§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. MELDON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, stated that he had on three previous occasions discussed at length the question involved in the Bill on Resolutions which he had brought before the House. He went into the facts and figures upon those occasions, and he submitted that he established an overwhelming case for this amendment of the law. He would not attempt again to go over the well-worn ground; but would confine himself to pointing out the way in which the Bill differed from those Resolutions. In those Resolutions, he had asked the House to declare that the law relating to the Borough Franchise in Ireland should be assimilated to that of England and Scotland. He would now show the different state of things existing in Scotland and England, as compared with what was the case in Ireland. In Glasgow there was a larger constituency than in 31 boroughs of Ireland. The population of Glasgow was 477,732, and the constituency 60,582; while, in the 31 boroughs of Ireland, the population was 882,146, and the constituency 1961 only 54,218, or, in other words, the electors of Glasgow exceeded by about 6,000 all borough electors in Ireland. The same thing held good with regard to England; for in Birmingham the constituency was 63,000, in Liverpool 61,146, and in Manchester 62,813, as against 54,218 in the 31 boroughs of Ireland. He had, in his former Resolutions, asked the House to extend the principle of household suffrage prevalent in England and Scotland to Ireland; and while it was hardly contested that Ireland was entitled to equal rights with England, it was argued on the other side that there were in Ireland a very large number of houses valued at very small sums, and consequently there was no analogy between the occupiers of those houses and the householders of England and Scotland, where it was stated no houses were rated under 26s., while in Ireland there were ratings at 5s., and less. The opponents conceded that there might be some enlargement of the franchise in Ireland; and as this was a House of compromises, he and his Friends were determined, without giving up any vital principle of the Bill, to meet hon. Members opposite, and especially those from Ireland, half-way, for the sake of conciliation. The Bill proposed to entitle all persons occupying houses rated at £1 and upwards to the franchise, which really brought it to the point at which the franchise ceased in England; because, although the franchise was 26s. in England; the valuation of Ireland was one-third of the rental, and, consequently, the two franchises would practically be the same. He regretted that the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. J. P. Corry) should have thought it his duty to put on the Paper an Amendment intended to procure the rejection of the Bill, and he confessed he had been the more surprised at opposition from such a quarter, when he remembered the support given to his former Resolutions by Mr. W. Johnston, who was one of the strongest Conservatives in that House, and who at the time referred to was one of the Members for Belfast. The following figures would show the effect of the proposal contained in the Bill. There were in Ireland 14,280 sets of premises rated at £1 and under; 1,077 of these belonged to the disfranchised boroughs of Sligo and Cashel, and, consequently, 1962 as it was not intended to include these, the number to be taken into the estimate was reduced to 13,203, of which 1,372 were to be excluded as being within the two disfranchised boroughs, and therefore the total number of premises that would be affected by the Bill would be 40,250; but it was usual to deduct one-third for double holdings and female occupiers, and this would leave about 27,000 who would be enfranchised by the Bill. In Belfast there were 20,005 electors, and 8,813 tenements rated at between £4 and £1; so that, deducting one-third of this number, the Bill would enfranchise 5,876 persons in that borough. It had been said that if household suffrage were granted in Ireland, the present electors would be swamped. Now, in England and Scotland the Reform Act of 1867 had added one-third to the former constituency, whereas in Belfast only 5,876 would be added to a constituency of 20,000. Without going further into details on this question, he would conclude by observing that, to take away every excuse from the opponents of the Bill, he had proposed to meet them in this way—namely, a rental of £1 a-year, and that would exclude all that class of persons to whom objection was taken on former occasions. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
§ MR. J. P. CORRY, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that as reference had been made to his late Colleague, Mr. Johnston, as a supporter of the Resolutions moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), and as it had consequently been suggested as rather strange that he (Mr. Corry) should have given Notice of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, he wished to say that his late Colleague was one who exercised his own right in these matters, and, further, that to his (Mr. Corry's) knowledge there was no vote which had been given by Mr. Johnston that had given more offence to his constituents than his vote on the Resolution referred to. Consequently, he did not think he was out of place in moving the rejection of the Bill. He had had the honour of 1963 being one of the Representatives of one of the largest borough constituencies is Ireland, and when he saw the present Bill and the way in which it would affect that constituency, he thought he was only doing his duty in opposing it. It was true that he was one who very seldom took part in the talking done in that House; but, at the same time, he always endeavoured to the best of his ability faithfully to discharge his duty in all matters coming before it. He had read the Bill under discussion, and had seen in what respects it differed from the Motions which the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had so frequently brought before the House, and he certainly thought that it was being offered in the way of compromise; but, at the same time, the compromise was one which he could not see his way to accept. There was no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was very active in his attempts at legislation, and he had been particularly fortunate in getting days for the discussion of the proposals he had had to submit. On the present occasion, he had by some good fortune been enabled to clear the way of several Orders that would otherwise have stood in front of his Bill, and he was to be congratulated on this fact; but with regard to the question raised as to borough constituencies, the Preamble of the Bill said it was expedient to extend the Parliamentary franchise in the towns and boroughs of Ireland; but he did not think it would be expedient, even in Belfast, to extend the constituency to the extent proposed by the Bill. It was doubtless true that the number of tenements of between £1 and £4 rating that would thereby be introduced was 8,800, but the value of those ratings amounted to £25,400; whereas the valuation above this amount came to upwards of £400,000, showing a very considerable difference in the two classes of property. He did not know how it was that in Belfast they had so large a constituency compared with Dublin and other places; but, perhaps, it arose from the fact that they found very little difficulty with regard to registration in Belfast, and he thought it possible that if greater care were observed in regard to this matter in Dublin and elsewhere, the number of voters on the register was capable of being very considerably increased. To show a difference 1964 of rating in Ireland and Great Britain, he found that in Limerick there were 17,000 houses rated at £1, while in England and Scotland there were none under £3. He did not know how the hon. and learned Member for Kildare could justify his statement that in Great Britain the rating went down as low as 26s., because his (Mr. Corry's) information was that it did not go below £3. He was sure that, with regard to Belfast, if his constituents thought it desirable to reduce the franchise as proposed by the Bill, they would not be slow to inform himself and his hon. Colleague of their wishes in the matter; but he had not received the slightest representation on the matter. No doubt, there were a great many persons who were anxious to get what they did not now possess; but whether they were entitled to all they asked for was quite another question. In his opinion, the comparisons that had been instituted of populations and constituencies was fallacious and likely to mislead. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had referred to the fact that the constituency of Glasgow was larger than that of all the boroughs in Ireland, and doubtless this was this case; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the rateable value of houses in Glasgow was very much higher than in most of the boroughs of Ireland; and the artizan who left Belfast and crossed the Irish Sea, although without a vote in the place he had left, would not acquire one on reaching England or Scotland. His (Mr. Corry's) opinion was, that what they wanted in Ireland was more in the direction of re-distribution of seats than in the way of extending the franchise, and he should not object to see Her Majesty's Government take up some scheme for such a re-distribution as they might deem necessary. In that case, they who belonged to the North of Ireland might look for a considerable accession to the number of Representatives returned in comparison with the other parts of Ireland. The population of the North of Ireland was as large, if not larger, than that of any other part of the country. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the fact that if this Bill were carried, those who would be enrolled on the franchise in many of the boroughs would be considerably below the class who now exercised 1965 the franchise in Ireland. On a former occasion, the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had said that in Ireland the constituencies were very pure, and he (Mr. Corry) had no reason for saying anything to the contrary; but he was afraid, from what he knew of the Irish character and the influences which might be brought to bear upon those who might be admitted under this Bill, especially with regard to a drink they were rather fond of, that a good many might be influenced in this manner. It was well known that in Galway the population was decreasing, and in many boroughs now sending two Members to Parliament, it might happen that a redistribution of seats would have the effect of striking off one of the Members. He should be sorry to see either of the present Members for Galway without a seat; but still, if there were a re-distribution of seats in Ireland, he did not think it would be held that Galway was entitled to send two Members to that House. He was glad to be able to admit that the Bill brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was not so sweeping in its character as the Resolutions he had previously proposed; but, at the same time, he did not think that there was any ground for the large addition it would make to the constituencies. There was no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown out a sop to induce that—the Conservative—side of the House to accept the compromise he offered; but, at the same time, it was to be hoped that hon. Members on that side would not be carried away by such an offer. He remembered that, some time ago, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had brought in a Bill relating to polling places, and the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had opposed its extension to Ireland on the ground that the number of polling places in such a county as Cork would be so much increased that the cost would be materially increased also. Consequently it was clear that his hon. Friends opposite did not in all cases wish to have equal privileges with England and Scotland. He would not further take up the time of the House, but would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. James Corry.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ DR. WARDsaid, he was one of those who had just been threatened with the loss of his seat if the measure were passed; but, even if this result were to follow—and he did not think it would, inasmuch as the number of electors that would be added to the present constituency of Galway would be sufficient to entitle it to continue its present representation—he hoped that neither he nor his constituents would make that result a ground for opposing a measure that would tend to the general advantage of the country. He was surprised at the position taken by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Corry) with reference to this Bill. His late Colleague, Mr. Johnston, supported a Resolution much wider than this Bill. Mr. Johnston said, on the occasion referred to, that he regarded the demand as fair, and such as the Conservative Party ought to concede. This Bill would promote Conservative interests and constitutional rule in Ireland. It would bring within active limits of the Constitution a large number of people who had occasionally resorted to unconstitutional means. He was sorry to hear an Irishman say that the class which the hon. and learned Member proposed to enfranchise was lower intellectually than the voters in England. The artizans of Ireland would compare most favourably with the artizans of England. To cast a slur upon his countrymen was an unworthy position for the hon. Member opposite to take up. It showed that he had no argument at all against the Bill. To say that if this Bill were passed elections in Ireland would be vitiated by drunkenness was to advance a most atrocious argument. The promoters of this measure did not ask the House to swamp the present constituencies, but simply desired to add about one-fourth to them; in other words, they wanted Parliament to give to Ireland what it had already granted to England and Scotland. If that constitutional privilege were withheld, the refusal would put arguments into the mouths of persons in Ireland who said that Parliamentary 1967 warfare was hopeless, and that to unconstitutional action alone they must look for what they considered as their rights. The result would be that those hon. Members who stood up for constitutional action would be at a discount before the people in Ireland.
§ MR. BRUENprotested against the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a man was outside the Constitution who had not got a vote.
§ DR. WARDThat is a very serious error. What I said was, that this Bill would bring a large number of people more actively within the Constitution.
§ MR. BRUENWith all respect to the hon. Member's correction, though he did not state it so broadly as he (Mr. Bruen) had, yet his argument was based on that. He contended that the franchise was not a right, but a privilege; and that, therefore, no man had any ground for saying he was deprived of his right if he had not a vote. It was a principle of the Constitution that those who had raised themselves to a fit place in society and were in possession of certain qualifications should be admitted to the franchise, and not till then. Those who opposed this Bill wished to preserve that principle. The hon. Member for Galway taunted the opponents of the Bill with throwing dirt on their countrymen, because they said that some of the people of Ireland were not in a position to be admitted to the franchise. The opponents of the Bill, in saying that, no more threw dirt on their fellow-countrymen than did Englishmen throw dirt on their fellow-countrymen when they said that universal suffrage was not a thing to be granted in England. No doubt, a great improvement was going on in the social condition of the working classes; but he held that they must make considerably more progress in that direction before they could give proof of their being on the same level as the working classes in English towns. If the Bill were passed, it would nearly double the number of voters in 29 boroughs, excluding Dublin, Belfast, and Cork. In those 29 boroughs the number of houses of about £4 rateable value was 24,463, according to a Return made in the year 1874, while the number between £1 and £4 was 22,592. It was said that the rating gave no idea of the real value. He did not deny that the rateable value in Ireland was fixed at a 1968 somewhat lower standard than the rateable value in England; but there was not so much difference between the two as hon. Members had alleged. Within the last few years he had built several cottages, each containing three small rooms for labourers. The valuation of the cottage was £2 a-year, and the rent was 1s. a-week. In the better class of houses the rateable value and the rent more nearly approximated. The Bill would enfranchise a class who would be predominant at elections, and who would very soon use their power in a way that would not be conducive to the good of the country. He would further remind hon. Members that the House, after having tested the working of an Act which lowered the qualification for jurymen in Ireland, had been obliged to retrace its steps and repeal the measure. The argument had been used that a great injustice was done to Ireland by reason of the fact that, in relation to the franchise, she was not in possession of those privileges which England enjoyed. Was Ireland, however—viewing the matter from the population point of view—in a worse position than England? The borough population of Ireland at present was about 600,000, and it was represented in Parliament by 37 Members. There was, therefore, a Member for each 16,000 inhabitants; while in England, although he was not able to state the exact figures, he believed the average of borough population to each Member was very much larger. Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow had an aggregate population of upwards of 1,000,000, and possessed only nine Members, whilst 600,000 borough electors in Ireland had 37 Members. He did not wish to sanction the theory that the number of Members should be in proportion to population; but that principle had been enunciated in Parliament, and was not theoretically unreasonable. Ireland, in his opinion, had quite her full share of power in the House of Commons at the present moment; and if the question of a reform of this kind were raised, it would probably result in depriving her of many of her present Members. The only persons who had a right to complain were the 30,000 or 40,000 persons who lived in houses below the value of £4, and had no vote. Yet, after all, had they complained—had they even sent 1969 up one single Petition? He did not believe that they had done so, though, considering the number of Petitions presented in reference to the Sunday Closing Bill, it could not be said that the Irish people at large ignored their constitutional right of expressing their wishes by Petition. The truth was that no grievance was felt, and the constituents were satisfied that no injustice was done them by the existing state of things. The agitation that had been got up was fictitious, and the Bill itself was only a peg on which to hang patriotic speeches. Hon. Members on that side of the House were perfectly justified in saying that they would not consent to the admission of any persons to the enjoyment of the great privilege and power of the franchise until complete proof was forthcoming that they were fitted to exercise it by independence of thought, by thrift, industry, and the possession of all those qualities which raise a man in the scale of society. It was for the benefit of the whole country that they should have constituencies on which they could place the most perfect confidence and reliance. If they were to reduce the franchise as low as hon. Members opposite wished, that confidence in the constituencies which they ought to possess would vanish.
