SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SIXTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 07 April 1884 vol 286 cc1815-916

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to proceed further with a measure, having for its object the addition of two million voters to the electoral body of the United Kingdom, until it has before it the entire scheme contemplated by the Government for the amendment of the Representation of the People,"—(Lord John Manners,) —instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

Sir, happily or unhappily for me, it is my lot to stand between the desires of the House and the sumptuous fare to which it is looking forward in the speech of the Prime Minister. Bearing that in mind, I will proceed to the speedy execution of the duty which I have to discharge on behalf of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I admit that the agricultural labourer is entitled to fuller representation; but I deny that he can be said to have had hitherto none. Since 1867 he had, though not fully represented, been represented, so to speak, by sample, and this not only is the case of what are called the district boroughs, such as Aylesbury and Wenlock. Hon. Members may be amused to hear, but they cannot deny, that the agricultural labourers are the class from whom are drawn the great bulk of those who return to this House the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). How, then, have the agricultural labourers availed themselves of the means thus in the hands of some of them for making known to this House the intolerable grievances which it suits hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they suffer? What measures have they taken to press upon the House their ardent desire that the bulk, instead of these mere samples of their class, should be represented in Parliament? To answer that question we must go back and inquire what were the agricultural champions, in the persons of the Liberals who sat for East Retford, Aylesbury, and Much Wenlock in the Parliament of 1868, doing when that Parliament was committing all those thefts and injuries which the implacable partizanship of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has imagined? If it be true that these Liberal Representatives were consenting to the doing of the evil deeds which the right hon. Gentleman says were being done here, how was it that all three of them successfully sought re-election, both in 1874 and 1880, by the votes of the wronged and plundered peasant? With these facts before us, it really seems useless to inquire whether the President of the Board of Trade's ignorance of the Common Law relating to the inclosure of waste lands is real or feigned. But if such has been the attitude of the agricultural labourer towards his Representatives in the past, let us come to newer times and newer men, and let us inquire what was my hon. Friend and contemporary, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell), doing when he was known only as the junior Member for Aylesbury—what has he done in this Parliament to give voice to the grievances of the agricultural labourers who are his constituents? Is he wanting in the faculty of persuasive speech? Did he never, as an independent Member, give exercise to those faculties on the floor of the House? Of course he did, to the delight of the House; but to what extent to the relief or benefit of the agricultural labourers who were his constituents? Why, one of his earliest and most brilliant utterances was a speech directly aimed at maintaining, if not of amplifying, the domination over the agricultural labourer of his natural enemy the parson. Another brilliant speech of the hon. Member was devoted to an entreaty to the Government to stand by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in his Catonic severity towards corrupt practices; but, unfortunately, that speech, if it went to prove anything, went to prove that the working men in boroughs, who have generally been supposed to be, more fit for the franchise than the agricultural labourer, were themselves scarcely to be trusted with political privileges at all. And what more has the hon. Member done for the labourers in the amusing, but not too heavily ballasted, speech with which he favoured us in the present debate? What was the worst and most flagrant instance of squirearchical or parsonic oppression that he could produce? Merely that one of his constituents, a labourer, had thought—the hon. Member does not attempt to say rightly or justifiably thought—that if he were not to behave himself as a guest should at a meeting to which he was admittedly taken as a guest, he might possibly lose the benefit of a lift home from the parson by whose gratuitous kindness he had been carried to the meeting. Well, if this is the worst that is ever done to the labourers of Aylesbury, we need not wonder that the hon. Member had such ample leisure, while still in a state of independence, for literary pursuits and the study of the curiosities of theology. To-day, however, he finds it necessary to be eloquent about the wrongs which, for some mysterious reason, he had never told us of before. He is full of black indignation at the malignity of parsons; and now that he has joined a Government that owes its existence to the political side of Nonconformity, I suppose his theological views have come to consist of an admiration of the sweet reasonableness of the ecclesiastics of all other persuasions than that of the country parson and non-resident Masters of Arts, whom now he would apparently like to unfrock and to disfranchise altogether. I only mention these things, Sir, as some of the proofs by which it might be shown that though the agricultural labourer has hitherto suffered from the theoretical grievance of being under represented in this House, he has apparently not suffered any great practical injustice in consequence. I am not, however, concerned to prove that myself, because I do not dispute the justice of some such Bill as that now before the House. Even if the rural labourers had not been promised the franchise, it is pretty clear that, whatever Party may be in power, we shall see some considerable increase in the number of working men entitled to vote, if only on the mere ground of the anomalies created by the present borough boundaries; and, in that case, I am by no means disposed to consent that the artizan and the miner should monopolize that increased representation. I hold that not to admit the agricultural labourer to balance the vote of the artizan and the miner would be not only inequitable but unsafe; so that I am at least as much in favour of the central principle of this Bill as hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say "at least as much," because I mean that the evidence that they desire it themselves is to be found mainly in their own profession and protestation of desire, and scarcely anywhere else. We are told by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board that this Parliament was elected for the purpose, before any other, of making this extension of the franchise. Then, why did it not set its hand to this work before any other? Who gave them leave to put it oil for four Sessions? The Reformers of 1831 did not take "French leave" to put off Reform. Nor did the Reformers of 1866, though they had been elected only a year before, and that with scarcely any visible mandate for Reform. If the wrongs of the agricultural labourers are so great, why have their self-constituted advocates so long put off redress? If the unrepresented state of the labourers is a scandal, why have four years of bye-elections been allowed to recur, and not only to recur, but to have the disastrous effect of replacing Liberals, and so-called friends of Reform, by Conservatives—friends of the parson and the squire—Conservatives who delight to rob and to bully the down-trodden tiller of the soil? And why has this Parliament been all the while suffered to arrogate to itself the task of legislating on matters deeply affecting the welfare of the agricultural labourer, when, all the time, this Parliament has been admittedly incompetent for the task, because itself unrepresentative of the peasantry? Gentlemen opposite have seen all this going on with the most unaccountable equanimity; and now they have the face to wish us to believe that they have been all the while yearning for Reform. I say, that the hour is suspiciously late in which the Government are seeking to redeem their pledge, and there is much significance in not only the lateness of the hour, but also in the tactics with which they set about it. They have clearly got to abandon the other shifting alternatives by which they have been used to interpret the mandate of 1880. Sometimes it has suited them to represent that mandate as being, before all things, for a reversal of our foreign policy, and for a policy of peace. That mandate, if, indeed, it was ever given, has been fulfilled in a strange way, and the attention of the public has now to be diverted from the inconvenient subject of peace. The same thing may be said of the supposed mandate for retrenchment, Instead of retrenchment, we have the thing which is called Liberal finance. Naturally, the Liberal Party, in the extremity of their discredited condition, feel constrained, rather late than never, to try, at all events, to give the Reform which they promised so long ago, but have since neglected and refused to give. Does all this look as if the redemption of that pledge would, apart from Party objects, be very much to their liking? In any case, all this entitles us on this side to be very suspicious indeed, not only of the motives of the Government in bringing in this Bill, but also of their intention as regards its effects, and the effects of the redistribution which must follow. As the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord John Manners) condemns the nondisclosure of those intentions, I shall vote for it. The Party character of the Bill, as judged by the necessary effect it must have, has been well exposed by previous speakers, notably by my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). It is brought in under circumstances which make redistribution in the present Parliament almost impossible. It comes before ns tainted with Party motives, and visibly aimed at Party objects. By keeping back the redistribution scheme, those Party objects are further promoted, and most especially so by the scanty nature of the Prime Minister's declaration on the subject. It mattered little to the right hon. Gentleman that that was not a binding declaration, provided that what it revealed was just so much of his scheme as should attract support from the constituencies controlled by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and that what it concealed was just so much as, if revealed, would alienate the support of the Southern English constituencies. The supposed intention to maintain the present representation of Ireland can be nothing but a bid for Irish support. It is itself a departure from the loudly expressed principles upon which this Bill is said to be based. It conflicts as flatly with the principle of justice to Ireland as it does with the doctrine that every vote should have an equal value, justice means a man's due—not more than his due, nor less than his due. Justice to Ireland ought not to give either more or less than that to Ireland. If Ireland is to be treated on an equality with England, let her have applied to her the same principle that is applied to England and Scotland—that the number of Representatives is to be assigned with reference to population and taxation. To treat her otherwise is to meet her on principles not of equality, but of expediency. Who can wonder that, in defence of this proposal, the Government are driven to such an argument as that geographical distance is likely to impede in the future, any more than it has in the past, the Parliamentary importunities of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who ask perhaps two-thirds of the Questions, and deliver perhaps two-thirds of the speeches in a House of which they number less than a sixth part? Under all these circumstances, I feel bound to vote for an Amendment which condemns the unconscientious position from which these proposals are made, and the policy of concealment by which it is sought to push them forward.

