that he was always opposed to a system of tolls. The chief reason why he rose, however, was to request his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Noel) not to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. There were two reasons why Bills were ordinarily referred to Select Committees. One reason was, when it was desired to "shelve" a Bill; but that purpose had been disavowed in the present case. The other was, when information was sought to be obtained by evidence upon points within the Bill upon which difference of opinion existed. Now he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), having carefully listened to the debate, was of opinion that no evidence or additional information was necessary to enable hon. Members to fully understand the points in dispute. There was, no doubt, much difference of opinion as to many details of the Bill;

    1879
    but those differences might best be decided in Committee of the Whole House. He was sorry the debate had already wandered from the principle of the Bill into many questions which were rather for Committee; but he thought that if they now allowed the Bill to be read a second time, they might be sure that the Home Secretary, for his own credit's sake, would be anxious to pass it, and might be trusted to do his best to give ample time for its discussion in Committee.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERasked the Home Secretary whether he would give an assurance that the Bill would come on for discussion on the day fixed for going into Committee. For the last four months, Scotch Members had on many nights been detained at the House at great inconvenience to themselves for the purpose of watching this Bill.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that for the last 30 years he had lived in a county in which the provisions of this Bill had been in operation. In that county the operation of the local Act had been satisfactory to all concerned, and he believed that the present Bill, if it became law, would give satisfaction to the people of Scotland generally. He would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give ample time for the discussion of details in Committee.
    MR. YEAMANsaid, it had been truly asserted that this was a matter which had agitated Scotland for a great many years. As the Representative of a constituency which would be largely affected by the Bill, notwithstanding there were some inequalities in it, which might be remedied in Committee—still he thought that, on the whole, the Bill would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland. He thought it ought not to be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee, and trusted the hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs (Mr. Noel) would not persevere with his Motion.
    MR. M'LAGANalso begged the hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs not to divide on the question of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Approving the principle of the Bill he hoped the Home Secretary would give ample time for discussion of the details in Committee. He thought the 10 years' grace was against the interest of the proprietors, and he trusted the right hon. Gentle-
    1880
    man would re-consider the clause on the subject. The extraordinary assessment to be put on certain kinds of property under the 49th clause was unjust. The Report on which this Bill was founded was 15 years old, and a Report on the subject now by the same men would be very different, as there had been great alterations in Scotland within the last 15 years.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have to say that, on the whole, I am bound to bear my testimony to the fact that the Bill has been very favourably received by both sides of the House. As this matter has been before the Scotch people so long, I am quite certain that the time has come when it ought to be settled, and I do not think that anybody would gain by delaying the settlement. When I was in Scotland some years ago, I had the honour of receiving a deputation to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Mure) has alluded. I certainly heard both sides of the case very strongly stated, and I did not expect at that time that opinions would be so modified on both sides of the House as they are now, for the difference of opinions which we have heard to-day from that which I heard when I received the deputation is perfectly startling. The hon. and gallant Member opposite will excuse me for saying that he was not "surrounded by both parties" when he appeared before me. I received two perfectly distinct deputations, one from one side and one from another, and the hon. and gallant Member appeared on both. I am bound, however, to say for his comfort that when he appeared on one side, he frankly stated that he was not in accord with the gentlemen who came before me on the other side of the question. I believe that the Bill which was brought forward by the Government last Session has done very much to bring people's minds together on this question; and I believe that in the Bill now before us there are the elements of a very fair settlement of the question, which might be effected in the course of the present Session. I am quite certain in my own mind that the place to fight out whatever has to be fought out is the floor of the House of Commons. There are points of difference, and whatever might be the determination of a Committee upstairs, they would have to be decided on the floor of the

    1881
    House. When the Report came down, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) gave a most frank reason for referring this measure to a Select Committee, for he said that it did not matter, so far as he was concerned, if it took three years to consider the subject. For my own part, however, I do not want to shelve the Bill. I should not have asked the House to read it a second time at this period of the Session if it were not the determination of the Government, as far as they can, to pass it into law. One hon. Member asks me to name a day, and to stick to it, for going into Committee. That would be impossible, because no one can tell how much other debates may be protracted; but if the Government can by any possibility pass the Bill into law during this Session, it is their intention to do so. In order to effect that object, I must appeal to the House on both sides to assist us in discussing in Committee fully but fairly the points that will arise.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday next, at Two of the clock.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL — [BILL 173.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL — [BILL 173.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. BIGGARmoved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of considering the Amendments, and also on the ground that there was not sufficient time left to discuss them.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Biggar.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 207: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HENLEY,in resuming the debate, condemned the Bill as impracticable. It was without any provision to
    1882
    enable those who had to carry out judgments to be informed of the grounds on which at a previous sitting of the magistrates those judgments were given. The Bill was drawn with an evident idea that petty Sessions Court was to be a Court of Record; but there was no machinery provided for that purpose, and nothing could be more objectionable than the unlimited power of appeal which the Bill allowed. It would be easier to get the Bill set right by referring it to a Select Committee than by a general discussion in this House.
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
    MR. W. H. SMITHstated that it was the intention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to take Votes 6 and 10 of these Estimates on Monday next, and to postpone the other Votes.
    And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
    The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

  BOROUGH FRANCHISE (IRELAND).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. MELDON,in rising to call attention to the restricted nature of the Borough Franchise in Ireland; and to move—
    "That the restricted nature of the Borough Franchise of Ireland, as compared with that existing in England and Scotland, is a subject deserving the immediate attention of Parliament, with a view of establishing a fair and just equality of the Franchise in the three Countries,"
    said: I rise to ask this House to assent to a principle neither new nor revolutionary. The proposal I shall ask this House to adopt embraces a principle not originating with myself or my Colleagues, but, on the contrary, I ask the affirmance of a principle put forward with peculiar force, and often repeated by those Members who, if past expe-

    1883
    rience is not delusive, will be found in the front ranks, and most vigorous in their opposition to the Resolution I am about to submit. What is this principle, and what is the simple, narrow, and only issue to be this night decided? The question is, whether this House fairly, honestly, and without favour, legislates for the three Countries, and whether it is true that Ireland is treated by this Imperial Parliament fairly and justly as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and given the benefit of equal laws as England? When the demand by the Irish people for a separate Parliament is discussed in this House, we are told, and by no persons more strongly or more frequently than by the Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House, that the Imperial Parliament gives to Ireland the full benefit of all laws passed for the rest of the Kingdom, and that nothing is refused to Ireland that is granted to England. The Resolution I am about to propose is a practical test as to the bona fides of this statement; and upon the vote to be taken to-night depends the determination of the question which I wish plainly to place before the people of the United Kingdom—whether or not England and Ireland are treated to the benefit of equal laws on a subject of greatest consequence? My opinion has long been that the real difference between the two great English Parties in this House is on the subject of the Franchise. The one Party wish that this privilege or right should be extended to the people of this great Kingdom as widely as possible; whereas the other side think of nothing but placing restrictions on the enjoyment by the mass of the people of their political rights. For my part, I wish at all times to bring prominently before the country this great and important difference between Conservatives and Liberals; but, on the present occasion, I wish to distinctly point out that no question of extension of the franchise is raised; but the issue raised merely is whether you will grant to the people of Ireland rights which the Conservative Party, led by the present distinguished Nobleman who holds the reins of office, at the first conferred on the people of England and Scotland? I shall point out, as shortly as I can, what the law is in England and Scotland with respect to the Borough Franchise: I will prove that the Conservative
    1884
    Party themselves were parties to conferring the existing franchise on the inhabitants of these countries; by means of statistics I will show that a large number of the people of Ireland are disfranchised; and I will then leave it to my opponents to justify, if they can, why Ireland in this matter should be exceptionally treated. Before proceeding further, I may just as well state one or two facts that will at once prove the great injustice under which the Irish people labour. The 31 Parliamentary Boroughs of Ireland, with a population of 882,146, having 130,525 rated dwelling-houses, return 39 Representatives by the votes of only 53,953 electors; whereas the City of Glasgow, with a population of 477,732, has a constituency of no less than 60,570; and Liverpool, with a population of 493,405, has a constituency numbering 59,667; and Manchester, with a population of 379,374, returns its Representatives by the votes of 63,938 persons. Thus, each of these cities in Great Britain has a constituency far exceeding in numbers the entire number of persons registered for all the boroughs of Ireland. I will proceed now to state, as shortly as possible, the state of the law in respect of the Borough Franchise in the three Countries. The enjoyment of the franchise by the mass of the people is affected by two distinct classes of laws—first, the law regulating directly the franchise qualification; and, second, those laws which, though more directly affecting the payment of rates, still most materially affect the rights of persons to get placed on the Parliamentary Register. I must, therefore, ask the House to bear with me whilst I call their attention to the laws now in force bearing on these two distinct questions. Under the Reform Act of 1850 every occupier in a borough who was rated for the relief of the poor to the extent of £8, and who had paid such rate up to a certain date, was entitled to be registered as a voter. In order, therefore, to entitle a person to the franchise, it was necessary that he should be rated and have paid his rates. The Act of 1850, therefore, contained provisions to enable an occupier, in case he was not rated by the proper authority, to claim to be rated, but this could only be done by paying or tendering any rates due at the time of making the claim. This provision was almost prohibitive; because it threw upon the claimant the