§ MR. KAVANAGH,out of no spirit of Wednesday obstruction, wished to say a few words. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose what he might call a popular measure; but he had strong objections to the Bill, which would not allow him to remain silent. In the first place, it was a measure of too much importance to be dealt with by a private Member. It was part and parcel of a Reform Bill, and left untouched the question inseparably connected with it—that of the redistribution of seats, without which no measure of reform would be final or satisfactory. That, he knew very well, was a difficult question; but it could not be left unconsidered, and as it was probable that, if the question of a redistribution of seats was dealt with, Ireland would lose a good many of her Representatives, he did not wonder that hon. Members opposite abstained from raising it. But Parliamentary Reform could not be treated in a fragmentary manner; and, consequently, while he was prepared to support a complete Government measure, he could only protest 1970 against a private Member's Bill, which seemed to be neither called for nor beneficial. Again, he did not believe that the Bill was desired by the lower classes themselves; on the contrary, he thought they cared very little about it. In looking over old debates on the subject, he had come on a speech delivered by the junior hon. Member for Limerick, who, on a former occasion, had admitted that there was "apathy" on the question. That word had been very correctly used to describe a condition of things in which, even among those who were entitled to vote, many never took the trouble to have their names placed on the register. In his belief, the desire for the reduction of the borough franchise came, not from the people, but from those who hoped to make the people their tool. He felt strongly on the subject, and had for a long time been a close observer of Irish affairs; and it was well known that there was a class of men, the aim and object of whose lives were to foment and create discontent, and who lived, he might say, by agitation. There were such men in all countries, but Ireland seemed to have Benjamin's share of them. The hope of the lives of these men was gone when peace and tranquillity prevailed. The aim of some of these men was to invent grievances, painting them in the most glowing colours—in colours that would take the fancy of those for whom they were prepared. Thus the land agitation was got up for the farmer class, and this about the franchise for those who lived in towns. The masses were told that they were degraded slaves, groaning under an iron yoke. They had been told to-day that those who had not the franchise were placed outside the pale of the Constitution. How they were thus placed outside it he did not know. No doubt, that was a pretty picture to those who did not understand the question at issue. The people were told that their only hope of emancipation from those galling chains lay in the selection of those who had painted their grievances as their Representatives in Parliament. The lower they went in the social scale the more ignorance and gullibility they would find; and these were, in his opinion, the real and fitting tools to serve the purpose of those who lived upon agitation. The question which had to be decided was, whether by lowering the 1971 franchise those who were engaged in this agitation would have fresh ground to work upon and more malleable tools to work with? The cry for the change came, not from the people, but from those who excited and, he was sorry to add, deluded the people. However that might be, he would, as he had said before, be quite ready and willing to withdraw all opposition on his part if the Government considered it wise and expedient to extend the franchise in Ireland. He should only be too glad to be convinced that the evils which he apprehended were the creation of his own imagination, and that the majority of the Irish people were in a position to exercise these responsible privileges. He could not understand how the present constituencies were in favour of the Bill; and if they only reflected that its effect would be to take from them the power which they now possessed, they would think twice before they abdicated their position. He would much prefer, if it were in his power, to support measures of this kind; but, while he had serious doubts in his own mind as to their result, he could not accept such reforms on the responsibility of a private Member.
§ MR. GOULDINGstrongly objected to the Bill, as tending to establish in Ireland a state of things which would amount to little less than universal suffrage. It was a measure, he thought, which was fraught with danger, inasmuch as its effect would be to place political power in the hands of men who, possessing no influence themselves, would be likely to be influenced by others to a very great extent. That feeling seemed to be shared by hon. Members opposite, for no reply had been made to the speeches made by those who spoke against the Bill. He was sorry to hear it said by the hon. Member for Galway (Dr. Ward), that, if the Bill were rejected, he must go back to his constituents and say that it was vain to hope for anything from, a Conservative Government. He believed that on either side there was every desire to do the best for Ireland; but the Bill had not been asked for by the people of Ireland, and, in his opinion, would be useless and dangerous.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the position occupied by this Bill was one of 1972 the most remarkable that had occurred in recent Parliamentary history. A few days since the Bill stood seventh on the Order Book; but a notice appeared in an Irish newspaper announcing, without saying how and why, that the first six Orders of the Day would vanish, and, accordingly, there stood the Bill—the first Order on the Paper. Considering that the Bill was of great importance to Ireland, and knowing the deep interest that Irish Members took in many English questions, and the share they took in their discussion, it might have been expected there would have been a desire to thoroughly discuss the subject of the Bill. But what had been the course taken? Three speakers had in succession argued against the Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had listened with that courtesy in which they were never wanting; but he could not compliment them on anything else. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), on introducing the Bill, referred to previous discussions on the question. On three occasions the question of the borough franchise in Ireland had come before the notice of Parliament by Resolutions, and upon the last occasion the hon. and learned Member, passing by the question of re-distribution and the other circumstances connected with the subject, and requiring consideration, asked the House to affirm that it was desirable immediately to assimilate the borough franchise of Ireland to that of England. On that occasion, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) pointed out some of the difficulties requiring consideration before the question could be disposed of, and the hon. and learned Member must have felt the gravity of some of the objections then urged; for the Bill admitted the principle that the circumstances of the Irish were not identical with those of English boroughs. The existence of the limitations in the Bill conceded that principle, and it must be borne in mind that between the boroughs of the two countries there was a clear difference of condition and position; but, though the framers of the Bill would seem to have recognized the difficulties of making the franchises identical, the important difficulties which beset the question had not been solved. No one with the slightest acquaintance with the constituencies of Ireland would deny that little interest was taken in the 1973 subject. That apathy might be excused and explained by saying that public opinion had not been educated to it, or had been directed to other things; but there was no doubt the apathy existed—a fact not unimportant, bearing in mind how in the public Press of Ireland all shades of opinion were adequately represented. He did not attach much importance to the signatures to Petitions; but Petitions, at the least, were evidence of the existence of sufficient interest among a number of people to get them up, and upon this matter Petitions were very few. During the progress of the present debate, hon. Members