MR. BARRAN

said that, in his opinion, the agricultural labourers had no great reason to be proud of their advocate, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), that night, when he called upon them to be satisfied with such representation as that afforded by some of the small boroughs of the country. He (Mr. Barran) represented one of the greatest constituencies in the Kingdom; a constituency which had always taken an interest in this question, and had warmly extended its sympathy to the 600,000 or 700,000 agricultural labourers who were still unenfranchised. He thought it hardly likely that the agricultural labourers would be satisfied with the cold comfort offered to them by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, that they should be satisfied with being represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge Mr. Raikes) questioned the qualification, as regarded capacity, of the men whom the Bill would enfranchise to exercise reasonably the duties and rights which would be conferred upon them as a trust; but, in answer to that, he (Mr. Barran) would pointont that agricultural labourers, and working men generally, had shown themselves qualified to act in their own interest in connection with large commercial enterprizes—enterprizes which had done credit to the working men of this country. He referred to Cooperative Societies and Friendly Societies; and maintained that the working classes, wherever the franchise, either municipal or Parliamentary, had been enjoyed by them, had always exhibited great capacity for the exercise of their rights That being so, they must surely be qualified to exercise the full rights of citizenship. In all those cases they had developed a competency to make good use of it. They took great interest in questions affecting the welfare of the people—sanitary and economic questions, or example—and the result of their possessing municipal rights and privileres was that in many large towns the management of local and benevolent institutions had vastly improved. They had been old that population in the towns ought to be represented, and, perhaps, property in the counties; but wherever population was found there would be property. He held that the franchise, although a very responsible privilege, was not a trust. What right had any man to judge of any other whether he should have the franchise? Agricultural labourers and artizans were responsible to the laws of the country, and they had, therefore, a right to a voice in the making of those laws. Hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed a fear of being overridden by numbers; but when they passed the Bill of 1867, did the Conservatives ask the merchants and manufacturers in large towns whether they were willing to be overridden by the larger numbers then enfranchised? He supported the Bill, not on the ground of its representation of any particular section of the people, or of any particular industry; not only because it extended the franchise to the agricultural labourers, but because he looked upon it as a measure of justice, and an instalment of legislation designed for the purpose of giving the people a voice in the selection of those who were to represent them in the House of Commons. The agricultural labourers were not the only class who were not enfranchished. More than 1,000,000 people who lived in large urban districts, 150 in number, had no representation. Were they to continue to want the franchise simply because, in the opinion of some politicians, there might be a danger that, if it were conferred upon them, one particular Party in the State would be overborne by numbers? If hon. Gentlemen opposite would tell the country openly that they disliked the Bill, and did not want it, because it would place power in the hands of the working classes, they would do honour to themselves, and he could understand it; but to avoid making that declaration, by means of the device which was embodied in the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), was a way out of the difficulty which was neither honourable to those who were supporting it, nor creditable to the Conservative Party—that great body which professed in all cases to represent the working men. He would, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make a clean breast of it, and say at once that they did not wish to have an extension of the franchise. If they would tell the country they did not wish to have it, the country would know exactly what they wanted; but if they tried to shelter themselves under the Amendment, and sought to postpone the accomplishment of this object by such means, they would suffer in their character and in the position of their Party. He would say just one word in reference to Ireland. Statistics had been very carefully drawn up, estimates had been made, and opinions expressed as to what would be the effect if the Prime Minister's suggestion to retain the same amount of representation for Ireland as it had at present were carried out, and therefore he would not venture to go into the details of that question. That country had been, and might be, a great difficulty in connection with the passing of the Bill; but if Ireland was to be used as a means of rejecting this Bill, hon. Gentlemen opposite would before long have reason to regret that they had used it as a Party shuttlecock, for purposes for which it ought not to be used. Ireland had been made a means of Party warfare in the past, and she might be made such a means in the future. She was smarting now from the conduct of the past administration of her affairs; and if they had, at the present time, reason to regret that the condition of that country was not what it should be, they ought not to shut their eyes to the fact that very largely the dissatisfaction and discontent which existed there was the offspring of the injustice which had been done to her for centuries past. If to-day they had an opportunity of doing justice to Ireland, let them do it; but if, on the other hand, they thought they could do even more than justice, he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and ask them whether it would not be wise to remove every ground of objection and discontent as regarded the equality of the two nations whilst passing this great measure? He had no sympathy with disturbance and riot in Ireland; but he had sympathy with those who were asking that justice should be done. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had appealed to the House on behalf of the loyal portion of Ireland; but he would appeal to the House to increase the numbers of that loyal Party in Ireland. He would say to hon. Gentlemen—"If you intend to have loyalty, you must do justice; and if you do justice and have loyalty, you can insist on enforcing the law." He thanked the House for having listened to him. He had expressed his feelings in regard to Ireland as strongly as he knew how; and he was sure that if they gave to that country the justice she was entitled to, we should strengthen our hands in the administration of the country, and do honour to Ireland and to ourselves.

MR. GRANTHAM

said that, in his opinion, if anything were wanting as a justification for the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) they had only to look at the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite. The question nominally before the House was the representation of the people; but in all the speeches delivered by the leading Members on the other side of the House nothing was discussed but the question of redistribution. Whether or, not the scheme sketched by the Prime Minister was, in the first place, just, and, in the second place, right, they had had it conclusively proved by Liberal-speeches that the redistribution scheme, as sketched by him, would not be passed by this House of Commons. That being so, it was as clear as could be that, if this Bill became law, there must be a Dissolution without a Redistribution Bill, and they would consequently bring about that which Her Majesty's Government themselves had stated ought not to be tolerated—namely, dealing with the reduction of the franchise by one House of Commons and dealing with redistribution by another. It had been admitted by the Government, in their speeches in the country and in the House, that it was desirable, if not necessary, that the question as a whole should be settled by the same House of Commons, and they had excused themselves for breaking it up into three distinct measures—the reduction of the franchise, registration, and redistribution. But last debates in the House during the list fortnight had shown that it was perfectly impossible that two, at all events, of those three questions could be settled by the present House of Commons, as almost all the leading Members opposite who had spoken had condemned the redistribution scheme of the Prime Minister. What justification then he would ask, had the Government for forcing this part of their measure on the country, when they knew very well that they could not by any possibility pass a redistribution scheme, which they said, was to be the basis of the reduction of the franchise? How was it, then, that they found Liberal Members still saving that they intended to vote for this Bill? It was because it was known and understood that, if it passed through the House of Commons, it would be thrown out in the Lords. The fact was that those Liberal Members who, by their speeches, had shown that this Bill ought not to become law, and who were afraid to give expression to their own feelings and opinions in the House of Commons, were relying on the House of Lords to cover their departure from right principles in dealing with this important, question. He had often heard the expression emanating from Conservative lips—"Thank God that they had a House of Lords;" but the sentiment was really being uttered by Liberal Members, for they were trusting that the House of Lords would throw out the Bill, as they themselves had not the courage to do it. He was one of those who took a different view of it to many other hon. Members upon his side of the House. In 1832 and in 1867 the freeholders in boroughs were not abolished. They had, in effect, two votes—one as occupier, and the other as freeholder; and he contended that in the counties they should have the same privilege, and thus preserve the balance of power. As to the great question of the reduction of the franchise, the two principles involved had been best exemplified by the speeches of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), one of whom said he considered the working man had a right to his vote, and the other that they had to consider the balance of power. He (Mr. Grantham) thought that they were both right, and that the occupier and householder in the counties, if he had not the vote, had a right to claim one. It was said that this Bill gave equality for the first time in the representation. So far from giving equality, it placed the county voter, at any rate, in a position of greater inequality than before as compared with the borough voters. Although the county freeholder had a freehold in the borough, he had no right to vote there at all, having one vote only; whilst the freeholder in the borough had not only his vote in the borough, but also a vote in the county. This Bill took away the right and privilege which the county freeholder had before, of being in an electoral district in which property was the basis of the representation, and gave him nothing instead, consequently giving the borough freeholder a considerable advantage over him. He did not object to the representation of numbers; but he did object to numbers being made supreme. Labourers in counties had, perhaps, a right to say that, as labourers in towns possessed voting powers which they in counties did not enjoy, the system of representation ought to be so altered as to put them upon an equality; but the object of all alterations in the franchise ought to be to secure good government and stability in the representation; and it was necessary to look and ascertain, with reference to the electors in the country, whether there could not be found that equivalent which would give this stability, at the same time that they extended the franchise to the labourer. It was desirable that, whereas this Bill would place the county freeholder in a false position, there should be given to the owner of every freehold, however humble, the right to vote both as a freeholder and as an occupier. That would tend to give that stability to representation and good government which ought to be desired by everyone who took any part in legislating upon such an important question as this. If, however, the Bill before the House was not likely to secure that object it ought not to pass into law. By this Bill the freeholder in a county stood in an anomalous position as compared with the freeholder in a borough; and as the Bill would continue that anomalous and unequal distinction between them, he contended that it ought not to be sanctioned by Parliament.

MR. GLADSTONE

Mr. Speaker—Sir, under the circumstances of the moment, I ask to be allowed, by the indulgence of the House, to address them on this subject at an earlier period of the evening than would, under ordinary circumstances, be the proper course for the person holding the Office that I have the honour to hold; and, while I am confident that indulgence will be granted to me, I hope I may also say that I trust I shall have no occasion to trespass on the time of the House at anything like the length to which I was obliged to go on the occasion when I laid this Bill before the House on asking for leave to introduce it. But I wish, Sir, to take notice of several complaints, which appear to me to constitute the substance of the opposition to this Bill, so far as speeches in this House are concerned. It has been complained that there has been a want of positive arguments for the Bill; it has been complained, and is complained, that the Government do not unite a plan of redistribution with the Bill; then complaint is made of the outline of a scheme of redistribution which, on my own behalf, I ventured to submit to the House; and finally—and this is, perhaps, the most serious complaint—it has been complained that this Bill has been framed, not with the patriotic object of enlarging the number of the enfranchised population, but for the purpose of securing perpetuity, or, at any rate, prolongation of Office to the present Government and the Liberal Party. Now, Sir, with respect to the production of no arguments for the Bill. When I observe the care and caution with which a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite avoid any declarations against the principles of the Bill, it would be an abuse of the time of the House to dwell in lengthened detail on the arguments for its introduction; but I may say that they have not been so entirely neglected, even by myself, as appears to be supposed. Does anyone contest the principle upon which I founded myself in my introductory statement—that it is good for the State that the largest possible number of capable citizens should be invested with the Parliamentary franchise? If that is denied, let us hear the denial in plain terms; but if it is not denied, then I say the whole argument is at an end. Because with respect to the very classes whom it is now proposed to enfranchise in the counties, the law has already declared, and experience has confirmed the declarations of the law, that the very same classes are already possessed of the franchise—the artisans in the towns and the peasantry in the smaller boroughs, not inconsiderable in number—and, consequently, their capability is no longer to be disputed. I must say I do not think it is easy to dispute the enormous value of the Parliamentary vote as an educating power. By conferring the vote—I put out of view those cases where it is conferred on narrow and sectional principles as a privilege to individuals, or the view which is apt to give it the character, or too much the character, of a supposed property disposable at the will of the possessor—where the franchise is liberally extended, the Parliamentary vote is a great educating power, and the man who was a good citizen before he had it will be a better citizen after he has received it. Well, then, it is hardly denied, I think, that the representation of classes will be far more equal when a Bill of this kind is passed than it is at present. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) contended to-night that the Bill was not necessary, because, as he said, the peasant was already represented in some of the smaller boroughs of the country.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