    1885
    onus of paying not only rates necessary for a person thus rated to pay, but also all current rates then due. I call attention to this point, because I will show that so anxious were the framers of subsequent laws passed for the benefit of England—not extended to Ireland—to facilitate the acquisition of the franchise, that these objectionable clauses were subsequently repealed. Until 1867 the laws as to the Borough Franchise were the same in England and in Ireland, with this exception—that in the city of Dublin, owing to a provision in one of the Collection of Rates Acts, tenants paying their rents weekly or monthly were prevented from being rated; and this provision applying to but one city in the United Kingdom has practically disfranchised several hundreds of persons in the cities of Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Belfast, and Waterford; lessees were required to be rated wherever the premises were rated under £8. The result of this law has been that when the rating qualification was reduced to £4 no occupiers were rated under £8, and such occupiers were obliged to claim to be rated, subject to the almost prohibitory conditions I have above referred to. In the year 1867, the great change in the law as to the qualification for the Borough Franchise took place. In that year a Conservative Government, led by the present Prime Minister, gave the great boon of Household Suffrage to the people of Great Britain—a boon denied by the Imperial Parliament to the people of Ireland. Allow me, before I pass on, to say that the possession by the masses of the people of political power, a knowledge on their part that they return as their Representatives the persons who have the power to bind their persons and property, is one of the greatest safeguards against revolution and discontent; and the Parliament that passed Household Suffrage, and the statesmen who supported it, showed sound judgment, and conferred a lasting benefit on the country. The Reform Act of 1867 did not confer upon the country the boon that apparently was intended to be granted — I say apparently, because I feel certain that the wily statesman, who so magnificently and generously gave Household Suffrage, was well aware that, owing to the restrictive and prohibitory nature of the rating clauses, he was giving
    1886
    but half a loaf, when the recipients imagined they were getting full weight. I have pointed out how, under the Reform Act of 1850, the provisions as to rating and payment of rates seriously interfered with the acquisition of the franchise. These restrictive clauses were not removed by the Reform Act of 1867; but, on the contrary, were rendered—deliberately, I feel certain—more objectionable. This Act made personal payment of rates necessary, made the occupier liable thereto, and took away the right of composition for rates. The Act, however, was beneficial in this way—Household Suffrage was nominally given; occupiers were, in the first instance, to be placed on the rate books under a penalty; power was given to tenants to deduct rates in cases where the landlords were liable, but did not pay; and I it was made compulsory on the overseers to serve notices on occupiers in case of the rates remaining unpaid, in time for them to pay the same in time to preserve the franchise. These advantages were counteracted to some extent. The Act imposed the payment of rates on the poor man; it deprived the landlord of the right he theretofore had of compounding the rates, and threw difficulties in the way of obtaining the franchise. In order to show how the present state of the law excludes the great mass of the people from the enjoyment of the franchise in Ireland, I shall quote a few figures taken from Returns presented to this House, and they will prove that the state of England with respect to the Borough Franchise was the same before the Reform Act of 1867. From a Return obtained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in 1874, it appears that in 1866, 56 boroughs in England had less than 500 rated occupiers on their Parliamentary rolls; there were nine with less than 300 occupiers, and in one instance—that of Calne—there were but 144. There were 45 boroughs with less than 500 electors on the rolls, and altogether there were but 500,000 electors on the Parliamentary registers of boroughs in England. The state of England, therefore, before the Act of 1867, was very much the same as the present state of Ireland, and all that my Motion asks for is, that the laws which produced the difference between England in 1866 and England in 1877 should be extended to Ireland.

    1887
    To show the effects of the rating laws in interfering with the obtaining even of the present franchise, I will quote from a Parliamentary Return, No. 45, printed in the Session of 1874. In Belfast, with a population of 174,413, there are 25,708 tenements value for over £4, yet we find but 14,990 rated occupiers on the Parliamentary register; in Carlow, with a population of 7,842 and 635 tenements rated for over £4, there are but 311 rated occupiers with the franchise; in Cork, with a population of 100,518, and 7,190 tenements rated above £4, there are only 3,737 rated occupiers entitled to the franchise; in Dublin, with a population of 267,717, there are 23,247 tenements rated over £4, and only 11,004 rated occupiers on the registers; of the tenements rated in Dublin there are 21,008 cases in which the rating includes a dwelling-house. Excluding the disfranchised boroughs of Cashel and Sligo, there were, according to this Return, in the other boroughs 127,341 rated tenements with dwelling-houses, and only 44,920 rated occupiers on the Parliamentary register, and we find at the present time 37 borough Members returned to this House by 53,953 electors. In order to illustrate the great difference which exists between Great Britain and Ireland with respect to the Borough Franchise, I will call attention to the following statistics taken from the latest Returns. Dublin, with a population of 267,717, gives the franchise only to 12,310 persons; whereas Leeds, with a population of 7,000 less—namely, 259,212—has upon its Parliamentary register no less than 49,300; Wolverhampton, with a population of 156,978, has 24,341 electors; Norwich, with a population of 80,386, has a constituency of 14,921; and Edinburgh, with 196,979 inhabitants, enfranchises 26,935 persons; Belfast, with a population of 174,413, has on its register 19,633 names. It is a remarkable circumstance that Belfast, with a much smaller population than Dublin, has 7,323 more electors. This arises from the fact that persons in Dublin paying rent weekly or monthly cannot be put on the register, and the exceedingly prohibitory nature of the law in Dublin with respect to the payment of the rates. Bradford, with a population of 145,830, enfranchises 26,801; Greenwich, with 123,408, gives the franchise to 19,990
    1888
    occupiers; Aberdeen, with only 88,125, has on its register 13,738; Cork, with its population of 100,518, enfranchises but 4,445; whilst Greenock, with only 50,150, gives the franchise to 7,614; Limerick, with 49,853 inhabitants, has only 1,804 electors; while Gateshead, with 48,627, has 11,516 on its register. It will be seen from these figures what an enormous difference exists between boroughs in England and Ireland in the state of their Parliamentary registers. I have already called attention to the fact, that one city in Scotland has a more numerous constituency than all the boroughs of Ireland put together. Now, there is but one other statistical Return to which I will direct the attention of the House, but it certainly is a most extraordinary one. With a population of upwards of 12,000,000, English counties are represented by 187 Members returned by 850,587 electors; whereas the boroughs with a population of more than 10,500,000, are represented by 297 Members returned by 1,514,716, of whom no less than about 1,470,000 are rated occupiers. In Scotland the counties, with a population of 2,106,673, are represented by 32 Members returned by 88,594 electors, while the boroughs, with a population of about 1,200,000, are represented by 26 Members returned by 202,852 electors, of whom about 192,800 are rated occupiers. It will thus be seen that in England and Scotland the electors in boroughs far exceed the number of electors in counties. In Ireland, however, this state of affairs is entirely altered. The boroughs in Ireland, with a population of 866,356, are represented by 37 Members returned by 53,753 electors, of whom 48,000 are rated occupiers; while the counties, with a population of more than 4,500,000, are represented by 64 Members, returned by 173,919 electors. Now, these figures prove beyond doubt that the great mass of the population of Irish boroughs are excluded from the franchise, while the same class are admitted in England and Scotland. All the trades and working classes are in Ireland excluded from the franchise. This proportion of rated occupiers to rated premises and population is extraordinary small, and is altogether different from that which prevails in England, as the figures in many of the largest boroughs clearly prove. The