who ably represented and influenced Ireland had been silent; but if the question had been one awakening deep interest in the country, would they not be rising six at a time to address the House? On questions of land, upon the Estimates, and other subjects, there was no lack of expression of opinion from Irish Members; but for the last hour no one opposite had spoken in support of the Bill, a circumstance he considered as indicating the interest taken in it. The Bill was a Reform Bill, to introduce substantial changes in the representation of Ireland, and required full consideration; and could the House of Commons give that consideration at such a time in the Session? What was the necessity for the Bill? Did not every Irish grievance find a means of discussion in the House, and had any person any difficulty in getting his wrongs investigated? And what did the Bill do, or, rather, what did it not do? It had always been considered that, in dealing with this question of franchise, the re-distribution of seats was a part of it, and not to be ignored. Sooner or later the re-distribution would have to be made, and should be made at the same time with an alteration in the franchise. It was instructive to consider the proportion of Irish boroughs, their population, the number of electors, and the numbers they possessed as compared with other parts of the Kingdom. In 1871, taking England first, the population of the counties was 11,270,000, and of the boroughs 10,225,000, and the county Members 172, and borough Members 287. In Scotland the county population was 1,873,000, that of the boroughs 479,000, and 32 Scotch county Members, 1974 and 28 for boroughs. But there was an extraordinary difference in the figures as regarded Ireland. In 1871 there was a population in Irish counties of 4,546,000, and boroughs 886,353, represented by 64 county and 39 borough Members. The position of the English as compared with the Irish towns must suggest this observation. In England the towns were large centres of industry and trade, growing in importance, and new centres springing up year by year; while, on the other hand, Ireland was an agricultural country, and, including Dublin and Belfast, there were only six towns with a population exceeding 20,000. Some of the boroughs, which historically and by their Representatives occupied a distinguished position, were actually declining in population. A Return issued last year showed the growth or decrease of the population in several towns during nine years, from 1868 to 1877. Galway enjoyed the luxury of two Representatives, and he should be sorry to see either lose his seat. In 1868, the year after the Reform Bill, the population of Galway was under 20,000, and the number of electors 1,381. In 1877 the number of electors had declined to 1,354. New Ross, with a population of 7,000, had declined from 259 electors in 1868 to 218 in 1877. Tralee showed a slight increase. Waterford, with a population of about 30,000, had 1,481 electors in 1868, and in 1877 only 1,414. In Wexford the number of electors had fallen from 520 in 1868 to 508 in 1877, and Youghal showed a fall in nine years from 278 to 256. Those figures proved how wide was the divergence between boroughs in Ireland as compared with those in England; and it was obvious that, in any measure for a re-distribution of seats, some of the former would have a very severe struggle for existence, and could only be maintained by being grouped together. It was evident, then, that the question of re-distribution must be dealt with, with a view to its settlement, at the same time as a change in the franchise was effected. It must also be borne in mind that the Irish borough franchise had been dealt with very recently. The electoral qualification had been reduced in 1867 from £8 to over £4, a change which had the effect of greatly increasing the number of borough voters in Ireland. Belfast furnished an important illustration of 1975 the way in which, the existing franchise in boroughs might work, and it was to be observed that, whenever they had a town in Ireland which could fairly be compared with the great centres of industry in England, precisely the same features would be found. The constituency of Belfast in 1866, the year before the present franchise was established, was under 4,000; now, when the £8 rating franchise was reduced to £4, it was over 20,000; and, for all he knew, if the town went on increasing in population, and wealth and self-reliance, in the future as in the past, both the population and the constituency would largely increase in the next few years. This Bill stopped short of lowering the franchise in Ireland to household franchise. It conceded that there were many difficulties besetting the reduction of the franchise in Ireland to a household rating, as in England, and that it was a matter requiring to be considered from a great many points of view. In other words, it was a most difficult problem, and the grave question for the House to consider was, could it be solved by the Bill brought in by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare? Had he overcome all the difficulties of the question by passing by not only the re-distribution of seats, but by stopping short at a £1 rating? The only argument which had been attempted to be dealt with by the hon. and learned Member was that household suffrage in Irish boroughs would enfranchise such a very low class of householders, who had no analogous class in England, and who would completely swamp the better class of householders. It was conceded that it was a difficulty which should be met, and the argument now presented to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was that he had considered the difficulty, and met it by fixing the limit at £1. He denied that that suggestion met the difficulty. He had selected seven or eight boroughs in a long Return. In Belfast, with 33,000 inhabited houses, there were 1,447 houses rated between £1 and £2, representing a very humble residential standard, and they knew that humble and wretched as some of those houses must be, they were inhabited not only by one, but sometimes by two or three or four families. He admitted that 1,447 of such houses was a small proportion 1976 in a town like Belfast, and if the question was to be governed by the proportion in Belfast, that circumstance ought not to have a controlling effect in its settlement. But in the smaller boroughs the number of such houses was very remarkable. In Clonmel, out of 1,308 inhabited houses, 462 were rated between £1 and £2. In Cork, out of a total of 10,798, no fewer than 2,583 were so rated. In Dublin, where, as in Belfast, the houses were generally large, the number of inhabited houses was 24,400, while there were 1,306 rated between £1 and £2. In Dungarvan there were 1,362 houses, of which 557 were rated between £1 and £2. In Galway, out of 2,271, 442 were so rated; there were 961 rated under £1, and 352 as low as 5s. In Limerick there were 5,430 inhabited houses, of which 1,305 were rated between £1 and £2, and 1,158 under £1. In Waterford, out of 3,624 inhabited houses, the number rated between £1 and £2 was 1,091. He quoted these figures to show that in legislating on this subject there was a very substantial number of householders who would have to be considered. It might be said that household suffrage in England had not swamped the constituencies. But, assuming that in England the limit had been £4 instead of £10, household suffrage would have added only one-fourth, or possibly one-fifth, to the borough constituency; while in Ireland, in 30 out of 34 boroughs, it would more than double the electoral roll. Of course, that was a circumstance of extreme importance, and suggested some of the difficulties which surrounded the question. This Bill admitted that there were difficulties in the way of dealing with the borough franchise in Ireland which did not apply to England, but yet the Bill ignored these difficulties. Such a Bill should not lose sight of the important question of the re-distribution of seats. It was a Bill which, having carefully considered it and weighed the few arguments which had been presented to the House in its favour, he was unable to support. It was not a complete Bill, and he considered it most undesirable that such a question should be dealt with in a fragmentary and imperfect way. Whenever the question was seriously grappled with, all the difficulties should be acknowledged, and an honest attempt made to deal fairly with them.