That was not my contention. I was only describing the state of things that has existed up to now. I did not contend that he was sufficiently represented.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am glad to hear that the hon. and learned Member says he does not contend that the peasant is sufficiently represented, for that is an argument which, if it had been good at all, would have been good in a great degree against the original Reform Act; because, through the extraordinary diversities of the franchise that prevailed under that old Parliamentary system, it was undeniable that in some boroughs or counties all classes of the community were, though insufficiently, yet were more or loss, represented. Then, Sir, if the representation of classes can be made more perfect, what does that mean but the improvement of the constitution of this House? Has the constitution of this House been improved or not by the Reform Bills which have already been enacted? [Cries of "No, no!"] Perhaps, then, you hon. Members who say "No" will bring in a Bill to repeal these Acts accordingly. But do not let it be supposed that I am going to institute a personal comparison to discuss merely the composition of this House and compare, man for man, those who sit here now and the men who sat here 60 or 70 years ago. What I am going to affirm, and with great confidence, is this—that when we speak of the improvement of the House of Commons, we do not mean the bringing here of a finer set of private Gentlemen—we do not mean the bringing here oven of a set of more highly-educated men. What we do mean is, that we bring here an Assembly better qualified to comprehend the wants of the country, more disposed to deal with those wants in the whole of their extended circumference. Now, in that point of view I do not think that any Gentleman will say "No," when I affirm that the House of Commons has been improved and has shown a capacity for dealing with the legislative exigencies of the nation such as unquestionably, under its former composition, it could not and would not have shown. It appears to me that, under these circumstances, there is no difficulty and no occasion for dilating upon arguments for the Bill. There is, indeed, one statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), and I think by some other Gentlemen— namely, a complaint that there is no sufficiently vehement or audible knocking at the door of Parliament for the granting of the franchise. What does my right hon. Friend want? Does he remember what happened in 1866? Certainly, at that time I do not think that anyone will say there was a greater desire among the unenfranchised for enfranchisement than there is at this moment among the unenfranchised. At that time it was the staple argument of the opponents of the Bill that there was no demand for it. And there was another and greater difference at that time. I am thankful to say that this Bill has been submitted to a Parliament which is in earnest upon its work as regards this question; but the Parliament of 1866, I may say without offence, was not in earnest. Yet, Sir, although that Parliament was not in earnest, although the reproach of indifference then was constantly addressed to the people, it required only the disappearance of a few railings in Hyde Park to dispose of the whole of these objections; and after having gained what was the real object in view—the displacement of the Liberal Government of the day—the Tory Government, before it was in Office six months, came down itself with a Reform Bill giving a far larger measure—I do not say it was so at the beginning—but it ended in giving a far larger measure than that which had been submitted by the Liberal Government. Does my right hon. Friend wish that that game should be played over again? I think, hardly; and, if not, I submit it is better not to dwell too much on the absence of vehement demands for Reform. I believe, myself, it is true, as has been well said, that there is a general desire among those who are to be enfranchised by this Bill for the possession of the franchise; and, further, that those who have the franchise already are in strong sympathy with those who have it not. The artizans of the towns are earnestly desirous and determined that measures of this kind, so far as depend on them, will be passed; and I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield will contradict me now when I say that he himself has had a lesson from Sheffield on the subject, and that in that town, so much divided into Parties and so much given to openness of discussion, at a vast meeting, truly representative of the whole population of the town—the general sentiments of the population—has given its enthusiastic support to the measure now before the House. So much for the complaint of want of argument for the Bill, which, I hope, will be reduced simply to a want of needless and wearisome details where propositions are broad and general, and perfectly undeniable. Then comes the severance of redistribution from the extension of the franchise. I see very plainly why it is that severance is made a matter of complaint on the opposite side. Because if only we had, in our plan, introduced redistribution, with a vast amount of detail, which it must necessarily have involved, unquestionably Gentlemen opposite would have laboured under no such difficulty as now afflicts them in finding grounds for criticism and opposition. But they say—"What have you to say?" Well, I have this to say—in the first place, had we introduced a Bill, a Franchise and a Redistribution Bill, every other important measure would have become impossible during this Session. It would have been idle for us to pretend that we held the whole question of local government to be one of prime urgency when we had supplied Parliament with an organic measure so large in its scope as necessarily to demand the whole time of the Session available for legislation of the first class. But it ought to be borne in mind, as I have always said, that there never has been a time when these two subjects were combined in a single Reform Bill, There never has been any attempt to combine in a single Bill the whole question of Parliamentary Reform. [Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Bill of 1832.] [An hon. MEMBER: 1866.] Never, never; because that was a Bill for England only. Scotland and Ireland, which in 1832, comprised two-fifths of the population, formed no part of that Bill; and therefore it was incomplete with respect to an enormous portion of the people. But was there any reason why we should make our Bill more comprehensive and complete on this occasion than was ever the case before? Certainly there was, because we had in view the possibility of a most formidable controversy if we had introduced an English Bill and a Scotch Bill, and left an Irish Bill drifting behind to take its chance. Being determined to do justice to Ireland in this matter, we took that which was the only way to secure justice—namely, incorporating and identifying the provisions relating to Ireland with the provisions relating to Great Britain, so as to show to the people of the three countries that we, the Government of the Queen, hold ourselves equally bound to them all. What says the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down (Mr. Grantham)? He makes it his main argument against this Bill, He says it is absolutely essential that the two questions should be dealt with by the same Parliament; and that it is now impossible they can be so dealt with. In regard to its being "absolutely essential," I do not admit it; but I go so far as this to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman—I may say it is important, it is desirable, and it is entirely within the intentions of the present Administration, that the question should be dealt with by the same Parliament. Then, he says, it is now impossible that it should be so dealt with. That is a broad proposition. Why is it impossible? "Because," he says, "you have proposed a plan of redistribution, and your plan has been universally condemned." I have not heard that the plan of redistribution has been generally discussed, and I entirely deny that it is universally condemned. I have heard no serious discussion of a critical character with regard to that plan of redistribution, except upon the certain point of the number of Members to be allotted to Ireland. Well, Sir, the number of Members to be allotted to Ireland is an important point in a Redistribution Bill; but it is not the plan of redistribution as I ventured to sketch it out—it is not worthy to receive that name, because it is but a faintly-traced outline of a plan—that plan contained a number of propositions of principle—propositions which, I thought, would show persons of friendly disposition—though I did not expect to take any benefit or advantage whatever from those who are unfriendly—that our desire, in dealing with the subject of redistribution, would be, so far as I was able to make myself a prophet as to the final decision of Parliament, to gain the essential objects which redistribution had in view with as small disturbance of existing relations as possible. I, therefore, meet the hon. and learned Member with what I call a plump denial of his proposition which he has brought out for the purpose of sustaining the argument that he wanted to make. But I will go further—I will say this, as was well said by my right hon. Friend behind me the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—that the effect of combining redistribution in the same measure with the franchise is to cause an Imperial question to be settled upon local, sectional, partial, and selfish considerations. The effect of producing a plan of redistribution which must necessarily, in its details, ostensibly be disagreeable to some, is to place all these local and small interests in direct antagonism to what is broadly and nationally beneficial; and, therefore, we hold that this combination is a combination which is not desirable for the purpose which legislation of this kind ought to have in view. We have also pointed out that a knowledge of the manner in which the new franchises will distribute themselves is almost essential to determining prudently the details of the plan of redistribution. We cannot tell—it is impossible to tell—in what particular spots particular franchises will be found to work so as to yield a larger or smaller amount of voters to the constituencies; and it is only when a Franchise Bill has been passed that you can be in a position to deal justly and finally with the subject of redistribution. Well, Sir, in our opinion, it is quite wrong and irrational to say that any hardship or anomaly is aggravated this Bill. There are grievances — there are admitted grievances. It is a grievance pleaded on behalf of counties that they are not sufficiently represented; and that is perfectly true. They are not sufficiently represented; but they never can be more adequately represented until you have a larger enfranchisement of their population; and when you have a larger enfranchisement of their population, the counties will take very good care that the question of redistribution shall not be paltered with or postponed. The establishment of a wide franchise, to emancipate these men and bring them within the sphere of political power and privilege, is, as is well known opposite, an absolute security for making the question of redistribution certain, for making it urgent, for making it, in the absence of any extraordinary circumstance, not only certain and urgent, but immediate. So much for this question of severance of redistribution from the Franchise Bill, with regard to which I have stated that it is not difficult at all to read between the lines the real motives which have led to its being put forward as the main ground of objection to the present Bill. With regard to my own outline of redistribution, I have said all along that I did not suppose, for a moment, it would conciliate a single opponent — opponents are not at all to be conciliated in that way. What they are looking for are grounds for objection, and not reasons for assent. That is my experience in Party debate and discussion. But I am glad to be able to say this—that, so far as I know, nearly the whole of the propositions that I laid down have been received in a favourable manner, and have not been made the objects of adverse criticism. All the adverse criticism, as I have said, has been concentrated upon a single opinion which I expressed—that, so far as I was able to judge, it would not be wise to reduce the number of Members from Ireland, which stands at 103. I do not at all wonder that that observation of mine should have been made the subject of comment. The objection was taken, I think, upon two grounds. First of all, it was said—Why mention this subject at all? Why introduce the question of the proportion of Members which Ireland ought to have in the scheme of Parliamentary Reform under your Franchise Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was extremely—I do not say angry—he does not lose his temper in these matters—but he was evidently excited, because, as he said, I delivered this proposition about Ireland, looking to the Irish Members below the Gangway. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me to be like a proud beauty who will not allow you to look at any beauty but herself. I have opportunities of observing the physiognomy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the physiognomies in his neighbourhood—opportunities so agreeable to me—and I feel and believe I am as straightforward a man in the glances I direct across this House as anybody who speaks in it. I do not think I am at all liable to censure for looking constantly, or even too frequently, into the Irish quarter. The fact is, that if I were to look back upon the votes given in the present House of Commons during the last four years and compare the amount of benefit that we, on this side of the House, have derived from the Irish vote on important occasions, with the amount of benefit which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends have derived, I think, in the first place, it would be but a barren and unprofitable business for me to be continually looking among the Irish Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway opposite; and, in the second place, I cannot at all wonder at the jealousy shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and his fear lest we should be found endeavouring to poach on the preserves of so valuable a manor. But, Sir, the reason why I mentioned Ireland was this—that I knew perfectly well it was impossible for us to take a single step in this matter without the putting of—nay, pressing of—some questions with regard to the relative representation of the different parts of the United Kingdom. In 1831 that was found the first and most convenient point for the opposition to that Reform Bill to raise; and, upon this occasion, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay) had given me notice, by an obstructive Amendment, that he would not allow even the Motion for the introduction of the Bill to be put until I had made some declaration with respect to the increase of the Scotch representation. How was it possible to suppose that a demand of that kind could be made with respect to Scotland and nothing said about Ireland? So much, Sir, for the sin of having mentioned the question of the Irish proportion of representation. But now, why should I have presumed to recommend, or to intimate a leaning to the opinion—which is certainly the true leaning, in my opinion—that it would be well that the present number of Irish Representatives should be retained for Ireland? I beg to refer, in the first place, to what was most justly stated on a former evening in the present debate by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington)—namely, that that opinion of mine was associated with opinions which I also expressed on two other points. One of them was that, in my judgment, the question of relative distance from Westminster was one that in adjusting the proportion of Representatives should not be wholly overlooked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford said, in the fairest and frankest manner, that he wished, by a distinct declaration, to exempt himself from being bound, constructively or otherwise, by anything I have said on that point. Nothing could be fairer than that; and if my right hon. Friend had not spoken, he would not have been bound, for nobody would have supposed that he or anyone else was bound by the tolerance which was allowed to me. But on this question of distance my right hon. Friend was certainly frank to the last degree, because he did not scruple or hesitate for a moment to grapple with the whole breadth of the proposition, and he stated that, in his opinion, the population of London ought to be represented up to its fair numerical strength. That is a very important question, but one on which it is impossible for me to forecast the judgment of the House. It is not my opinion, however. I cannot pretend to say that that subject, which has been swollen into so enormous and extraordinary magnitude, is one of those which appear to me to constitute the articulus of a good or bad Reform Bill. That is the impression I entertain, and it is in connection with that impression—which I should apply in some degree to Scotland also—that I gave my opinion with respect to the number of Representatives for Ireland. Further, it indicated a leaning in my own mind to the belief that, considering the vast increase of work to be done in this House, and hoping, as I do, that much more effective arrangements will, before many years are over, be made for the distribution of that work, some small increase in the number of its Members might be fairly considered. That may, or may not, be adopted; I will not enter into any argument now. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) made an objection which, I think, ought to be considered. He said we have too many Members already, as shown by the great number of speakers, and that we ought to keep them down. I am rather disposed to think it is the great number of speeches made by particular Members, rather than the number of Members who enter into our discussions, which constitutes the great part of our difficulties. I will say two other things with regard to the representation of Ireland. I will not look to the quarter of the Irish Members, and I trust that they will not be construed to mean more than they usually do mean. There are, as I think, elements of the case which fair-minded men and far-seeing men may well take into consideration. They are these—I fully admit that at the present moment Ireland has but one-seventh of the population; that upon that basis of one-seventh of the population, instead of 103 Members, Ireland is entitled only to 93 Members. That is not a very great breadth of margin. What I hope is this. In the first place, in my own mind, I am not willing to assume that this continual decline of Irish population is a permanent and a normal factor. It may be that there are cases whore a great reduction of population is a necessary road to a people's well-being. It may be that Ireland is one of these cases; but it is a most painful thing, and that depletion in itself is a subject for regretful recollection, while the consequences produced by the dissemination of a population over the globe who carry away with them the idea that they have been driven from their homes are consequences painful enough for us all to bear in mind. I do not, however, abandon, the hope that Ireland may recover some of the ground that she has lost. I would not—considering that it is but once in 50 years that a question like this has been entertained—I would certainly not assume the permanency of this continual descent in the numbers of the people of Ireland; further, Sir, I would say this—that those who have been niggardly and unjust in former times must be very cautious when they come to plead on their own behalf for the strictest application of laws of which they might, indeed, have claimed the strictest application had they never deviated from them themselves. I do not seek to bind the House in the slightest degree on this question. I do not think it is possible to state the question more temperately or fairly than it has been stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It is not a very large question, whichever way you take it. Look back to the year 1832, and see how we dealt with Ireland on that occasion. I think I am right in saying Ireland had, at that time, three-tenths of the population of the United Kingdom, and to them we gave considerably less than one-sixth of the representation. I do not think that, looking back to that proceeding, we should say now that it was a very handsome treatment; and I cannot entirely dismiss that fact from my recollection in coming to consider the Irish question, when we deal with the redistribution of seats in prosecution of the plan contemplated by the present Government. I commit no one; I do not wish to commit anyone, or to stand committed myself; but I say it is not a desirable position for a great country to occupy, to claim the most rigid application of numerical laws when they tell in her favour, and, on the other hand, to apply a very lax view of them indeed when they tell against her. I do not argue the point, because I am rather proceeding on the assumption that it will be allowed that 103 Members was not a liberal allotment to Ireland in 1832. If Ireland had been treated according to her numbers—the number of them I am almost afraid to present to the imagination—her Members would have been nearer 200 than 100. However, having stated what appears to meet the case with reference to this subject, I must claim for myself that the view of the proposition I threw out should be taken, as my noble Friend near me most justly said, in conjunction with other propositions which I was inclined to submit to the favourable consideration of the House, and that there should be no haste, at all events, to run, like the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down (Mr. Grantham), to the extreme conclusion that criticisms equitably taken to the particular point in the outline I endeavoured to draw either amount to, or in the slightest degree partake of, a general condemnation of the ideas with respect to redistribution which I have ventured to throw out. I now come to the last of the complaints that are made, and it is this—that this is a Bill which has been conceived or introduced and has been framed for Party purposes. ["Hear, hear!"] Let me, in the first place, respectfully and cordially thank hon. Gentlemen who have made that charge and who have uttered that cheer for the high-flown and extravagant compliment which they are paying to the Liberal Party. When the Liberal Party proposes to raise the constituency from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000, and to bring in 2,000,000 more of British citizens to enjoy the privilege of which they have not yet been sharers, a complaint is made that it is a Party measure. It is impossible, Sir, to pay a greater compliment to us than to say that we know that when we let in 2,000,000 of citizens to the franchise we are letting in a large majority of those who are favourable to our views. But I must say that it appears to me—passing by that agreeable subject of the complimentary character of the reproach—it appears to me that hon. Gentlemen ought a little to consider, even in their political charges, I will not say justice, I will not say even plausibility, but some kind of colour of what is probable or possible, in order to sustain the accusations they make. Now I affirm, and I challenge contradiction, that upon every point connected with the construction and consideration of the present Bill the facts confute the charge which some have been rash enough to make. Why, Sir, which is the largest and most numerous of the classes to be introduced to the possession of the franchise by the action of the present Bill? I apprehend there is no doubt that it is the rural population, properly so called.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