    1889
    contrast between the proportion of electors to population in the English and Scottish and in the Irish boroughs is most marked—the borough of Glasgow has, in fact, more electors than the whole of the Irish boroughs put together. This arises partly from difference in the qualification and partly from the severe and prohibitive rating laws in Ireland, which are directed to prevent persons acquiring the franchise; whilst the rating laws of England and Scotland are framed in such a way as to facilitate the acquisition of the franchise. Those laws in the former country are calculated to deprive persons who possess the franchise of it, and prevent those who have it not from acquiring it. And there is the same disproportion with reference to the county representation as exists in the borough franchise and representation in Ireland. What is the result of this legislation? It is that in England all artizans and tradespeople have the franchise, while in Ireland these parties are excluded from their fair share of political power. I can see no reason why classes enfranchised on one side of the Channel should be disfranchised on the other—every reason, indeed, is against such a course. No greater security against revolution can be imagined than this just and equitable extension of political rights; and the principle is as applicable to England as to Ireland. The effect of this wise extension of political rights in England is the fact that times of crisis in this country no longer give rise to riots such as the Riots of 1870 and the Bristol Riots of 1831. Why should the same effect not be produced in Ireland? I can see no reason. This is no sentimental grievance, but one of the greatest importance; and the Motion which I am now making is one calculated to test the sincerity of those who oppose Home Rule on the ground that all that Ireland requires is the same laws and the same legislative system as exists in England. Irish Members are told every night that the Imperial Parliament is prepared to give equal laws to Ireland. I will test the bona fides of those who make that statement by the action they will take on the present occasion. I have shown them that Parliament in its legislation on this subject has dealt with England and Scotland in a particular direction—it has afforded every facility for acquiring
    1890
    the franchise, and in doing so has acted wisely and well. I ask them now to do the same thing for Ireland. I dare say I shall be met by the trumpery argument about the necessity for a re-distribution of seats, but I am not afraid of that; and when the question comes on I think I shall be able to prove that Ireland is not fairly represented in this House in proportion to her population. But apart altogether from the question, Ireland has a right, in reference to the franchise, to equal laws and to the same system that exists in England. I appeal to any hon. Member of the House, whether he be an Englishman or an Irishman, by his vote to strengthen the hands of those who have the hope of doing good for their country through the Imperial Parliament. I, and those who act with me, ask the House to say that Ireland is not to be treated as a conquered country. I appeal to every man who loves his country—whether an Irishman or an Englishman—to strengthen the hands of those who bring forward this Motion, by showing that as long as the Imperial system continues, it is not only consistent with, but conducive to the establishment of the same laws in the two countries. I have brought the subject forward deeply impressed with a sense of its magnitude and importance; and I am determined to test the feeling of the House upon it. I ask the House not to dash away the hope which I entertain; but if they reject the Motion for political reasons, in the face of Europe and of Ireland, they will do more to disunite Ireland from England than anything that has been done for many years. I ask them to consider the sole issue—namely, to give equal laws to Ireland, and they will do great good; but if not, they will do infinite harm. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
    MR. GRAY, in seconding the Resolution, said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Mellon) had gone completely into the subject, and had left very little for him to say. He thought that it would be admitted, even by hon. Members who would vote against the Bill, that a primâ facie case had been made out; and unless the facts and figures which had been given by the hon. and learned Member could be disposed of, it would be shown that there were good reasons for not applying the

    1891
    same reasoning to Ireland that was applied to England. Then, in consistency, the Resolution should be supported. He should therefore devote himself to dealing with the arguments which had been introduced against giving the same franchise to Ireland that was given to England. One of the arguments against it was that the Reform Act of 1867 was a settlement of the question, and they were told they should not disturb that settlement; that they should not pluck the tree that was bearing such magnificent fruit; that they should wait with patience, and not destroy the fruits of the Reform Act by now attempting any other Act. Now, he thought that the Reform Act of 1867 was not a settlement at all. It was a shame that at that time there was no Irish Party and no interest taken in the matter in Ireland. The voice of the popular Party was devoted to another and a far more important question—the settlement of the Irish Church; and, therefore, that really urgent and important question did not come before the House at all. In 1866 they were on the eve of a General Election, and men were, perhaps, not anxious to take a leap in the dark. The borough constituencies of England at that time numbered some 450,000 odd, but by the English Reform Act of 1867, and by the subsequent legislation of 1869, that had been increased to a constituency of 1,500,000—that was to say, in England the constituencies had been trebled, and in Scotland increased by two-thirds. That had been the English settlement. Then, in 1866, the Irish borough constituencies numbered 40,000, and they now numbered only 50,000—that was to say, the settlement added one-fourth to the then existing constituency, while in England they trebled it. It was utterly impossible to compare the two things, and say that it was the same settlement. One of the other arguments brought against this change was, that whereas in England, it was the mere introducing of a desirable class into the constituencies—an infusion of new blood, so to speak, in Ireland, it was a revolutionary change; that while in England they introduced some desirable elements, in Ireland they swamped the old constituencies and degraded them, and that it would be practically a disfranchisement, and not an enfranchisement Act. That was an utter fallacy, and it was
    1892
    the assertion to which the Act of 1867 was the answer. According to a Return granted on the Motion of the late Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Pim), there were in Ireland altogether in the boroughs 130,000 tenements. Putting aside such minor questions as the number which might be occupied by women and other persons who would be disfranchised, and taking the figures, they would have 130,000 enfranchised; but of these, there would be already entitled to the franchise, although not on the franchise, 73,000; and these valued at per annum, all that could be added would be 50,000. Therefore, instead of trebling the constituencies, as in England, without doing any harm or introducing any revolutionary elements, which they were told would be let loose if the franchise was extended in Ireland, they could not double them in Ireland. It had been said over and over again that the change in Ireland would be a more serious one, and more dangerous elements would be introduced, and it would be a greater leap in the dark than was the change in England in the Act of 1867. But this was not only fallacious, but the reverse of the fact to a very considerable extent. At present they had 73,000—not counting women necessarily franchised—tenements which would entitle their owners to the franchise, and they had only 52,000 absolutely on the register. That was five-sevenths of the constituents. He wanted to impress upon the House that in England the number of the constituents had been trebled without danger and with advantage, and when they asked for similar laws to be applied to Ireland, they were told that in Ireland it would be a revolutionary change—it would swamp the constituencies, and introduce Communism. The fact was, by no possibility could they effect in Ireland such a change as was effected by the Reform Act of 1867 for England. There were really only two arguments against the proposal that was before them. It had been said that they must provide for the re-distribution of seats. That was the business of the Government, not the business of private Members. If a re-distribution of seats were necessary, let the Government take it up. It was an enormous question, but there were Members of the Government with ability equal to it. If it were