§ MR. GREENEobserved that as hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were silent on the question, he supposed they did not take a deep interest in it, for it was very rarely that Irish measures passed sub silentio. He was opposed to this Bill, as he had been to the English County Franchise Bill, not because he could bring any argument to show that a man on the opposite side of a street who might be outside the boundary was unfit for the franchise while his neighbour was fit to exercise it, but because he objected to throwing all the electoral power into the hands of one class. He was old enough to remember the glorious times, when in the borough of Bury St. Edmund's, which he had the honour to represent, 32 gentlemen elected one another and also elected the Members to serve in Parliament. But it was a curious fact that the same constituency, when it had the £10 franchise, elected, in the main, Members of the same politics as before, one and one, until the last General Election. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to lower the franchise, they must submit to a re-distribution of seats, and then they would have 20 Members fewer than they had now, and he would leave it to themselves to say who were those who should have to retire. Hon. Gentlemen often said they wanted to have Ireland treated uniformly with England. But the fact was, Ireland was more favourably treated—she was the favoured nation. They had not to pay the horse tax in Ireland. It was true we did not pay a horse tax in England now, but they did not pay it in Ireland when we paid it in England; and they did not pay so much for dogs. The lower classes were likely to be influenced by others, and in Ireland there were the priests. Besides, the supporters of the Bill, he thought, had been a little inconsistent, seeing that while they would not give the masses of the people credit for ability to stop their drinking propensities on Sundays, they were endeavouring to place the power of electing Representatives in the hands of those same masses. Were those the classes who should have the power of deciding on war or no war? If he were to go to Ireland, as he was thinking of doing, were these men to decide whether he would be a fitter Member than the hon. Member for Galway? Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1978 Birmingham, the cause of whose absence they all regretted, objected to the residuum. He believed this Bill was being advocated, not on the ground of defending the rights of the people, but for the purpose of increasing the numbers of the Liberal ranks. There were 50 boroughs in Ireland, inhabited by 70,000 male occupiers holding houses at £1 per annum rating, and he did not see how those men could be admitted into the electoral body unless there was at the same time a re-distribution of seats. He wondered at the silence which prevailed upon the part of the Irish Members upon this, which was most emphatically an Irish question; and he had only to express a hope that they would exercise a similar amount of reticence in respect to measures which had no relation whatever to Ireland, as, in that case, the House would be able to get through a much larger amount of Business than at present. He had no wish whatever to limit the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to him; but, as a master of foxhounds, he could not help thinking that the position of the Liberal Party, at the present moment, was that of one who proposed to hunt over a particular district of country with a pack in which beagles, harriers, and foxhounds were associated with each other, so that it was impossible to keep them upon one scent. That was at present the position of the Liberal Party. Before extending the franchise to the lower orders, he wished to see the people educated up to a full knowledge of the responsibility which attached to the due exercise of it. In conclusion, he disclaimed offering anything like a factious opposition to the Bill, as he was actuated by the most kindly feelings towards the Irish people.
§ SIR JOHN LESLIEsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were like fish in the river—they did not rise because it was not a good fishing day. From his own experience he could state that the people of Ireland, if they were canvassed at this moment, would oppose the lowering of the franchise in the mode proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. The people of Ireland knew well that a household franchise in Ireland would not bear the test of comparison with the same franchise in England. He was surprised that no answer had been made to the able, argumentative 1979 speech of the Attorney General for Ireland. He remembered the day when the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) introduced a Bill similar, in many respects, to the one which was now engaging the attention of the House. There was no such apathy on that occasion; but he recollected well listening with the greatest interest to what, in his opinion, were admirable arguments—an unmistakable sincerity of argument—of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. Had the hon. and learned Member been present, he certainly would not have sat with his arms folded and his tongue tied without an effort to speak, but would have met with argument any argument that was offered in opposition to what he believed to be for the interest of Ireland. Those days appeared to have gone by. He regretted it exceedingly. The Party opposite were now obviously without a head. Formerly, they had at their head a man of transcendent ability and of superior intelligence and knowledge, and to willingly deprive themselves of such a Leader, as they had undoubtedly done, appeared to him to be an act of political suicide. Was he there to-day? He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman had been present to have illumined the proceedings, and to have carried them away by his eloquence; but had he no follower who would take his place? He knew there was ability. Had it been done? No. The people of Ireland would know to-morrow, and he doubted not would be very much disgusted when they learned how they had been deserted by those hon. Members who came there on the express understanding that they were to introduce a new policy—a policy of action and of energy. Where was the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)? Had the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) disappeared altogether? They must look to the wisdom of these great minds—they must look to the experience and wisdom of these great minds—and he would also add he thought the name of the eminent scholar, that discreet and most amiable Gentleman, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell)—for beneficial legislation. In the future, they ought to come forward and endeavour to replace the great loss the Irish Party opposite had sustained by what he hoped was only 1980 the temporary absence of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. Should the hon. and learned Gentleman return, there was no doubt that the House of Commons would not have to wait long for an argument in favour of the borough franchise. ["Divide!"]
§ MR. OWEN LEWIS rose to address the House, and was called upon by the Speaker. There were loud cries of "Divide, divide!" and the hon. Member resumed his seat.
§ MR. SPEAKERremarked that it was hardly respectful to the House that when he had called upon an hon. Gentleman desirous of speaking, that hon. Gentleman should immediately resume his seat.
MR. OWEN LEWIS,who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that no sound argument had been urged against the Bill, and he failed to see why so mild a measure had excited so large an amount of opposition.
§ MR. ALFRED MARTENsaid, he observed that in the Notice Paper till yesterday several other measures had preceded this Order, and it might have been expected that when the Irish Members had, by their combined exertion, obtained precedence and secured a whole day for the discussion of this measure, there would have been no lack of speakers on the other side. But they had apparently been suddenly struck dumb. The House had now been for several hours engaged not in debating, for the argument had all been on one side, but considering what conclusion should be come to on the subject. Hon. Members opposite had not brought forward a single argument in support of this measure. This could not be accidental, it must be the result of combination. That alone was a sufficient ground for the rejection of the measure. The measure was of the first importance, and would, if adopted, greatly increase the constituencies of Ireland. That being the case, they had a right to ask for the fullest possible statement of the reasons for its being brought forward. The Bill now before the House made no provision for a redistribution of seats. It had now become a necessity of any measure for a reduction of the franchise that it should be accompanied by a re-distribution of seats, and hon. Members from Ireland were bound, if they desired to present to English Members a scheme of Reform 1981 which should improve the representation of Ireland, to bring forward some scheme dealing with the small boroughs in that country.
§ MR. EWARTsaid, that on account of the different position of the people of Ireland, the very large proportion of the poorest class, and the deficiency of a middle class, the practical result of this Bill would be most unfair. It would transfer the balance of power to the hands of those occupying houses at from £4 10s. to £5 per annum in value—it would also create a constituency which would be socially inferior to the majority of the constituencies in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Then, he thought, in dealing with the clauses affected under Section 39—or the larger portion of the Bill—it would be very unfair to deal with them in a fragmentary manner. In short, the passing of the Bill would bring about such a state of things, that he must vote against it.