No.

MR. GLADSTONE

No! What are the most numerous class then? I believe they are. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to tell me that he thinks the artizans—I am now speaking of the artizans, of the labouring population, not the tradespeople—does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that the number of artizans, in the sense I have now given to the word, of operatives to be enfranchised by this measure is larger than the number of the peasantry?

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

Yes.

MR. GLADSTONE

In England, Scotland, and Ireland?

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

In England.

MR. GLADSTONE

In England and Scotland—I will say nothing about Ireland?

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

Yes.

MR. GLADSTONE

Then I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman altogether. I will take another challenge, and affirm that the divisions of those counties where large masses of those commonly understood as the labouring classes—miners and manufacturing operatives—abound in large numbers, are a very small minority of the counties. Consequently, we are going to strengthen the constituencies in the large majority of counties, and, unquestionably, by a large introduction of the rural population. Is that a measure which colourably sustains, or at all sustains, the charge of oblique and indirect views towards the undue aggrandizement of the Liberal Party? Well, Sir, what class is there in the country that is more open to the influence of other and stronger classes than the rural population? What are the classes in the country that constitute the strength of the Tory Party? Farmers, landlords, and clergymen—and it is the farmers, the landlords, and the clergymen who have the most direct, and the largest, and the most constant influence upon the rural population, the peasantry of this country; and yet, when we are going to give over a very large majority of the counties in England, and a yet larger number of them in Scotland, to a system under which this rural population will be immensely represented, we are told that we are doing this for Party purposes, and in the interest of the Liberal Party. I advise all those who make that charge to confine themselves to vague generalities, to avoid carefully any reference to details. But that is not all. We have considered a service franchise, and in what spirit have we done so? Is the service franchise also a device for strengthening the Liberal Party? Those who have said the enfranchisement of the peasantry is a device for strengthening the Liberal Party are, in my opinion, equal to saying anything, and will, perhaps, be prepared to say that the service franchise is likewise a device for strengthening the Liberal Party. No, Sir; if we had had in our minds any idea of strengthening that Party as the aim of this Bill, we might, perhaps, have concocted something in the shape of argument against the service franchise. Those who will be qualified under it are those who are most open, and directly open, to the influence of their superiors in wealth, and we might have plausibly insisted that, as regarded the greater part of them, it was not safe to intrust them with the franchise. We have not done so, and why have we not done so? Because we have faith in the people; and because we believe it to be the first element, the first article, in the creed of Liberalism, to have that faith; and because we believe that to be the strength of Liberalism, that it has that faith; and that, and nothing else, affords the reason why the Liberal Party has been predominant in this country through the last halfcentury. If counsel might be accepted from a foe, I would offer to hon. Gentlemen opposite my humble advice, and tell them that they, too, will be a stronger Party when they have learned to put faith in the people. I would only ask the opinion of every can did man among them whether the introduction of this service franchise into the Bill is not a fairly conclusive refutation of the statement that we have been manipulating the state of the franchise, and making our arrangements with regard to its adjustment with a view of diverting it into those quarters which are most amenable to the predominance of the Liberal Party? I have shown that as regards the rural population—I have shown that as regards the service franchise, how entirely that is untrue. But, Sir, I may also say that if there were a disposition to give us credit, under any circumstances at all, for any act that we do, some credit might have been given for our having declined to confine property voting to the cases of residents. We have considered that matter. Before this Bill was introduced, those who were inclined to strangle it, if they could, in its birth, found it convenient or necessary to assume at once that we would never dream of allowing non-resident, owners of property to vote; and I read a speech that was attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in which he said— Why, in their Bill that is coming forth, a man may own half a county, and he will not be allowed to vote unless he resides in it. I must say, in passing, that I think a man who owns half a county and does not reside there is a very doubtful member of society, and not at all a good citizen; but it is not my object to employ that argument. Be that as it may, my object is to prove that by declining to impose that condition of residence on property voting, we have again, and have conclusively, shown our determination to disturb nothing which we can avoid disturbing, and also our determination, on the one hand, to present a great enfranchisement, and, on the other hand, to tender it to those who either hesitate or oppose us, in such a shape and figure that they shall have no excuse for rejecting it, and that those whose real motive is hostility to the enlargement of popular liberties shall be left without an effectual pretext. I may say, farther, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), although he certainly was not violently favourable to the unhappy outline of redistribution which I gave, yet in his speech he boldly, fairly, and earnestly called this Franchise Bill, speaking generally, a Conservative measure. That also shows how desirous we were at every step in the consideration of this measure to narrow the grounds of difference between conflicting Parties in this country, and, if possible, for once to place on the Statute Book this great boon, this great enfranchisement, this enormous enlargement—I would so call it, if you please; I am not afraid of the use to which you may turn the term—to place upon the Statute Book this enormous enlargement of our fellow-citizens, without its being made the subject of odious Party contest. Well, Sir, although this question is most important, it has been commonly observed that the debate has been languid. It might almost be said, in the words of Pope, I think, that the debate has— Like a wounded snake, dragged its slow length along. And why has it been so languid? Not, certainly, because of the want of talent or of ability in those who have taken part in it. I take the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), who moved the Amendment. I have always admired his debating powers and the great ingenuity of his arguments; and if anything could give interest—lively and pervading interest—to the discussion, he would have done it. Very able men on both sides of the House have also entered into the debate, and yet it has been observed that it has been languid. And why has it been languid? Because no direct issue has been raised. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield told us to-night that he was greatly in favour of the principle of the Bill—indeed, I think he said that he was much more in favour of the principle of the Bill than most of us who sit on this side of the House.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