    1893
    merely a question of equal justice and not of how Party politics would be affected by the results, he submitted that there would not be the slightest difficulty. In England the Reform Act of 1867 was accompanied by the redistribution of 45 seats. That same proportion, if applied to Ireland, would give some 10 or 12 seats at the outside. Was that a thing to affect one of the strongest Governments? If that were the insuperable impediment which was to stand in the way of a concession —the giving of a right to Ireland which they could not resist—such an argument as that was unworthy of a great Legislative Body dealing with a serious subject. There was one argument adduced. It was said that the numbers of poor householders in Ireland bore a much larger proportion to the whole than England, and that consequently if they granted household franchise they would introduce a large class which they did not introduce in England. That was a specious argument, and fallacious, because it was based on the want of knowledge of the places dealt with. With the exception of the large towns, such as Dublin and Belfast, the population of all the boroughs in Ireland had, for a series of years, been declining, though it was not so now, the tide having turned in the last few years. The consequence was, that in those places where a diminution had taken place, the rents had been vastly lowered, and the same class of people would live in a house of £2 or £3 rental in Ireland as would occupy a £10 or £12 house in England. That might possibly be the case in Belfast, Tralee, and Kilkenny, but not in most boroughs. The policy in England with regard to the franchise had been to extend the facilities for its exercise; but the reverse had been done in Ireland. The representation in Ireland was in a totally anomalous position. The counties of England returned a small proportion—half the number; the counties in Scotland less than half; and the counties in Ireland more than half. Irish Members had brought forward various proposals for the amelioration of Ireland, and they had been told that they were revolutionary, and could not be tolerated at all. They were anxious to unite with England in the bend of friendship, and to form an integral portion of the United Kingdom; and if
    1894
    Englishmen were anxious to sweep away all differences and treat them as under one Constitution, and with equal rights and equal privileges, that was an opportunity of showing their sincerity. If they did not, then Irishmen would believe that there was good ground for the belief that it was utterly useless to come to Parliament to ask even for the commonest meet of justice, or ask for the redemption of pledges which were given, to extend equal laws to Ireland.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the restricted nature of the Borough Franchise of Ireland, as compared with that existing in England and Scotland, is a subject deserving the immediate attention of Parliament, with a view of establishing a fair and just equality of the Franchise in the three Countries,"—(Mr. Meldon,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. JOHNSTON, in supporting the Resolution, said hon. Members opposite had often come to that House asking for equal laws; and on every occasion that a revolutionary measure was proposed, he had raised his voice against it, but he considered that this was a moderate request—a fair demand —and it ought to be conceded by the Conservative Party. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had supported his Motion in a very temperate and able speech, and he (Mr. Johnston) trusted Her Majesty's Government would gracefully yield to the demand. He was supposed to represent the Tory opinions in the North of Ireland, and he had been always anxious to have fair and equal rights; and an equal franchise for both countries was certainly what was wanted in Ireland. He had no doubt that he should meet with some condemnation on his own side of the House for the course that he was taking; but putting that aside, he hoped that the House would concede that moderate proposal. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had given his extreme attention to all Irish matters, and had treated hon. Members in a most fair and conciliatory manner, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney

    1895
    General for Ireland, would approve of this Motion. He (Mr. Johnston) represented the largest constituency in Ireland, and on the part of the Protestant population of that borough, he had to say that they had no fear of their fellow-countrymen in other parts of Ireland. He asked from the Imperial Parliament equal and fair justice for all portions of the United Kingdom, and he therefore supported the measure most cordially.
    MR. STACPOOLEsuggested that whatever measure the Government might bring in, they should bear in mind the rights of property in boroughs as well as in counties, and that they should also take into consideration the desirability of establishing a class of freeholds similar to voters in all the boroughs, as at present in cities and counties of towns. He hoped they would grant this small concession, as it would be received as a boon by the people of Ireland. If the borough franchise of both countries had been assimilated in the last Reform Act, there might have been a larger Conservative majority than there now was.
    MR. BRUENsaid, he was of opinion that the House ought to reject the Resolution now before it. The legitimate consequence of adopting it would be that the Government should drop all their business, bring in a new Reform Bill without delay, and dissolve Parliament. ["No, no!"] He held no system of representation could fully and fairly express the intelligence and genuine wish of the nation that did not recognize a diversity of interests and classes, or that vested the control of the representation in a single class. A very erroneous argument had been advanced upon the idea that, in Ireland, people were actually disfranchised, because the rates were not compounded. He entirely denied the accuracy of that statement. He did not think the time had come when household suffrage could be extended to Ireland with advantage, either to the electors, or the country at large. The effect of extending household suffrage to Ireland, as this Resolution proposed to do, would be to vest the control of the representation in a single class in the great majority of the constituencies. While the total number of houses in the Parliamentary boroughs in Ireland was 130,000, the total number exceeding £4 was 73,000. But in this
    1896
    matter the large towns of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork occupied an entirely different position from that of the boroughs in the rest of Ireland. Of 28 boroughs with 31 seats in that House, the total number of houses exceeding £4 was only 21,277, while the total number not exceeding £4 was 29,809, so that by extending to these 28 boroughs household suffrage, they would more than double the constituency, and have the new electors all of one class—a class the most liable to be acted upon by designing persons, because they had not sufficient education to enable them to weigh the arguments of those who would lead them astray. He denied the cogency of the argument that the franchise ought to be given to a number of persons not qualified to exercise it, in order to educate them in political duties. The franchise ought to be given only to those who proved themselves entitled to it. They had already some experience of the effect of reducing the qualification. A few years ago a Bill was passed which reduced very much the qualification for jurors, and which it was said would have the very best effect. But what were the results? In the interest of the administration of justice it was found absolutely necessary that the qualification which had been lowered should be raised again. That was a warning which they ought not to overlook. He admitted, with pleasure, that the class of his countrymen to which he referred was making great progress. Within the last few years they had advanced in intelligence and independence, in their social habits, their domestic life, and in every other respect, and he believed that progress would before long make them fit for the franchise. But if they were to confer it prematurely and without consideration, they should delay that day. As long as he sat in that House he had a right to state his honest opinion, and for the reasons he had given he could not agree to the Resolution.
    CAPTAIN NOLANremarked that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) had told the House that if they assented to the Resolution they would be raising up an homogeneous class of voters, who would be arrayed against the present voters. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had shown them that the addition which would be made to the voters in Ireland by this proposal would

    1897
    be only as two to one compared with the number of existing voters; whereas, by the Reform Bill, the number of voters in England were increased three-fold. But what would be the result, even if this proposed addition were made to the number of the Irish voters? In the last Parliament the Liberal Party had received the idea of the Conservative working man with laughter, but he must confess that during the last Election the Conservative working man had come out very strongly, otherwise hon. Members opposite would not be sitting on that side of the House. But he would ask how long would the new electors form a homogeneous body? As long as their grievances remained unredressed, they might possibly remain banded together; but the moment they had obtained relief the same distinctions would arise among them that existed among the English voters. It was no wonder that the Irish people, finding themselves left outside the pale of the Constitution, should resort to unconstitutional means of obtaining redress. The working classes of England had large concessions made to them in the extension of the franchise; and on principles of justice, the franchise ought to be extended to the working classes of Ireland in the manner proposed by the Resolution.
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, the question had hitherto been discussed by the Irish Members alone, but he saw no reason why it should be confined to the other side of the Channel. He was sorry to see so few Irish Members, not more than a dozen of them being present when a question that should be of the gravest importance to them was being discussed. [Captain NOLAN: There are 52 present.] He repeated that he believed that not more than a dozen were in attendance at the time. He had always thought that in dealing with Irish subjects the House should consult the opinions and the wishes of Irishmen as far as possible. The Resolution which asked the Government to consent to the franchise in Ireland being lowered was called revolutionary; but the same was said of the English Reform Bill of 1832 when it was proposed, and yet it proved not to be so. He had always opposed, and always would oppose, Home Rule, because he believed it would lead to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom; but seeing how satisfactory the result of
    1898
    lowering the franchise in this country had been, he thought that a primâ facie case, at all events, had been made out in favour of the Resolution; but he should wait to hear what arguments could be adduced against it by Her Majesty's Government before he made up his mind which way he should vote. He did not profess to know Ireland as intimately as many hon. Members who sat in that House; but he had some acquaintance with the country and its people, and he knew that they deserved conduct towards them on the part of the Imperial Parliament which should have the effect of rendering them contented and happy.
    MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, that as a Member of the House who had sat for both Irish and English constituencies, he was competent to speak on the question, and he was of opinion that the Motion should be adopted. Parliament had too long delayed an assimilation of the electoral franchise in the two countries. If there was anything certain in history, if there was any use in study, or anything learned from political experience, it could with certainty be said that if the spirit of Mr. Pitt, the great author of the Union, could find utterance, he would not stop to listen to those who would seek to undermine the great fabric he reared, by making the Union one only in name. That distinguished statesman would not approve the long continuance of the inequality that had occurred.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTadmired the straightforwardness of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, but could not look with equal favour upon the indecision of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), who seemed to be waiting for indications as to the way in which the majority of his co-Members would vote before deciding as to the Lobby into which he himself would go.
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, he simply intended, in the speech he made, to intimate that he was open to argument before deciding upon the vote which he should give.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTThere was one argument which the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) did not touch. He talked about a £4 franchise for Ireland, and of household franchise in England; but he did not