§ MR. R. E. PLUNKETTsaid, he did not think the supporters of the Bill had shown proper respect for the House by abstaining from answering the arguments of those who had spoken against it on the Conservative benches. The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been throughout the discussion essentially undignified. It was a positive insult to Ireland to bring forward a measure of this kind, which intimately affected that country, and, as it were, to throw it on the floor of the House, so that a division might be taken upon it if it were found convenient to do so. What was the nature of this measure? They were asked to commit the electoral power to just that body in the three Kingdoms which every person must admit to be the least fitted to exercise it. Those whom it was proposed to enfranchise were notoriously the least thriving, least contented, and most thoroughly disloyal—the black spots in Ireland. They were most ignorant, and inhabited in the slums of the towns houses which were really unfit for human habitation. Ho would sooner improve away such houses than create such electors. This Bill would throw all the electoral power into their hands. Yet hon. Members opposite appeared determined not to discuss the measure. All they desired was, apparently, to snap a division, making it a mere question of Whips. The present qualification of £4 was not fixed at 1982 hap-hazard, but because that was the limit of rating. He could not understand why they should go lower, and carry a franchise to classes which did not pay rates. He objected especially to this Bill, on which the constituencies had never been consulted, being brought forward at the end of a Parliament. He appealed to English and Scotch Members before forcing on Ireland a measure which would have the most mischievous effect, candidly to ask themselves whether they would approve of the addition to their own constituencies of a few hundreds of those to whom they would commit the electoral power of Ireland. If it could have been said that the franchise of Ireland was confined to a small aristocratic or proprietorial class, he should be quite willing to vote for the extension of the franchise, but nothing of the kind could be said; and he was not disposed to try whether, by any possibility, the Irish electorate could be made worse than it was at present.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he had not intended to take part in the debate; but he desired to make it clear that he did not shrink from urging against it the arguments which he had already used in opposing the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) in the early part of the Session; but he might congratulate the constituencies of Ireland on the fact that they had made some progress since then. In the former debate, he showed what would be the effect of enfranchising the poorest classes of Ireland, some of whom it was then shown were rated at only 5s. a-year; and he was, therefore, gratified to find that by this Bill it was not proposed to go below a rating of £1. That was a great advance; and he, therefore, hoped to hear from the hon. and learned Member in a future Session a still more satisfactory proposition. This measure had never been asked for by the people of Ireland. If they looked back to the debates on the representation of England and Scotland, they would see that those measures were advocated on the ground that they were demanded by a large unenfranchised class. Now, he did not think that they ought to grant an extension of the franchise merely because it was asked for by a large unenfranchised class. They ought to consider the fitness of the unenfranchised classes, 1983 the probability that the balance of political power would be unduly disturbed, or the liability of the classes which would be enfranchised to be acted upon by improper influences, and these things ought especially to be considered in a country so peculiarly circumstanced as Ireland. But, although this was so, it was still a most important fact that there was no popular demand for this Bill. It was now three months since this subject was last under consideration. He then stated that not a single Petition in favour of this proposal for the extension of the franchise was on the files of the House. That was still the case; and he believed that, so far were the people of Ireland from being in favour of this Bill, that not even the Irish Liberal Party were unanimous in its favour. The truth was that this Bill was not demanded by those who were outside the pale of the Constitution, but by those in the House who desired it solely for political purposes. He must say that he thought hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House ought to be satisfied with the present condition of the borough representation. At present only nine of the borough seats in Ireland were filled by Conservatives. The effect of this Bill would be to efface from any influence in the representation of Ireland a considerable part of the people, not amongst the least intelligent and educated. The argument in favour of the extension of the franchise contemplated by this Bill was chiefly the small number of electors in Irish boroughs as compared with those in English and Scotch boroughs. But the object of reforming the representation should not be merely to add to the number of electors, but to strengthen the constituency. If the effect of this Bill was, as it would be, to place the representation of Ireland in the hands of the lowest class, he must say that he looked on such a measure, not only with regret, but with a feeling almost of despair. There were interests, political and social, in Ireland which should be represented in that House. But the effect of this Bill would be wholly to deprive of electoral power a great portion of the people of Ireland who, although they might be numerically in a minority, were nevertheless worthy of a share of political power. It would certainly be only respectful if the supporters of the Bill would give the House 1984 some few facts and figures in support of it. But whether they did so or not, he trusted the result of the division would be to show that the House would not assent to a reduction of the Irish franchise merely because there was at present a lower franchise in England and Scotland. He did not know whether, if he had been in the House at the time, he should have voted for the household suffrage in England and Scotland. He believed that on both sides of the House, and especially on the Liberal side, there was a widespread feeling that by that lowering of the franchise its extension had been carried too far. Be that as it might, he knew that if he wanted to make himself unpopular in the borough he represented, he should vote in favour of the Bill. He opposed it with the full assent of his constituency, because he believed it would degrade the franchise in Ireland, and that it would produce a most unsatisfactory state of things, because its effect would be to place in the hands of one party the whole representation of the people of Ireland.