I said I was at least as much in favour of its principle.

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. and learned Friend says he is at least as much in favour of the principle of the Bill as most of those sitting on this side— "For, after all," he said, "you deal only in professions." That is a heavy reproach. I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend feels that it is inconsistent, and even lowering, to deal only in professions. I am very glad that he has given us that reproach, because it will put us on our mettle, and make us endeavour to show whether we do deal only in professions or not; but my hon. and learned Friend, who has such a horror of those who deal only in professions, and who is himself so strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, will have an admirable opportunity tonight of showing to those 16,000 men who met in Sheffield what is the value of his professions. Stung by the reproach of my hon. and learned Friend, we shall walk out into the Lobby with more zeal and energy than we should have done if he had not launched at us that reproach. We shall not be wanting when the time; comes, and I do hope that he will be found in our company. Yes, Sir; there has been a want of direct issue. That has depressed and clouded the debate. And why has no direct issue been raised? Because, Sir, Gentlemen opposite know, as well as we know, that this is a res judicata—a settled question, not to-day and not to-morrow, perhaps by this Government, perhaps by the next Government before it is six months old—but the question is no less a settled question. Then, Sir, if it be true that this Bill is favourable from its construction to the Liberal Party, this I say with confidence—it will not be we who have made it favourable, it will be you. If, again, you, the Tory Party, unwarned by your experience of former controversies, are going to place yourselves in a false position in the face of the country by appearing as the withholders of the boon which others seek to grant, why, in that case, and for the moment, perhaps, your prophecy may be fulfilled, and, perhaps, for an Election or two we may receive a benefit from this Bill. But the remedy is in your own hands. You know that the thing must be done, and, therefore, you do not contest it directly, but you contest it indirectly. Is that really for your advantage? Do you believe that your Party will be stronger five years, 10 years, 20 years hence in consequence of this futile opposition? No; you know it will not. You know that after a Government that is in earnest in its work has proposed a measure of this kind to a Parliament which is not less in earnest, there is not a doubt as to the issue to which the question will rapidly be carried. If you want to disarm this Bill of danger to yourselves, if you want to falsify the charge which you have made against this Bill, and which you would be glad to falsify—that it is manipulated so as to be beneficial to the Liberal Party—your plan is obvious. Enter freely into competition with us—compete with us in the free, cheerful, and willing presentation of this boon. That is the way, if there be danger in this Bill, to take the sting out of it. But your present opposition will have not the less the effect of discrediting you with those who are to be enfranchised, because it is an indirect, instead of a direct, opposition. But be the disposition of that side of the House what it may—whatever you may be disposed to say or to do, whatever doubts may entangle your path—on this side of the House, at least, there is no doubt, no hesitation, no lingering, no question. We have divested our Bill of every questionable or assailable proposition, because, Sir, we felt that if a Constitutional struggle were to arise we would wash our hands of the responsibility by placing ourselves from the outset in the right. That is the reason why our Bill has been reduced to the form of naked simplicity—that is the reason why we have asked and conjured those who have important propositions of their own to urge in amendment or extension of the franchise to refrain from urging them on this occasion. We wish that a simple issue shall be raised before the country. We feel that our object has been gained, and that the country comprehends it. I believe, Sir, that the Division of to-night will show that the House of Commons is not behind the sense and intention of the country, and will be such as to afford a certain prognostication that we shall at once proceed to incorporate this great enfranchisement in the law, and place it in the Statute Book of the Realm.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down declared that there was no doubt or hesitation on the Ministerial side of the House on that question, he could not help wondering whether all doubt and hesitation had been removed from the mind of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). It had been alleged that there was an unreality about that debate; but it might be asked whether that unreality was not owing to the mode in which the Government had treated the question? The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had told them how Ministers had been answering one another on the platform throughout the autumn; but anyone who heard the different speeches delivered in that House from the Treasury Bench upon that Bill could hardly believe they were made in support of the same measure. There had been as great a contrast between the speeches delivered by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench as could well have been between speeches made from opposite sides of the House. He was anxious, however, to say a few words in regard to the Bill itself, because the position he occupied in reference to it was not that of some hon. Gentlemen who sat on his own side of the House. Ten years ago he voted with the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) in favour of the extension of the suffrage to counties. At that time, however, different views regarding this question were taken from those which the House was bound to believe were now hold by right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. The Chief Secretary at that time had to contend against influences which then, as now, were exercised in high places. He thought that when the gratitude of the unenfranchised was demanded on behalf of those who promoted this measure, it ought to be borne in mind that it was the Chief Secretary who was the pioneer in the labour into which other men had entered, and from which they were prepared to take the utmost possible credit. As regarded his own position in reference to the Bill, he had, as previously stated, voted with the Chief Secretary 10 years ago in favour of the extension of the franchise to counties. His right hon. Friend at that time was defeated by majorities of about 114,100, and so on. He did not believe there was any use in pressing the question upon the Parliament elected in 1874; but he made a declaration, not under pressure, that he would support the extension of the suffrage to the counties when it should be afterwards proposed by the Government of the day. [Ironical cheers.] He had made that declaration from time to time when asked about the franchise question. He had not repented making it, and he was quite prepared to give effect to that declaration when the proper time came. He repeated it last winter, without knowing what the nature of the present measure would be; but he guarded himself against being absolutely bound to support the measure in the particular form in which it might be introduced if it should be separated from the question of redistribution. He held that, in order to arrive at a fair settlement of the question, it was absolutely essential the House should have the scheme of redistribution before it—he did not say in the particular measure before the House, but in such a form as the House and the country might judge of it, as to how far it might affect the scheme of Reform. He was not only not unfavourable to the principle of the Bill; but he might say distinctly that he could not have voted for a direct negative to this Bill. It was, however, because the Amendment raised a matter upon which he especially desired satisfaction that he supported it, and not because, as had been stated, it was a mere side wind. He remembered that, in the opening speech of the Prime Minister, it was said that this question was a vital part of the mission of the present Parliament. He was not going to argue that question; but he might say that it was a strange thing, if it was a vital part of the mission of this Parliament, that during a certain campaign in the North there was scarcely a reference made to that which was about to be the chief mission of the Parliament then about to be elected. His copy of the Mid Lothian speeches was in such a tattered conditon, owing to the constant reference made to it, that it was not capable of being brought to the House. He had had, however, an opportunity recently of refreshing his recollection of what those speeches contained in reference to the question of Reform. The Mid Lothian speeches, which were for a long time the vade mecum of Radicals, were now the merest repertory of shattered idolatries. He had had an opportunity of studying the references to this question in those speeches, and he found they were contained in two paragraphs only. Strange to say, the references were to what was now known as the centrifugal theory, and to the inadequacy of Scottish representation. He might notice another circumstance which was curious. While those speeches did not contain references to this subject, which, as the House was now told, was a vital part of the mission of this Parliament, there was a complaint in a certain election address that Lord Beaconsfield had not mentioned in his Manifesto to the country the question of a more equal distribution of the political franchise, showing, therefore, the importance of this matter on which the Amendment turned. There was something almost pathetic in the revival, or, he might say, in the survival, of the question of the centrifugal theory; because, although the Parliamentary wave was strewn with the wreck of abandoned professions and abortive schemes, there were two standards still held aloft—one was the standard of the centrifugal theory, and the other was the standard of the paramount claims of jam. With reference to the centrifugal theory, he might ask, who were the Members constantly in the House? They were those who represented distant constituencies. Whether the suffrage was the chief part of the mission of this Parliament or not, no doubt it had boon heralded for some time past, and many theories which were promulgated in the country had not found expression in the measure. He spoke for himself when he said there was much in the measure which he heartily approved. There was no disfranchisement in it; there was no question of the one man one vote principle; there was no condition of residence as a qualification for a vote; and, what was more important, there was what was called the service franchise. Speaking only as a Scottish Representative, he said that service franchise was of infinite importance. It was admirably adapted to meet the case of those persons who were neither owners nor tenants, but who, in many cases, were quite as capable of exercising the franchise as many owners and tenants. He remembered that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when addressing a meeting in the Border Country lust autumn, said what an awful thing it was to think that if Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, had been alive, he would not have had a vote. He would not have had a vote under the present Bill if it were not for the proposed service franchise. He also approved of the extension of this measure to Ireland. The condition of Ireland was, in his humble judgment, an argument for postponing the Bill altogether; but it was not an argument for omitting Ireland if the question was to be dealt with at all. It was, however, because he was prepared to accept the principle of the measure; because he sympathized greatly with many who were not as yet enfranchised; and, above all, that he was prepared to see it extended to Ireland, that he desired to see the whole scheme of the Government. He maintained that precedents were in favour of this view. There were two views of this matter which might be considered. One was that the extension of the suffrage and the redistribution scheme should be kept separate; and the other was that they should be, if not actually dealt with together, at least announced together as forming part of one great scheme. It was because the Conservative Party asked that the latter course should be adopted, and not the former, that it was said they were secretly hostile to Reform, and that the Liberal Party were the only true friends of Reform. He thought, however, Liberal Members ought to have some sympathy with the proposal he contended for. A Member of the present Cabinet took part in a proposal that the whole question should be dealt with together. In 1866 this proposal was started, and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies advocated that the Government of the day should deal with the measure as a whole. A Franchise Bill unaccompanied by redistribution would increase the anomalies of the present representation twenty-fold. In 1875 the Secretary of State for War expressed a strong opinion that the franchise portion of a Reform scheme ought not to be pressed forward apart from redistribution. He thought the necessity for the presentation of the whole case had become ten times greater since the speech of the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, and since his speech to-night. The question of redistribution that was being raised was, the Prime Minister said, a trap; but, nevertheless, he walked into it. Why was this? Not because he desired to give the Opposition any information; but so as to "rescue" his measure from certain awkward risks which it ran, and then to "retire" from the subject. There was reason to believe that the Irish Members would not support the Bill unless they were assured that the representation of Ireland would not be diminished; and the Prime Minister's references were manifestly intended to satisfy them on that point. Hon. Members blamed the Opposition for desiring to see the whole scheme of the Government; but this was only natural after the Prime Minister had declared his intention of doing what would be, not justice to Ireland, but injustice in reference to Ireland. Hon. Members opposite said that they trusted the Government. Well, he did not; and he rather suspected that some Members of the Government would be glad if the redistribution scheme was post- poned altogether. There ought to be no difficulty in the way of inserting a clause providing that the registers should not be made until the Redistribution Bill passed; but this the Government refused to consent to. The strangest thing that had come under his observation was the attitude of the Scotch Members on the other side of the House in reference to this stage of the measure. He quite understood and sympathized with their support of the measure; but it would have been well if Scotch Members had shown more distinctly what they felt on the subject of the nebulous scheme of redistribution as shadowed forth by the Head of the Government. Scotch Liberal Members were for ever telling Scotland that it was inadequately represented. Whatever difference existed on this subject, they all took refuge in that canny, that obvious allegation, that Scotland was inadequately represented. He believed entirely that that was the case; but he thought Scotland suffered from another thing besides inadequate representation, and that was from not having its Representatives more equally divided between the two Parties in the State. If they could sometimes see from Scotch Representatives opposite a little of the troubling of the waters of independence, and a greater vigour of self-assertion, it would be better for Scotland, better for the credit of the Scotch Representatives, and better for Her Majesty's Government, who, knowing they could depend on the support of their Scotch followers, disregarded the claims of Scotland in this as in other matters. If Scotland was inadequately represented, where was the increased representation to come from? It was not from Ireland, because the Government would take care that the representation of that country remained undiminished. There would be great opposition to its being taken from the boroughs of the South of England. And as to increasing the number of Members of this House, he did not suppose that anyone seriously contemplated supporting such a fantastic proposal. The Prime Minister, it seemed, would far rather run the risk of neglecting loyal Scotland than run the risk of opposition to his Bill from disloyal Ireland. It was not from hostility to this measure; it was not from any desire to continue the disfranchisement of those who did not at present possess the franchise; but it was because he believed that only by redistribution the anomalies of the electoral system, which would be greater in future than now, could be rectified; because by diminishing suitably and fairly the representation of Ireland the evils of extending the franchise to that country could be remedied; and, above all, because it was only by redistribution that an adequate addition could be made to the representation of Scotland, that he claimed to see the whole scheme of the Government, and must vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was scarcely worthy of his ability or judgment; and he would, doubtless, be called upon by his constituency to give some good reason for his speech and vote. He left the hon. Member in their hands. Although a Scotch Representative, he intended to give his vote for the Bill, and to deal with redistribution when it came up. As well might hon. Members opposite refuse to pay their greengrocers, because they were afraid they might not make a good use of the money, as to refuse to assimilate the borough and county franchise, because they did not know how the political power was to be cast when redistribution took place. The hon. Member magnified the difficulties of the situation. Why could they not get the just quota of Members for Scotland out of the small boroughs in England? Why should they give to the Metropolis over-representation of political power? To deal with the Metropolis according to the principles of proportional representation, London would be greatly over-represented. If they looked at the number of London barristers, bankers, &c., who represented small English boroughs, they might find some way to apportion to Scotland the requisite number of seats without possibly touching the representation of Ireland as it now stood. Many of them listened with astonishment to the sweeping assertion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) that this Bill proposed to add to the electoral body 2,000,000 of the most ignorant classes in the country. The right hon. Baronet had generously deducted from the number the London artizans who lived beyond the Parlia- mentary boundaries. So far well. He wished to know whether he was prepared to deduct the well-educated rural population of Scotland, the intelligent mining population of Scotland, the artizan and labouring population of Scotland on the banks of the Clyde, and scattered over the country in its unenfranchised towns and growing centres of population? If; he were to make the amende which he was sure his sense of justice would prompt, then he submitted that Scotland would be entirely exempted from his computations, and practically his objections would fall to the ground as untenable and erroneous. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) ridiculed the rural population of this country, held them up to obloquy as devoid of political foresight, and spoke of them as only concerned about the material objects of life. He was sure he did them much injustice. No class had a better opportunity of learning that a man's life "consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth;" and he felt assured there was among them a proportionately larger share of unselfishness, and as much regard for the happiness of others and for the welfare of the State, than was to be found among men who were subject to the corrupting influences of luxury. Then, as to their political perceptions or foresight, was it not a fact that in all the great questions which had agitated this country for half a century the working classes had, as a rule, had a clearer perception of the right than the wealthier classes? He believed this had unquestionably to be answered in the affirmative. Why, then, scoff at and scorn the men who were the very backbone of the country? Such scorning was only fitted to drive them to take up with false political theories. It was also said on the Front Opposition Bench that there was no necessity for this measure. It was always a necessity to pay heed to the claims of justice. The assertion made was unworthy serious refutation. Then, again, it had been said that the exercise of the franchise was not "a right, but a trust." This was a mere sophism, meant to blind the eyes of the unwary. How could the trust be exercised unless the right be acknowledged and granted? All that the Bill proposed was to grant to large sections of the population dwelling outside Parliamentary boroughs that which hon. Gentlemen opposite granted to these boroughs in 1867, when they took what they called the leap in the dark. He was glad this measure was not cumbered with any redistribution scheme, as to which he kept himself entirely free to act when the proper time came. A striking argument might be found in support of this course in that curious Redistribution of Scats Bill which on Saturday was brought under the notice of Members—a Bill promoted by Members opposite—having amongst the names on its back that of the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay). The Bill was designated "A Redistribution of Seats Bill." It was a scheme for so redistributing political power as to secure a Tory preponderance. It eliminated from the counties nearly all the towns and villages of any consideration, grouped them with boroughs of similar political complexion, and so left the rustics in the hands of the squire and the factor. Thus the only towns in Peebles and Selkirk were to be picked out and added to a Liberal group 50 miles away, so that Sir Graham Montgomery might come back to the House. Pre-eminently Liberal towns were sought for out of the county of Fife to be added to the boroughs he represented, so that a Tory might have some chance of displacing the hon. Member for the county, and so on all over Scotland. It seemed to him that Lord Salisbury had secretly offered a premium for the best essay on redistribution jugglery, so as to gain political advantage, and that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs had won the prize. That just showed the wisdom of not cumbering this Bill with any scheme of redistribution. The country wished to have no redistribution scheme before it till the Legislature had done justice by the Franchise Bill to those who were now suffering manifest injustice. There ought to be no opposition on the part of just men to such a proposal as that before the House, and he gave it cordial and unqualified support. He made no secret of his belief that the Democracy of this country needed strengthening and invigorating. They wanted a more resolute Democracy to demand from this House a more adequate and businesslike concern for the many social ques- tions that demanded attention. He wished to see this Assembly purged of its Bridports and Knaresboroughs and Eyes, which were such an obstacle to the diligent and successful discharge of its duties and obligations.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE,