    1899
    say a word as to the fact that the rates in all cases in Ireland below a £4 rating were paid by the landlords, nor did he say a word as to the fact that an Irish Valuation Bill being before the House, in which, if he wished to put the two countries on the same footing, he could propose the introduction of a clause with that view. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the rating and rental of houses in Irish boroughs were not so low as many persons thought, but could it be denied that many houses were rated at 5s. and 10 s.? The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) said that in many Irish towns—and he mentioned Galway, Limerick, Kilkenny, and others—the population had decreased, but the consequence of that must be to bring down the rental of the houses. His belief was that if the borough franchise in Ireland were lowered, the logical sequence would be that it should be followed by a large re-distribution of seats and an increase of the county Representatives. Again, if they went into the facts and figures, and remembering that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich took some seats from England and gave them to Scotland, they would find that Ireland should lose at least 20 seats. Eighty would be nearer the proper number of her Representatives than her present number. It should also be remembered that no house in any borough in this country was rated at less than £3 a-year, whereas, as he had said, many houses in Ireland were to be found which were rated at 5s. and 10 s., and what class of persons occupied those houses? It had been stated that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would add 56,000 to the number now on the register. Why, that number would swamp the present constituencies; and with what class? Why, the very lowest—those who were most open to influences he would not stop to mention—those who were least able to take care of themselves—those who were most likely to be influenced by others. It had been most detrimental to Ireland that all classes in that country were not fairly and honestly represented, and the happiness and prosperity of a country depended upon all classes being fairly and honestly represented. He opposed the crude and ill-considered Resolution of the hon. and learned Member, and
    1900
    thought it would be unwise and imprudent to adopt it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had advocated an extension of the household suffrage to counties; but no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that a great measure of that kind could not be carried in a hurry—that it required that the voice and feeling of the country should be in its favour. It had not been attempted to be shown that Ireland would be benefited in proportion to the difficulty of dealing with the question, and believing that she would not be benefited, and that on the other hand the change would be detrimental to her interests, he would heartily oppose the Resolution.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAaltogether denied that the change proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), if taken with regard to the existing population, would have the effect of lessening the number of Irish Representatives, as had been asserted by the hon. and gallant Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Walter Barttelot). On the contrary, Ireland would receive a considerable accession of Members. On the principle of population, Ireland was at the present moment inadequately represented. England and Wales, with a population of 22,500,000, returned 484; whereas Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000, returned only 103 Members—a number considerably smaller than that which she was entitled to, if they were to be guided by the rule of proportion. He thought the argument of the hon. and gallant Baronet appeared to be equally as fallacious as his figures.
    MR. GOLDNEYopposed the Motion. There were in the Irish borough constituencies only 50,000 voters, and they returned 35 Members to the House of Commons. If those seats were fairly distributed, a great number of them would go to the counties. In 1867 and 1868 the question was discussed, and it was contended that there ought to be a considerable re-distribution of seats in Ireland, if any alteration were made in the borough franchise, some eight or 10 ought to be taken from boroughs and given to counties. On that ground he objected to the Resolution as dealing with the franchise only; and he objected to it further because it pointed to assimilation, which would involve the intro-

    1901
    duction into Ireland of livery and freemen franchises. The real difficulty in the way of reducing the franchise formerly, was, that for houses under £4 the rates were paid by the landlords; and if we were to alter the rating principle which existed in Ireland for the purpose of bringing down the franchise, it would be necessary to institute an inquiry which would extend over a very considerable period of time.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he was encouraged to take part in this debate by the statement he had heard the other night—that the Conservative Party had no wish to restrict the franchise in Ireland, and therefore he hoped, if he should be able to show a good case for the extension of the Irish franchise, they would be induced not to vote against the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon). If the House had listened to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) alone, they would have supposed that the question was, whether the representation of Ireland bore a fair proportion in relation to its population as compared with England. He (Sir Henry James) should have thought that by increasing the number of electors there would have been a decrease in such comparison. In the present system there was an absolute injustice towards the Irish elector. The question might be divided into two parts — first, whether the House was not disposed to think that absolute justice should be done to the Irish elector, by giving him the same franchise which the English elector now had; and, secondly, whether it would not be wise and well that the same step should be taken with regard to Ireland as was taken in 1867 with regard to England. He thought there were special reasons why they should endeavour, if they could, to make their laws equal as between England and Ireland, especially in relation to the Parliamentary franchise. Was the complaint made of the inequality of the franchise substantial and well-founded? He would call the attention of the House to one great difference in the power of expression of English and Irish opinion, and the difference between the franchise established by the two Reform Bills of 1867. In England the suffrage was household suffrage; while, in Ireland, the qualification was an occupation of a
    1902
    house rated at £4. The effect of that change in England from the £10 household qualification to household suffrage, speaking in round numbers, was to increase the number of electors from 500,000 to 1,500,000 voters, or nearly treble the number; whereas the change which it was calculated would be effected by the proposed alteration in the Irish franchise, taking the number of Irish voters at 52,000, would not be more than 105,000. What had been the effect of this restriction of the franchise in Ireland as compared with England and Scotland? Dublin, with a population of 267,000, had 12,300 ejectors, while Leeds, with a population of 259,000, had 49,000 electors; and Edinburgh, with a population of 196,000, had 27,000 electors. Cork, with a population of 100,000, had only 4,445 electors, while Greenock, with a population of 50,000, had 7,614 electors. Limerick, with a population of 49,000, had 1,800 electors; while Gateshead, with about the same population, had 11,500 electors. The whole of the 31 Irish boroughs, with a population of 881,000, had only 53,000 electors, while Glasgow, with a population of 477,000, had 60,000 electors, more than all the Irish boroughs put together. Liverpool, with a population of 493,000, had 59,000 electors; and Manchester, with a population of 379,000, had 63,000 electors. These were inequalities which must be justified. Primâ facie there was a wrong; and those who supported the inequality had to show why one part of the Empire should not have the same electoral rights as the other parts, England and Scotland. The only practical argument against the proposal was that brought forward by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex, who said that as the landlord in Ireland paid the rate on all houses under a rental of £4, the occupier of such a house ought not to be entitled to have a vote. But that was no reason why the occupiers should be deprived of their franchise. When the dispute about the compound householder was settled in 1869, the landlord received an allowance of 25 per cent as an encouragement to bear the burden of the rates of his tenants who compounded, and Parliament gave the franchise to all occupiers, whether rated below £4 or not. Another argument had been used as to the value of the houses below £4 rental; but it had been