§ MR. MELDONsaid, the reason why the supporters of the measure had not discussed it at greater length was because its principle had been discussed over and over again this Session, and in the two preceding Sessions. Only so late as the 19th of February last he brought forward a Resolution on the subject, when the whole question was fully debated, and he himself spoke for an hour and a-half upon the subject. What had been said to-day did not call for any answer which had not been made by anticipation. The objections that had been urged against household suffrage in the former debate were obviated in the Bill by the £1 limit, which it was hoped would be accepted as a conciliatory concession, made in the spirit of compromise, and would insure the passing of the Bill, notwithstanding the obstructive opposition which had been offered to it from the Ministerial benches. If the Bill became law, the utmost addition which could be made to the borough constituencies of Ireland would be 27,000 voters. After hearing the arguments urged against the Bill, he must admit that he had nothing new to say in reply.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think it would be right for him to allow the debate to close without saying a few 1985 words upon the subject. Unfortunately, although he came down to the House at the time when Public Business usually commenced, he had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill. The Bill was one which dealt with one of the most important questions which could be submitted to Parliament, and had been described as a single-barrelled reform. It was a measure of very great consequence to Ireland; and yet it was introduced with scarcely a reason being given in favour of it. He had heard nothing but a unanimous chorus of opposition to the measure from both English and Irish Members. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had stated that the arguments in favour of it had been already given, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to trouble the House with stating them over again. One of the fundamental rules which always guided Parliament in its proceedings had been that a question once discussed by the House should not be re-opened during the same Session; and the hon. and learned Gentleman was apparently asking the House to depart from that rule. He had no doubt but he should be told that if such had been the case the Bill would not have been allowed to be introduced, and that the limits now proposed to be placed on the franchise were not the same limits which were proposed in the Resolution which was previously considered by the House; but he thought it was substantially the same, especially as the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself stated that the only alterations which had been made were made for the purpose of a compromise. The measure was of great importance, dealing with an important subject, and was in the hands of a private Member; and he thought it should have been most fully and carefully explained to the House. He believed he was not wrong in saying that the effect of the Bill would be to affect for weal or woe very largely the balance of political power in Ireland. They were told that they were anxious in Ireland to assimilate the franchise to that of England. With regard to the subject of Parliamentary reform, he himself was in no way responsible for any of the measures which had been passed by Parliament dealing with the subject. He did not wish to go back to 1986 the Reform Act of 1867, but would merely say that he himself, and some of his Colleagues, were not personally responsible for that measure, and he had on every occasion opposed some of the most important features of that Bill. The present Bill did not contain any of the checks or safeguards with which any attempt to deal effectually with the question ought to be accompanied. The inevitable effect of this measure would be to sweep away the property and intelligence of a community by the sheer dead weight of numbers. Any attempt to deal with the question of reform ought to be made in a comprehensive spirit. It was true that in 1868 the Irish Reform Bill did not touch upon the question for various reasons; but he thought if the subject of reform was settled now, that the question of re-distribution of seats would have to receive the attention of Parliament. He was most anxious not to pledge himself to any opinion whether this subject required the attention of Parliament or not; but he must say that he could conceive many other questions which would have a prior claim upon the attention of the House. There were many subjects upon which a very strong feeling undoubtedly existed in Ireland, but amongst those he failed to see the question of Parliamentary reform. As the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had stated, not a single Petition had been presented to the House in favour of it. The question of Parliamentary reform was not one which could in any way be said to be urgent, taken in connection with political affairs in Ireland. What was the position of the Government with regard to a question of this kind? If they were to announce their intention of taking up this question of Parliamentary reform for Ireland, they would have to abandon any hopes during the present Session, and perhaps the next Session, of legislating upon any other subject in connection with Ireland. There would be very little chance of the financial proposals of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer being considered by the House, or any measures of importance being proceeded with, if the Government took up this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Meldon) had carefully avoided the question of re-distribution of seats, and also ignored the question of those 1987 checks counterbalancing precautions which he ventured to think were essential to a complete settlement of the question of reform. Another question not touched upon by the present Bill, and which ought to be considered in connection with the subject, was the representation of minorities. He did not wish to detain the House any longer; but he felt that, as this was the first time that he had had an opportunity of stating his views on the subject of reform since he had been officially connected with Ireland, he should hardly be treating the House, and the Irish Representatives especially, with respect, if he had failed to state his reasons for opposing the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 228: Majority 31.
1990| AYES. | |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Courtney, L. H. |
| Adam, rt. hn. W. P. | Cowan, J. |
| Amory, Sir J. H. | Cowen, J. |
| Anderson, G. | Cross, J. K. |
| Anstruther, Sir R. | Davies, R. |
| Ashley, hon. E. M. | Delahunty, J. |
| Backhouse, E. | Digby, K. T. |
| Barclay, J. W. | Dilke, Sir C. W. |
| Barran, J. | Dillwyn, L. L. |
| Bass, H. A. | Dodds, J. |
| Bass, M. T. | Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. |
| Baxter, rt. hn. W. E. | Downing, M'C. |
| Bazley, Sir T. | Duff, M. E. G. |
| Beaumont, Colonel F. | Dunbar, J. |
| Beaumont, W. B. | Dundas, J. C. |
| Bell, I. L. | Edwards, H. |
| Biddulph, M. | Egerton, Admiral hn. F. |
| Biggar, J. G. | Ellice, E. |
| Blake, T. | Ennis, N. |
| Blennerhassett, R. P. | Errington, G. |
| Bowyer, Sir G. | Evans, T. W. |
| Brady, J. | Fay, C. J. |
| Brogden, A. | Ferguson, R. |
| Brooks, M. | Fletcher, I. |
| Brown, A. H. | Foljambe, F. J. S. |
| Burt, T. | Forster, Sir C. |
| Cameron, C. | French, hon. C. |
| Campbell, Sir G. | Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, H. | Gordon, Lord D. |
| Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. | |
| Cavendish, Lord F. C. | Gourley, E. T. |
| Cavendish, Lord G. | Gower, hon. E. F. L. |
| Chadwick, D. | Grant, A. |
| Chamberlain, J. | Gray, E. D. |
| Childers, rt. hon. H. | Grey, Earl de |