as the Representative of an agricultural constituency (South Wilts), claimed the right to offer a few words on this question. He denied that there was no precedent, as laid down by the Prime Minister, for introducing a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill at the same time. The speeches delivered in support of the Bill were, as far as he could see, entirely based upon the assumption that a vote was an individual right, and that the extension of the franchise was a necessity, without regard to its influence on the good of the Empire, and on the Constitution at large. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government bad sketched a plan of redistribution; but it was not by any means certain that he would be in the House next year in order to propose his scheme. Could they not foresee the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman enjoying his otium cum dignitate on the- cushioned Benches of "another place?" And then there were other circumstances which might possibly prevent a Redistribution Bill from passing next Session. There was a Coercion Bill to be renewed for Ireland, and that they all knew was a matter which would take up a great deal of the time of the House. In any case, he (Viscount Folkestone) was of opinion that the Bill was not wanted by the people generally. The Prime Minister had said that the addition of capable citizens to the constituency was a good thing. But if regard were had to capability, he feared that the Bill would be a measure of disfranchisement rather than of enfranchisement; although, no doubt, many were at present without the vote who were capable of making a good use of it. A valuable test was lost when voters were allowed to affix a cross to the name of the candidate instead of signing their own name. If they were to carry out to its logical conclusion the principles of the Ballot, Members of that House would vote by Ballot, in which case the fate of that Bill would probably be very different from what it would be in present circumstances. But if the present voters were so capable, as it was claimed they were by the Liberal Party, what was the necessity for the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act? The passing of that Act convicted the Party opposite of insincerity. The President of the Board of Trade had gone out of his way to attack the landlords of this country, and said that they had robbed the poor of their land, and that there was not a lane in the country which could not tell of landlord encroachment. When he heard that speech he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind a certain lane in Flintshire where the right hon. Gentleman his Chief had planted a number of trees to improve the view from his mansion. But that could not be so, because the magistrates had ordered that the trees should be cut down. It was not true that the landlords oppressed their tenantry. An American friend of his, who came to this country full of that idea, determined to investigate the matter himself, and had told him that he was surprised at the care with which the landlords consulted the interests of the tenants, and that they did so far more effectually than any legislation could do. Certainly, there were not among agricultural labourers the constant strikes which occurred in the manufacturing districts. He had personally no objection to household suffrage in the counties; but he objected to giving the proverbial blank cheque to Her Majesty's Government. In 1878, when the present Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in his Resolution in favour of the county franchise, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War insisted on the necessity of dealing with the question as a whole. The Postmaster General also, during the Recess, had said that the notion that the extension of the franchise and redistribution of seats should not both be taken up at the same time was preposterous. He was not, therefore, disposed to leave the question in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen who could so easily be induced to alter their opinions on questions of such vital importance. The Conservative Party were right in bringing forward that Amendment, which he should heartily support.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that he could understand the measure being opposed by those who preferred an absolute Monarchy or an Oligarchy to a Constitutional or popular Government. From the murder of Charles I. down to the passing of the Ballot Act, the Government of this country had really been an Oligarchy. Theoretically speaking, the British Constitution deserved all the praises which had been bestowed upon it; but in practice it was an Oligarchy, which worked extremely well for the interests of those who were the exclusive depositories of power. The few who were voters voted according to order, while the vast majority—the nonelectors—had the privilege of cheering and getting drunk. A Reform Bill was essentially a Party measure. It was the very principle which divided Parties in that House. They—the Liberals—existed as a Party for the defence and extension of popular rights in order to confer political power upon their countrymen, and in order to admit them to a share in the management of public affairs. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were bound to resist the extension of popular rights, to keep political power from the people, and it was a common desire to do this which alone kept them together. He was quite aware that they were able to assign reasons in defence of their conduct; but it was sufficient to say that those reasons were regarded by the masses as untenable, sophistical, and delusive. He contended that Liberal Members sat on the Ministerial side of the House in virtue of the belief which prevailed among the masses that they sympathized with their general and all-absorbing idea—the attainment of political power. It was the universal prevalence of that desire which united the people in their support. If that desire were gratified, the people might break up into various sections; but at present they were united in the pursuit of a common object. It might be said truly of the Liberal Party that on all occasions they relied on popular support. This Bill, no doubt, placed hon. Gentlemen opposite in a position of unusual difficulty, because it was so simple that the modern tactics of the Tory Party were useless. The Leader of the Opposition had a habit of getting up and saying that they were prepared to accept the principle of a popular measure; but that they reserved to themselves the right of amending it in Committee. That was to say, they reserved to themselves the right of destroying the Bill in Com- mittee. The extension of the franchise was so simple a matter that there was no room for the exercise of their destructive ingenuity. The nature of the Bill was such that the answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite should be "Yes" or "No." They had, however, declined to answer, and had brought forward an Amendment which furnished what appeared to be their reason for taking the course which they were pursuing. He noticed that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his introductory speech, laid great stress upon the simplicity of the Bill, and he had observed that its possession of this merit had been generally recognized by the Press. It was also most satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman held out not the slightest encouragement to the vagaries of the "fancy franchise" gentlemen. There was a great wail over what was to be the condition of the minority in the future, and an appeal would be made to them to adopt the principle of proportional representation. He had never been able to get anyone to explain proportional representation in a manner to reconcile his advocacy of it with his duty as a Liberal. It was on behalf of the minority that they were asked to adopt that innovation. Who were the minority? He would take his own district. There the minority consisted of those who were opposed to the Church Act, to the Land Act, and to the extension of the franchise—that was, to this Bill. There were not a few who were in favour of the re-enactment of the penal laws. Was it possible that they were to be asked to supply such minorities with Members? He said Members, because minorities of that kind existed in every constituency in England as well as in the county of Kerry. Was legislation to be strangled by giving additional representation in that House to exploded views, and to anathematized opinions? The proposition was so monstrous that it deserved to be scouted by everyone who had at heart the political enfranchisement of the people and the general welfare of the country. The Government had been exposed to some adverse comments because of their determination not to reduce the number of Irish Representatives. He could not, without dismay, contemplate the possibility of the Government receding from their resolution in that matter. If the Government gave way, it would strengthen the very prevalent idea that there was a fatality attending all the attempts of that House to legislate for Ireland; and that, no matter how good a measure might be in itself, there was always certain to be coupled with it something bad and; distasteful to popular feeling. The consequence was that people remembered mainly what was bad in a measure. It was difficult not to recall what occurred at the time of Emancipation. The great merit of Emancipation—its political value—consisted not in the re-admission of the Catholics to seats in Parliament, but in its enabling Ireland to choose Representatives from amongst men whose political sympathies were in accord with those of the majority of their country-men. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel saw that the effect of this would be to enable O'Connell to get together a Party of 70 or 80 Repealers; and, consequently, the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders was coupled with Emancipation and a constituency created completely under the control of a small class. Now, when the Government was going to vastly increase the Irish constituency, hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to clip the Irish representation. The contemplated reduction, at the very most, could not exceed 10 or 11; and, putting it at even a higher figure, it would have scarcely any appreciable effect on the proceedings of that House. The question of repeal did not depend in any way on the presence there of 25 or 30 Members more or less; the effect of the reduction would be simply to give Ireland an additional grievance. It would not do to push too far the argument that Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. After all, Ireland was Ireland, as England was England, and required consideration in no way more than for her national pride. The Liberal Party had made up their minds that England and Ireland should be treated alike on this question; and he felt confident that the wise and patriotic course laid down by the Prime Minister would be followed, and that there would be no spoiling of a just, a great, and a necessary measure by a curtailment of Ireland's Parliamentary strength.

VISCOUNT NEWPORT

said, he did not believe that there was any strong feeling in the country in favour of the reduction of the franchise. Sitting for a great constituency (North Shropshire), which contained a large agricultural element, he could say with truth that he had never received the smallest intimation from any one of his constituents that he ought to vote for a reduction of the suffrage. He denied that the President of the Board of Trade, or the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), or the Conference at Leeds, had succeeded in stirring up any real feeling or general enthusiasm in favour of this measure. The fact was that the class which the Bill was particularly intended to enfranchise did not care one bit about it. It would be admitted, even by hon. Members opposite, that during these last years of agricultural depression, when landowners and farmers had been struggling with overwhelming difficulties, the agricultural labourer had been free from, distress. Prices had been low, but wages had not fallen; and his belief was that the agricultural labourer was satisfied with things as they were. But if people went to an agricultural labourer and asked him whether he wished to have a vote it was not in human nature that he should say no. He asked himself, therefore, these two questions. Would the extension of the suffrage be for the good of the community; and, if so, was this the proper moment to introduce a measure for that purpose? To these questions he answered, unhesitatingly, no. Why should the county and the borough franchise be assimilated? From time immemorial the contrary had been the case; and the practice of the Constitution was that there should be a different suffrage for Knights of the Shire and for Members for boroughs. He could not see the advantage of bringing both down to one level. Nor was it desirable that the whole political power of the country should be thrown into the hands of one class. His idea was that all classes should have their due share of political power. By this Bill they would practically disfranchise culture and property, and owners and occupiers of land would have no power except through the labourers. He thought that any change which might be made ought to take the direction of redistribution, and not of lowering the franchise; and in that way what was called "the one side of the street" argument would be met. Did anyone suppose that this Bill would effect any final settlement of this question? He was a Member of the House when the last Reform Bill was passed; and one of the considerations which induced him to support it was that he heard from all sides, even from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Bill would place the franchise on a permanent basis. He was an older and wiser man now; and if he had learnt nothing else he had, at least, learnt this—that there was no such thing as finality in Reform. Since he had been in Parliament there had been nothing but peddling with and patching the representation of the people. They had had the Reform Act, the Ballot Act, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, and the President of the Board of Trade had frankly told them that he considered the Bill before the House only an instalment of still greater change. Surely it would be wiser to pause in order to see how these changes worked before proceeding further. On other grounds, too, he could not imagine a more inopportune moment for introducing such a measure. The state of Ireland alone ought to be sufficient to show that. It would be the height of folly to make any change of this kind in England without extending it to Ireland; because he thought the present unfortunate position of that country was greatly due to its having been governed by different laws from our own. But he would say, without hesitation, that it would be an act of madness to throw the entire electoral power in that country into the hands of one class, when it was impossible to keep Ireland quiet without the most stringent Coercion Act. As an Englishman, strongly approving the Union, he protested against the course which the Government proposed to take. He thought also that the present was a most ill-chosen moment for the introduction of the Bill. A question like the franchise ought to be approached from all parts of the House in a spirit of independence. At the time of the last Reform Bill the Party opposite showed their independence pretty freely; but they could not, or would not, do so now. At that time there was no Caucus, and the Liberal Party was as free as the Conservative to exercise an independent judgment. If the Prime Minister's concluding sentences when he introduced the measure meant anything, they meant that the Party opposite were to acquiesce in this undesired and undesirable Bill whether they approved it or not. The country, he felt satisfied, would not tolerate much longer that the independence of the constituencies should be sacrificed at the bidding of the organization managed by Mr. Schnadhorst. The result of the Brighton Election confirmed him in that belief. The country ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the Bill before it was passed, and for that reason he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners).