    1903
    shown that, in consequence of emigration, there were houses in Ireland for which a landlord was glad to receive any rent whatever. But the value of the house or the rental paid was no criterion. It was abolished by the Act of 1869, which conferred household suffrage, and he knew no reason why it should not be extended to Ireland. It should be recollected that when household franchise was accepted by the Conservative Party in 1867, we had got rid of the notion that a man's fitness to exercise the franchise was evidenced by his occupying a house the value of which was at least of a certain amount. The principle on which the Prime Minister then suggested the franchise had better be discussed, was not whether a man was entitled to the franchise because he occupied a house the rent of which was £10, or £6, or £5; but whether, as the head of a family, irrespective of the rent he paid, he did his duty as a citizen of this country. But was that which was good for England not good also for Ireland? They had been discussing whether £4 in Ireland represented the same value as in England. They were told that houses might be obtained in Ireland at a rental of only 25 s. or 30 s., and that persons who obtained houses so cheaply were not fit to exercise the franchise. According to that argument, the franchise should be conferred on the house. When we were endeavouring to give an Irishman the idea that he had equal laws with ourselves, what must be his feeling when he was told that, although he fulfilled his duty as a citizen in his own country, he could not have a vote because his rental was below £4; and yet if he came to England a mere wanderer, and became the occupier of a house of less value than £4, in whatever town in England, he would have the franchise? He asked hon. Members opposite to consider well what would be the effect of their rejecting this Motion. In every borough in Ireland, excepting in the Northern Province, a strong feeling existed against English rule, and against the application of the laws of the Imperial Parliament to Ireland. Did hon. Members opposite expect they would remove that feeling, which he believed to be an erroneous one on the part of the Irish electors, if they refused to give equal laws to Irishmen? What could be more absurd than to tell an Irishman that the
    1904
    laws were good and wise, but that he should have no voice in electing the Representatives by whom those laws were made? If the inequality existed, as the figures cited in the course of the debate amply proved, then there was but one argument—a conclusive one, if true, against giving Ireland the same laws as England. It was that the Irishman was not fit to exercise the franchise. That argument, however, had not even been urged by the opponents of the Motion, and it could not be sustained. But it was the old argument on the one side, to say that men were not fit for the franchise, and it was an equally old reply on the other side, to say that if they kept the franchise from men and banished them from the area of political thought, they gave them no means of fitting themselves for the discharge of a high political duty. Believing that it had not been shown that Irishmen were not as fit to exercise the franchise as Englishmen, and that they ought not to be denied equal rights with ourselves, he should give that Motion his hearty support.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)remarked that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) appeared to have forgotten that he was a Member of a strong Government, which though it was in office for some five or six years, had never dreamt of introducing a measure on that subject, which the hon. and learned Member now treated as one of the gravest importance, and one which he would lead the House to believe had always been present to his mind. The Motion had been very skilfully and speciously framed, but the House ought to look beneath its mere phraseology, and to inquire what was its real substance. He maintained, and would endeavour in a few observations to show, that there was more diversity in words than in reality—that the franchise was not so very different in the two countries. The House was asked to affirm that a broad and radical change in the balance of electoral power in Ireland was not only desirable, but that it demanded the immediate attention of Parliament. But had it been shown that the people of Ireland generally now took a vital and active interest in that question? Any one who had the slightest acquaintance with Ireland and with the newspapers, and any one who read those papers must

    1905
    be familiar with this question, and know well that it was one of those in which there was the utmost indifference in Ireland. ["No, no!"] That was his opinion, and he was entitled to express it. He spoke from his knowledge of Ireland and from what appeared in the newspapers of that country, which discussed nearly every topic which interested the people. Moreover, at the very last Election in Ireland—namely, at Tipperary, where there existed one of the largest constituencies in that country, comprising nearly 9,000 electors—although it was said that the contest commanded the greatest possible interest, only a fraction over 5,000 of the electors went to the poll. Surely, that showed that a considerable degree of apathy prevailed in the public mind as to that question. Was there no test inside the House? The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had taken so active a part with reference to other Bills, had obtained the First Order of the Day about three weeks ago for his Franchise Extension Bill for Ireland; but he had to postpone it, because he had not taken the trouble to have it printed. That was a fair test inside the House, and, therefore, on the plea of substance, he considered that there was not such a strong interest in Ireland as to demand the immediate attention of Parliament to the subject. This was, no doubt, an important question. It would be idle to deny that, but it was only part of an important question, and was, in fact, part and parcel of the question of the re-distribution of seats. That topic had been urged before, and the House could not take one part of the question without the others. The re-distribution of seats was even in some respects the more urgent question of the two. He hoped, as an Irishman, that when they came to deal with the question of re-distribution of seats, it would be found that Ireland had not more than her fair share of Representatives; but it might be considered that she had more in proportion to population than Scotland and England, and in that case it would be discussed whether Galway and Waterford were entitled to two Members each. Viewed in that light, certainly, the question was most important to Ireland. A constituency like Waterford would be in a terrible dilemma, when they had to consider by which of their distin-
    1906
    guished Members they should be represented. [Major O'GORMAN: Not at all.] Again, anyone who looked at the list of boroughs would see that many of them were very small. They would have to compare those in the South with those in the North of Ireland, and they would hear that some were decaying and some were flourishing. That might make some very considerable transfer of electoral power necessary. It was urged that the Bill of 1868 was not a final settlement of the question; but what could be a final settlement? Still, as the whole matter had been considered so recently as 1868, when a very large measure of Parliamentary reform was granted, he could not think that it was as yet very urgent. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a fair observation to make. ["No, no!"] Well, that Reform Bill reduced the franchise qualification to one-half, and the measure added to the electoral lists, a very considerable number of voters. A good deal had been said about rating in Ireland, which it had been stated was not at present satisfactory, because in Dublin and elsewhere there were a great many more people entitled to be rated than were actually rated. Was not that a necessary ingredient of any system of rating? In England, where the system was said to be nearly perfect, did the number of people who were entitled to be rated anything like correspond with the number actually rated? Be would point to Norwich, where the number rated was 3,000 or 4,000 under the number entitled to be rated, and to Salford, where the difference was 6,000 or 7,000. It would be easy to show that the argument which had been applied to Ireland as evidence of an imperfect system might just as well be applied to England. This, however, was only a small part of the question, and he would not go further into it. The substantial question raised was, whether the present limit—that of the franchise—should be taken away and household suffrage introduced. Before household suffrage was adopted in England, there was a very careful inquiry, which was quite wanting in the present case; and the result of the inquiry was to show that the number of male occupiers of houses paying rent under £4 was only about one-ninth of the number occupying houses at higher rentals. That was a

    1907
    broad ingredient which must have entered the mind of Parliament when the change was made. A fair voice was given to every class, without a preponderating voice being given to any. It ought also to be considered that England was a manufacturing country, and that the great proportion of the people who dwelt in great boroughs consisted of artizans and skilled labourers. He should like to know in how many towns in Ireland that was the case. A Parliamentary Return presented last year showed that in 50 boroughs there were something under 70,000 male occupiers whose rental was under £4, while there were 300,000 who paid a higher rental, the poorer class being, therefore, in a decided minority. Ireland, on the other hand, was an agricultural country, and many of the inhabitants of the smaller boroughs were, in reality, agricultural labourers. In Limerick there were as many as 1,700 houses rated at £1 and under, and in a town in Galway there were 342 houses rated at 5s. a-year. Was there a single borough in England where there was a house rated so low as 5s.? And yet it was suggested that they would be introducing practical equality by giving a vote to a person occupying a house rated at 5s. In Belfast, on the other hand, which more nearly resembled an English town than any other town in Ireland, out of over 30,000 houses, considerably under 100 were rated under £1. The effect, therefore, of adopting household suffrage in Ireland would be that you would at once and immediately in 29 out of 31 boroughs give the whole representation to those who occupied houses under £4. That would introduce a change absolutely different from any which had been made in England. There was a Bill at present among the Orders— he meant the Valuation Bill—the effect of which, when passed, would be, among other things, to operate as a moderate Reform Bill, and thus to add many thousands to the electoral roll of both counties and boroughs in Ireland. It was obvious, as he had already said, no matter what might be the condition at present of the boroughs in Ireland, that the question could not be considered by itself, but must be considered in conjunction with a re-distribution of seats. It was a part of a great question which must be dealt with as a whole, and when the matter
    1908
    was ripe, it would be so dealt with. The Resolution said that this was a question which deserved "the immediate attention of Parliament." Applying the test of opinion either in-doors or out-of-doors, he could see no symptom of any such urgency. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had taken great interest in this subject, and had kept it before the country, but had not succeeded in attracting so much attention to it as to other questions. For these reasons it would not be possible for him (the Attorney General for Ireland) to assent to a Motion which declared that this was a question which deserved "the immediate attention of Parliament."
    MR. BUTTsaid, that if the House would favour him with a hearing at that late hour, he would endeavour to give a few reasons for the adoption of the Resolution now before the House. When his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland) talked of his (Mr. Butt's) having failed to interest, either the country or Parliament in this question, he must have forgotten that last year the Government defeated a Motion on this question only by the narrow majority of 13. Was that evidence that Parliament took no interest in the question? And in what position did that place the House of Commons? In that division 55 Irish Members recorded their votes for extending the franchise, and only 14 were found hardy enough to vote against it—a clear proof that those in Ireland who desired to share political power with their countrymen, who did not possess it, were overruled by a majority of English Members. If, then, the House of Commons had any regard for the opinions of Irish Members, would they place themselves in the invidious position of refusing to allow them to share political power with their fellow-countrymen? He could not help thinking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have spared his allusion to the late Government. He (Mr. Butt) was not a defender of that Government; but he could not forget what the Government of the right hon. Member for Greenwich had done for Ireland. It had established religious equality and laid the foundation of full justice to the tenant. Were not the Irish Church Bill and the Land Bill occupation enough for a Govern-