| Cholmeley, Sir H. | Hamond, C. F. |
| Churchill, Lord R. | Hankey, T. |
| Clifford, C. C. | Harrison, J. F. |
| Clive, G. | Hartington, Marq. of |
| Cole, H. T. | Havelock, Sir H. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Hayter, A. D. |
| Collins, E. | Henry, M. |
| Conyngham, Lord F. | Herschell, F. |
| Corbett, J. | Hibbert, J. T. |
| Hill, T. R. | O'Gorman, P. |
| Holms, J. | O'Leary, W. |
| Holms, W. | O'Shaughnessy, R. |
| Hopwood, C. H. | O'Sullivan, W. H. |
| Howard, hon. C. | Palmer, C. M. |
| Howard, E. S. | Parker, C. S. |
| Hughes, W. B. | Parnell, C. S. |
| Hutchinson, J. D. | Pease, J. W. |
| Ingram, W. J. | Peel, A. W. |
| James, W. H. | Pender, J. |
| James, Sir H. | Pennington, F. |
| Jenkins, D. J. | Playfair, rt. hon. L. |
| Jenkins, E. | Plimsoll, S. |
| Johnstone, Sir H. | Portman, hon. W. H. B. |
| Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir U. | Potter, T. B. |
| Power, J. O' C. | |
| Kensington, Lord | Price, W. E. |
| Kirk, G. H. | Rathbone, W. |
| Laing, S. | Redmond, W. A. |
| Lambert, N. G. | Richard, H. |
| Laverton, A. | Rylands, P. |
| Lawrence, Sir J. C. | Samuelson, H. |
| Lefevre, G. J. S. | Seely, C. |
| Leith, J. F. | Shaw, W. |
| Lewis, O. | Sheil, E. |
| Lloyd, M. | Sheridan, H. B. |
| Locke, J. | Simon, Mr. Serjeant |
| Lusk, Sir A. | Sinclair, Sir J. G. T. |
| Macdonald, A. | Smith, E. |
| Macduff, Viscount | Smyth, P. J. |
| Mackintosh, C. F. | Smyth, R. |
| M'Arthur, A. | Stacpoole, W. |
| M'Kenna, Sir J. N. | Stansfeld, rt. hon. J. |
| M'Lagan, P. | Stewart, J. |
| Maitland, J. | Stuart, Colonel |
| Maitland, W. F. | Sullivan, A. M. |
| Marjoribanks, Sir D. C. | Swanston, A. |
| Martin, P. W. | Synan, E. J. |
| Martin, P. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Massey, rt. hon. W. N. | Taylor, P. A. |
| Meldon, C. H. | Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. |
| Mellor, T. W. | Vivian, A. P. |
| Middleton, Sir A. E. | Vivian, H. H. |
| Milbank, F. A. | Walter, J. |
| Monk, C. J. | Ward, M. F. |
| Moore, A. | Waterlow, Sir S. H. |
| Morgan, G. O. | Whitwell, J. |
| Mundella, A. J. | Whitworth, B. |
| Mure, Colonel | Whitworth, W. |
| Murphy, N. D. | Williams, W. |
| Norwood, C. M. | Wilson, C. |
| O'Beirne, Major | Wilson, Sir M. |
| O'Brien, Sir P. | Yeaman, J. |
| O'Byrne, W. R. | |
| O'Clery, K. | TELLERS. |
| O'Conor, D. M. | Nolan, Major |
| O'Conor Don, The | Power, R. |
| O'Donnell, F. H. |
| NOES. | |
| Agnew, R. V. | Baring, T. C. |
| Alexander, Colonel | Barrington, Viscount |
| Allen, Major | Barttelot, Sir W. B. |
| Allsopp, C. | Bates, E. |
| Allsopp, H. | Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H. |
| Arbuthnot, Lt.-Col. G. | Beach, W. W. B. |
| Archdale, W. H. | Benett-Stanford, V. F. |
| Arkwright, A. P. | Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C. |
| Ashbury, J. L. | Bentinck, G. W. P. |
| Assheton, R. | Beresford, Lord C. |
| Bailey, Sir J. R. | Birley, H. |
| Balfour, A. J. | Blackburne, Col. J. I. |
| Bousfield, Colonel | Hardy, hon. A. E. |
| Bowen, J. B. | Hardy, hon. S. |
| Brooks, W. C. | Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D. |
| Burrell, Sir W. W. | Heath, R. |
| Buxton, Sir R. J. | Hermon, E. |
| Cameron, D. | Hildyard, T. B. T. |
| Cartwright, F. | Hill, A. S. |
| Cave, rt. hon. S. | Hinchingbrook, Visc. |
| Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. | Holford, J. P. G. |
| Chaine, J. | Holker, Sir J. |
| Charley, W. T. | Holmesdale, Viscount |
| Close, M. C. | Home, Captain |
| Clowes, S. W. | Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N. |
| Cole, Col. hon. H. A. | |
| Coope, O. E. | Isaac, S. |
| Cordes, T. | Jenkinson, Sir G. S. |
| Crichton, Viscount | Johnson, J. G. |
| Cross, rt. hon. R. A. | Jolliffe, hon. S. |
| Cubitt, G. | Jones, J. |
| Cuninghame, Sir W. | Kavanagh, A. Mac M. |
| Cust, H. C. | Kennard, Colonel |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Knight, F. W. |
| Dalrymple, C. | Knightley, Sir R. |
| Denison, C. B. | Knowles, T. |
| Denison, W. B. | Lacon, Sir E. H. K. |
| Denison, W. E. | Lawrence, Sir T. |
| Dick, F. | Learmonth, A. |
| Digby, Col. hon. E. | Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. |
| Douglas, Sir G. | Lee, Major V. |
| Duff, J. | Legard, Sir C. |
| Dyke, Sir W. H. | Leighton, S. |
| Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W. | Leslie, Sir J. |
| Lewis, C. E. | |
| Egerton, hon. A. F. | Lindsay, Col. R. L. |
| Egerton, Sir P. G. | Lindsay, Lord |
| Egerton, hon. W. | Lloyd, S. |
| Elliot, Sir G. | Lloyd, T. E. |
| Elliot, G. W. | Lopes, Sir M. |
| Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H. | Lorne, Marquess of |
| Emlyn, Viscount | Lowther, hon. W. |
| Ewart, W. | Lowther, rt. hon. J. |
| Ewing, A. O. | Macartney, J. W. E. |
| Fellowes, E. | Mac Iver, D. |
| Floyer, J. | Majendie, L. A. |
| Fremantle, hon. T. F. | Makins, Colonel |
| Freshfield, C. K. | Malcolm, J. W. |
| Gallwey, Sir W. P. | Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. |
| Galway, Viscount | Marten, A. G. |
| Garnier, J. C. | Matheson, A. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. E. | Merewether, C. G. |
| Giffard, Sir H. S. | Miles, P. J. W. |
| Goddard, A. L. | Mills, A. |
| Goldney, G. | Mills, Sir C. H. |
| Gooch, Sir D. | Montgomerie, R. |
| Gordon, Sir A. | Montgomery, Sir G. G. |
| Gordon, W. | Moray, Colonel H. D. |
| Gore-Langton, W. S. | Morgan, hon. F. |
| Goulding, W. | Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. |
| Grantham, W. | Muncaster, Lord |
| Greenall, Sir G. | Naghten, Lt.-Colonel |
| Greene, E. | Newport, Viscount |
| Gregory, G. B. | Noel, rt, hon. G. J. |
| Guinness, Sir A. | North, Colonel |
| Gurney, rt. hon. R. | Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H. |
| Hall, A. W. | |
| Hamilton, Lord C. J. | Onslow, D. |
| Hamilton, I. T. | Paget, R. H. |
| Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. | Parker, Lt.-Col. W. |
| Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. | |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Pemberton, E. L. |
| Hamilton, hon. R. B. | Pennant, hon. G. |
| Harcourt, E. W. | Percy, Earl |
| Hardcastle, E. | Phipps, P. |
| Plunkett, hon. R. | Sykes, C. |
| Powell, W. | Taylor, rt. hon. Col. |
| Praed, C. T. | Thornhill, T. |
| Praed, H. B. | Thynne, Lord H. F. |
| Price, Captain | Tollemache, hon. W. F. |
| Puleston, J. H. | Torr, J. |
| Raikes, H. C. | Tremayne, J. |
| Repton, G. W. | Wait, W. K. |
| Ridley, Sir M. W. | Walker, O. O. |
| Ritchie, C. T. | Walker, T. E. |
| Rodwell, B. B. H. | Wallace, Sir R. |
| Round, J. | Walpole, rt. hon. S. |
| Russell, Sir C. | Walsh, hon. A. |
| Ryder, G. R. | Warburton, P. E. |
| Salt, T. | Watney, J. |
| Sandon, Viscount | Watson, rt. hon. W. |
| Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G. | Welby-Gregory, Sir W. |
| Scott, Lord H. | Wells, E. |
| Scott, M. D. | Wethered, T. O. |
| Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J. | Wheelhouse, W. S. J. |
| Whitelaw, A. | |
| Severne, J. E. | Wilmot, Sir H. |
| Sidebottom, T. H. | Wilson, W. |
| Smith, A. | Winn, R. |
| Smith, F. C. | Woodd, B. T. |
| Smith, rt. hn. W. H. | Wyndham, hon. P. |
| Smollett, P. B. | Wynn, C. W. W. |
| Somerset, Lord H. R. C. | Yarmouth, Earl of |
| Spinks, Mr. Serjeant | Yorke, J. R. |
| Stanhope, hon. E. | |
| Stanhope. W. T. W. S. | TELLERS. |
| Starkey, L. R. | Bruen, H. |
| Starkie, J. P. C. | Corry, J. P. |
| Storer, G. |
§ Words added.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Second Reading put off for six months.