    1909
    ment? The right hon. and learned Gentleman also attempted to settle the University education question, and carried the Ballot; and was it any wonder that he was not able to attend to the franchise? He would now briefly allude to the history of the Irish franchise from the days of King John. From that period, when the English obtained their power over Ireland, the franchise and the electoral law in Ireland had been the same as it was in England down to the time of the Union. Still the 40 s. freehold franchise was retained until the time of the Emancipation Bill, when it was abolished. Here he would say that there was never a concession made to the Irish people that was not accompanied by an unfair diminution of their electoral privileges. What they now wanted was the restoration of those privileges—that they might be placed in a position of equality with the people of England. Were they, he would ask, entitled to the same privileges, or were they not? [Cries of" "No!" from the back Ministerial benches.] Was that their answer? Was that their regard for the engagements into which they entered at the time of the Union? If the people of Ireland were not entitled to these franchises, then the people of England were not fit to govern them. He would now come to the question of household suffrage, which was a far higher and a far grander thing than these petty objections about houses, whether rated at 5s. or at £500. ["Oh, oh!"] What, had they come to hate household suffrage? What did it mean? It meant that every father of a family who was able to keep a house over his head for one year, should be entitled to the franchise; and when Lord Beaconsfield granted it to the people of England, he was able to go down to the Mansion House, and tell the country that it was to that he attributed the contented and peaceful attitude of the English people when the inhabitants of other countries were in a condition of disaffection and revolt. Why should they not try the same experiment with the people of Ireland? But after all there was no real force in what had been said about the low rating of the houses in the Irish boroughs, for, naturally, in a poor country, the rents, and consequently the rating, must be always low. In Ireland the franchise was given to occupiers of
    1910
    houses rated, not at £4, but at more than £4. The franchise would have been much more extended if it had been given to houses rated at £4. In the city which he represented (Limerick) the number of electors under the new system was less than under the old one, and the general increase of electors in Ireland in consequence of the last Reform Act was very slight. In Youghal the number had been increased from 240 to 270, and this might be taken as a fair illustration of the increase of the constituencies of Ireland. Well, was it intended by that Act to increase the number of electors? Because, if so, it had failed. He contended that there was not a single town in Ireland in which, tested by the numbers entrusted with the franchise, there was a fair representation of the people. The lowness of the rental had been alluded to, and it was said there were houses let at rents from £5 to £1. He confessed he had often inquired for these low - rented houses of £1; but had never been able to find them. If, however, the houses were let at a low rental, that was a reason why Ireland ought to have a lower franchise. The statement that the lowering of the rating qualification would add thousands to the electoral roll was a condemnation of the present state of things. The rent of a house was not the only test of a man's position. If a ship carpenter in Limerick could live in as good a house at 5s. a-year as one at Liverpool could get for £10, that did not lower the social status of the former. If the value of a house was to be evidence of a man's status, the standard must be lower in the poor country than in the rich. If there was to be a concession at all, it ought certainly to be made in favour of the poorer country; besides which, the fusion of the whole body of householders with the present electors would do away with undesirable anomalies like that which existed in Portarlington, where the constituency returning a Member was scarcely 100. He admitted that Her Majesty's Government had every disposition to treat his country fairly, but, unfortunately, their good intentions were all expressed in the paulo post futuro tense. Their promises were always prospective and indefinite. Household franchise in England meant something higher, better, greater than giving a man a vote be-

    1911
    cause he lived in a house of a certain rent; and when it was given in England, why should it be refused in Ireland? How could we talk of being a united Empire, when the bases of Parliamentary representation were different in the two countries? There was no re-distribution of seats based upon enfranchisement in England. Could they not rectify this monstrous injustice until they had prepared some elaborate scheme for the readjustment of the representation? Who was to prepare that scheme? Who was to bring it forward? Was this not an excuse for indefinite postponement? Were they, or were they not, prepared to give them household franchise in Ireland, as they had given it with the happiest results to England? If they refused this concession, it would tend still further to alienate the affections of the Irish people from that House. He should regret it; but that would be the effect. On the other hand, he held that the adoption of the Resolution would be a pledge to the people of Ireland that they had abandoned the theory of treating Ireland as a conquered country, and Irishmen as an inferior race, and were about to enter upon a course of conciliation to Ireland; and if they did that, bitter memories would pass away, and under one Constitution and by the enjoyment of common privileges, a union would be effected between England and Ireland which would not be broken or disturbed by either internal disturbances, or external influences.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the importance of the issues which appeared to him to be involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. This was no mere question of the increase of a few thousand votes—no technical point of rating or registration. It was practically a proposal to adopt household franchise in Irish boroughs. It was in itself a greater change with regard, at any rate, to 29 out of the 31 Irish boroughs, than was inaugurated in England by the English Reform Bill in 1867. He did not say that it was a greater change in the actual number of persons on whom it would confer votes; but it was a greater change in the actual distribution of political power, if any regard were to be paid to the position of the persons who would be enfranchised by
    1912
    it. Although the English Reform Act of 1867 enfranchised many persons below £10, a very considerable proportion of them belonged to the lower middle and artizan classes; but this proposal would make an infinitely greater change, for those whom it would introduce would almost entirely consist of the very poorest of the labouring classes. On what arguments was this proposition supported? First, they were told, because the law in England should be the law in Ireland; but that really was no argument at all. It was notorious that in abolishing the Church Establishment and in passing the Land Act—questions not less important than Parliamentary representation—that House saw fit to deal with Ireland in a way in which it never would adopt for England. It was even more notorious that Irish Members had during the present Session pressed Parliament to deal with Ireland in other important points as England would never wish to be dealt with. The only subject with regard to which the argument for identical laws could be used were those in which the circumstances of the two countries were identical. That this question was not among those subject might, he thought, be inferred from the general practice of Parliament as to Reform during the present century. The 40 s. franchise had been abolished in Ireland; it had not been abolished in England. The county franchise in Ireland was at one time fixed at one figure, when in England it was fixed at another. Up to, and including the Acts of 1867 and 1868, the practice of Parliament had been to deal with the representation of the people in a different way in England and in Ireland. And when they looked into the circumstances of the two countries, it was not difficult to find the reason. It was clear that the valuation of the houses occupied by the great mass of the persons whom it was that evening proposed to enfranchise, was very different from the valuation of the houses occupied by the persons who had been enfranchised in England. He did not wish to press this question of valuation too far. He did not mean to say that because a man happened to live in a house of the value of £1, he ought never to have the franchise. He admitted there was force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), that in a poor

    1913
    country a lower valuation might not unfairly correspond with a higher valuation in a richer country; but, in this case, the valuation statistics proved that the voters who would be added, if the Resolution were carried, were almost entirely composed of the poorest class of day-labourers. They had been told in this debate that it was wise to endeavour to wean these people from revolutionary agitation, to which some of them in past times had been too ready to resort, and by including them, as it was said, "within the pale of the Constitution," to lead them to seek for the redress of their grievances by constitutional means. He admitted the force of that argument also; but it ought not to outweigh this proposition, which should be foremost in their minds in dealing with any question of Parliamentary franchise—namely, that their duty in such a matter as this was to endeavour to obtain a real representation of all classes and of all interests in the country. Would anyone say that the interests of those persons whom it was proposed to enfranchise were the least represented at this moment? He thought it might fairly be argued that these poor householders had their wants and their wishes often more fully stated to the House, and perhaps defended by a greater number of Irish Representatives than the Irish landlords, the Irish merchants, or the learned or professional classes in Ireland. The Ballot was adopted as a remedy against undue influence. He was far from wishing to preserve any undue influence which might have been exercised in former times by landlords in Ireland. But was it entirely for the good of the country that the advice and opinion of an educated, active, energetic landlord, living among his tenantry and devoting himself to their welfare, should be, as now constantly happened, entirely disregarded by that tenantry when the day for the election of a Member of Parliament came. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for Galway, who said " No," was one of those fortunate Irish landlords whose feelings happened to be in unison with those of the class to which he had referred; and it would be but fair in that hon. Member to remember that the opinions which he held were entertained only by an infinitesimal minority of the owners of land. Then, as to the merchants and those engaged in commerce
    1914
    in Ireland, who in many things were, after all, the mainstay of the country, had they, as a class, the same opportunities for entering that House which were afforded to persons holding the same position in England and Scotland? He had seen in The Freeman's Journal, which had been writing very strongly lately in support of that measure, that even a man so known and esteemed by all parties as the hon. Baronet who represented Dublin (Sir Arthur Guinness) would be rejected as a matter of course if that proposal became law. [Laughter.] Would those who laughed remember that a few years ago a Gentleman occupying almost as high a position, but a Liberal in politics (Mr. Pim), was rejected in the City of Dublin, simply because he was unable to adopt that view of Irish politics which commended itself to hardly one in a hundred persons of wealth, position, or education, but which had been adopted by a majority of Irish voters? Again, were the professional and educated classes in Ireland adequately represented in that House? He did not argue the question as a Party one; for was it not notorious that one result of the Ballot in Ireland had been the practical ostracism from political life of what used to be an important and influential Party—the Whigs, which comprised within itself, though few in actual numbers, no little of the learning and the science of that country. It was said before the passing of the English Reform Act of 1868, that the result of admitting so large a preponderance of the poorer labourers to the franchise would be that the class above would be swamped, and that the new electors would practically control the representation. That had not been found to be the case, because there was no such division of opinions and interests between classes in England as had been supposed. Hon. Members who represented English constituencies, on whichever side of the House they sat, numbered among their supporters both the rich and educated and the poor and ignorant. Persons of all grades were found voting together. On the other hand, they might regret the fact, but it was nevertheless true, that in Ireland, unhappily, there was still a broad and deep line of religious and political distinction between the different classes of the population. And although that was known to be the case, it was

    1915
    proposed—not to deal with the constituencies in such a way as to secure a better representation of all, but to add to them on one side only—to add a body of the poorest and most ignorant of the Irish labourers in such numbers as would control the whole representation, and to do this where, as had been truly pointed out by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), there was practically no middle class, and but few of those intelligent artizans or tradesmen who formed so large a proportion of the borough constituencies of Great Britain. He did not doubt that at some time Parliament would deem it right to lower the Parliamentary borough franchise in Ireland; but he ventured to say that in lowering that franchise, the other points to which he had alluded ought not to be neglected. Such a proposal as that now before the House would be a reform of Irish representation—if it could be called a reform — in the direction in which it was least of all needed, and would ignore the most pressing wants of the case. The hon. and learned Member made light of the arguments used with reference to a redistribution of seats; but it ought not to be forgotten that in 1866, Parliament distinctly laid down the principle that a large extension of the franchise must be accompanied by a re-distribution of seats. The franchise in Ireland had often been considered since the Union—perhaps, if considered less often, it might have been more satisfactorily dealt with —but he believed that no re-distribution of seats had even taken place, although in many points the circumstances of the constituencies had materially changed; and if, as was admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was any force in the argument, that the wealth as well as the population of a district was entitled to representation, then certainly there were parts of Ireland which required more representation than they had at present. Well, if that was so, if the borough franchise could not properly be dealt with alone, what was it that the House was asked to do this evening? It was asked to record the opinion—
    "That the restricted nature of the Borough franchise of Ireland, as compared with that existing in England and Scotland, is a subject deserving the immediate attention of Parliament
    1916
    What did that imply? If it be taken to imply what he had stated; if there was any agreement, as he thought there was, that other questions besides the borough franchise required to be dealt with, it was quite clear that the adoption of that Resolution would pledge its supporters to an Irish. Reform Bill. He asked hon. Members to consider what that meant. A Reform Bill must necessarily take precedence of every other subject that could engage the attention of Parliament. English and Scotch measures must be put in the background; Imperial questions must be for the moment shelved; such Irish Business as the Government might have desired to proceed with—though they had never pretended to occupy the attention of Parliament excessively with Irish Business—must be dropped, and their first work next year must be an Irish Reform Bill. Well, they had had this Session some experience of the time that might be spent by the exertions of two or three Irish Members on an English Prisons Bill.
    MR. BUTTrose to Order. Was the right hon. Gentleman in Order in referring to former debates?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, hon. Members were not permitted by the Rules of the House to refer to former debates in the current Session on the same subject; but they might refer to former debates by way of illustration. The right hon. Gentleman had done so, and therefore he was perfectly in Order.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: That was all he wished to do—to illustrate the time likely to be consumed. They had had during former discussions some experience of the time that might be spent upon an English Prison Bill by two or three Irish Members. Now, he feared that any Reform Bill for Ireland that might be proposed by the present Government would not be likely, at any rate, in all its details, to commend itself to hon. Members opposite, and judging from past experience, it could scarcely be doubted that an Irish Reform Bill would, at least, be sufficient work for a Session. Well, it was possible that such a cessation of the ordinary Business of the House might be required; but did the facts of the case warrant any such opinion? His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had already alluded to the singular mis-

    1917
    fortune which attended the Franchise Extension Bill that was introduced and withdrawn in the present Session by the hon. Member for Cavan. But in the last three Sessions Bills relating to the borough franchise had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, or some of his Supporters, which had never been pressed to a second reading. Carefully prepared measures on University Education and the Tenure of Land in Ireland had, instead, been pressed on their notice as the particular subjects to which the attention of Ireland was most devoted, and on which legislation was most urgently required. He knew of nothing which would warrant Parliament in throwing over all its other Business for some time to come in order to devote its attention solely to the question of an Irish Reform Bill. The time might come, and he hoped it would come, when this might be possible and advisable, for he thought an Irish Reform Bill, properly conceived and carried out, would be a great boon to the country; but he did not think that the House was at present prepared to adopt such a course. He therefore proposed to support the original Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, as tantamount to the Previous Question; and he trusted that the House would not, by adopting one of those abstract Resolutions which were never conclusive and generally mischievous, commit itself to a precipitate approval of this partial and unsatisfactory mode of dealing with a great and important question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 165: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," said, that as it was still uncertain whether the Government Bankruptcy Bill would pass
    1918
    that Session, the Chambers of Commerce, thinking that the Act of 1869 was in its main features a good one, wished to place their opinion on record with regard to bankruptcy legislation by means of the Bill which he now asked leave to introduce.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. RIPLEY, and Mr. WHITWELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 199.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.