MR. BURT

regarded the Bill as a moderate and just measure of Reform, introduced in the interests of a large number of capable citizens in the country. He believed it had been received with complete satisfaction throughout the country, and there was in all parts a very strong desire that the House should, without unnecessary delay, pass the Bill into law. They had heard very little direct opposition to the Bill. Why? Did hon. Members believe that the present franchise was satisfactory, and could be maintained? Did they believe that if the present measure was rejected and the country was thoroughly aroused, anything more moderate than the present Bill would be accepted by the country? Did they not know that all the fancy franchises, all the faggot votes would be swept away, and the country be brought so much nearer universal suffrage if this Bill were not accepted? He had been glad to notice that in the course of the debate there had been very little said that could be regarded as offensive to the unenfranchised portion of his countrymen. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) made some strong remarks; but he appeared very speedily to come to a penitent frame of mind, and, therefore, it was not necessary to say more on the subject. He had noticed, however, that several Members on the opposite side of the House endeavoured to institute a contrast between the citizens in the boroughs and the agricultural labourers. They asserted that while the present voters in the boroughs had all the advantages of the political education and combination which they derived from Trades Unions and Friendly Societies, the agricultural labourers bad not those advantages. He was glad that hon. Members recognized the educational advantages of Trades Unions; but the argument was not a valid one, because the agricultural labourers and others outside the present borough boundaries had in recent years all those advantages that the voters in the towns possessed. At one time or another, more than 150,000 agricultural labourers had been connected with Trades Unions; and at the present time one Trades Union alone paid £2,000 a-year in support of its sick members, and to that extent relieved the rates. In Durham and Northumberland there were about 87,000 miners, and of these about 50,000 were connected with Trades Unions, and the great bulk of those men were in the counties, and had no votes at the present time. A great deal had been said to the effect that there was no desire on the part of the working men who lived in the counties to have votes. His own experience, however, altogether contradicted that supposition. One of the most extraordinary meetings which he had ever seen in support of the proposal to extend the franchise was a meeting presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), at which between 2,000 and 3,000 agricultural delegates and labourers assembled to declare their desire for the extension of the franchise. The meeting cost no less than £3,000, the whole of which sum was contributed, not by any political organization or Caucus, but by the agricultural labourers themselves in their own villages. The miners wished earnestly for the franchise. There were 550,000 of them in the country, and at present very few possessed the right to vote. He had attended meetings in all parts of the country, the numbers of those attending varying from 5,000 to 50,000 and 60,000, and at all of them Resolutions were passed unanimously in favour of the extension of the franchise. Last week there were no fewer than 50 meetings held in the county of Northumberland alone, at which Resolutions were passed in favour of the present Bill. In Durham and Northumberland there were Associations of long standing, formed for the purpose of promoting such measures as the present. He himself had received in the last few days more Resolutions bearing on this subject from his constituents and others in the North of England than he had received on any other subject since he had had the honour of a seat in the House. In fact, one could not attend a political meeting in the North of England where a reference to the extension of the franchise would not be received with as much enthusiasm as a reference to the reform of the House of Lords itself. How much excitement did hon. Members opposite want to see in order to be convinced of the demand for electoral reform? He wished they would explain to what extent they wished the people to agitate. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph, Churchill), who was always outspoken, had told them exactly what would satisfy him—that if the agricultural labourers were to meet in vast numbers, to neglect their work, to march upon London and pull down the Park railings and necessitate the calling out of the police and the military, the noble Lord would be satisfied that they wanted the vote and know how to use it. Was that the new qualification which the Tory Party wished to insist upon? The noble Lord could have but a very poor idea of the labourers' adjustment of means to ends if he thought that they would be satisfied to march to London simply to pull down the Park railings. It was possible that suggestions such as this one of the noble Lord might provoke a spirit that could not be controlled. He believed that the working people were too wise and too conscious of their power to resort to any such methods in furtherance of their desire; but it was, nevertheless, dangerous to tell them that such methods as those described by the noble Lord would constitute the only argument which would convince the House that they were in earnest. Was it at all desirable that there should be excitement on this subject? If such excitement existed, would not that be advanced as an argument why the franchise should not be extended? Mr. Disraeli, in 1874, said— When a class is in a state of excitement—whatever may be the cause, however just it may be—when there exist a variety of circumstances, hopeful I trust for their eventual benefit, but not conducive to calm reflection and cool judgment—I do not think there is a primâ facie case for suddenly advancing them to and investing them with the franchise."—(3 Hansard, [219] 253.) That very argument had been adduced in the present debate. The noble Lord who had just spoken had advanced as an argument against the Bill that Ireland was in too excited a condition. It therefore came to this—England was too quiet; Ireland was too excited; they must wait until England was revolutionary and Ireland contented. A great deal had been said about redistribution, which all admitted to be necessary in consequence of the great anomalies and irregularities which existed. Hon. Members opposite were prepared, however, to maintain these anomalies. ["No, no!"] Well, at all events, they wanted redistribution at the same time as the extension of the franchise. When hon. Members became favourable to Reform, they were so impetuous and so extreme that it was hardly possible to satisfy their voracious appetite. He knew that a great number of Members were anxious to address the House, and he did not wish to detain it. All he had to say was that he hoped that the House would pass the Bill by a decisive and triumphant majority. As to the action of the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury had spoken of an appeal to the people. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that sentiment. Those were strange words from such lips. What Lord Salisbury meant was, not an appeal to the people, but an appeal to the present electors; that was, to ask the present voters whether those who had not votes wanted them and ought to have them. Even of an appeal of that kind he (Mr. Burt) was not at all afraid. He could trust the people; and though it was proverbially hazardous to prophesy, this much he ventured to predict—the Bill might be delayed; it could not be defeated; and whatever might follow the rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords, such rejection would not add either to the reputation or to the power of that great historic Assembly.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be very doubtful, after he had stated that a large number of miners and others in the North of England were anxious that the franchise should be extended to their neighbours who had not got it, of the propriety of appealing to the present constituencies, as he was not quite sure what their verdict might be. They were anxious to appeal to the present constituencies, who, it was said, were so desirous that the franchise should be extended, to hear what they would say when an election took place. He did not mean to say there were not many agricultural labourers fit to have the franchise; but when it was deemed so light a matter that 1,300,000 should be enfranchised in England, 200,000 in Scotland, and 400,000 in Ireland—as stated by the Prime Minister, but he believed it would be found to be nearer 500,000—they had a right, to ask themselves whether this great change was for the benefit and interest of the country. The Prime Minister, speaking with regard to the constitution of the House, asked whether it had not been improved by the Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867, and whether it was not better qualified to deal with the legislative exigencies of the nation? That was a question he should like to put to the House. It had not been discussed during the course of the debate. He would like to ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite why they had called the House together in the autumn of 1882 to pass all those Rules, and stop that Obstruction which they said existed? Surely, they then thought the House had deteriorated, or they would never have come forward with those Resolutions. Then, again, why were there such a number of Questions put in the House now? The constituencies were not satisfied unless their Members took some active part in the Business of the House; and if they were not able to speak they thought that asking Questions would bring them prominently before their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had asked what would be the effect on the Members of the House if the franchise was extended; and if the working classes combined upon something which was not for the interest of the country? Such a question, coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, was worthy of consideration. There had been a large accession of Members of a particular view from Ireland; and had not that had an effect on the debate—had it not had an effect on the occupants of the Treasury Bench? Was it not said by the Prime Minister and by the present Lord Chancellor in 1870 that nothing would induce them to deviate one hair's breadth from the Irish Act of 1870, and that fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale could never be given? Did not the noble and learned Lord say that if rents were reduced and free sale given it would be a breach of the Act of Parliament which constituted the title of so many to the land they held? But the exigencies of Party were such that, in order to obtain the Irish vote, the Government passed the Land Act of 1881, in spite of all they had said in 1870. We had to look to the danger to which men in power were exposed when they had the opportunity of gaining votes on one side or the other by deviating from what they had formerly said. It was not done prior to the Act of 1867; but it was now done in a way which almost amounted to a crime. The Act of 1867 conferred a household and rating franchise; that was done away with by the Poor Rate Assessment Act of 1869; but two wrongs did not make a right. He would venture boldly to say no man ought to have the franchise who did not personally pay his rates. This was a question that ought to be, and he hoped would be, seriously dealt with in Committee, if the Bill ever reached that stage, for it was one upon which the construction of the County Government Bill would rest hereafter. A man might be the owner of 4,000 acres, and have on the estate 20 tenants and 100 cottages for 100 labourers who would be enfranchised, even although the landlord had compounded for and paid all the rates. The vote would be given to these men, although they paid nothing to the rates; and certainly that was not the way in which the vote ought to be given. If the vote was worth having, it was worth making a sacrifice for. If a man thought it was worth having, he ought to pay his rates. With regard to the service franchise, he objected to it, because it took away all condition of a man paying his rate, for it said a man might pay nothing to the rates, and yet he should have a vote. They were told they were to have a County Government Bill immediately following the Franchise Bill. At the present time they had a graduated scale of rating according to property; but now, if they gave a man a Parliamentary vote, he paying no rates whatever, when they came to the County Government Bill, was this same man to have a vote in the distribution of money to which he had not contributed a farthing? That was a point likely to cause much discussion. Then, with regard to Ireland, if he had no other reason to object to the Bill he should object to its extension to Ireland at that moment. He wanted to ask the House, were they prepared to hand over the Government of Ireland, in a particular sense, to those men who professed openly that their only view was separation from this country? That was what they were proposing to do; and at some future day it would not be by such mild means as this extension of the franchise. Could they have confidence in the Government that if the Redistribution Bill was not produced now they would hereafter do what was right and just in the interests of the country? A good deal had been said about setting class against class. If there was an incitement to conflict between class and class it was given by the President of the Board of Trade, when he charged the landowners with robbery, and said the poor had been robbed of endowments. But the other night, when an attempt was made to restore one of these endowments to the poor, the right hon. Gentleman was absent, and the effort was resisted on behalf of the Education Department, whose policy made the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) one of the chief robbers. It was a Liberal Government that passed the Act under which this robbery was carried on. The Prime Minister suggested taking away Members from the loyal South of England to give to Ireland a representation to which she was not entitled. Now, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who had something to say on this Bill, would he vote for the Bill if Ireland was to be dealt with in that way? Then, also, they had to say what was to be done about proportional representation; and he advised those who wanted it not to lose their grasp of this Bill now. They wanted the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. The measure without redistribution was incomplete; and it was because he thought that it was essential that redistribution should go with any extension of the franchise that he should give his most hearty and cordial vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners).

MR. GOSCHEN

If on the first reading of this Bill I had said, what some hon. Members seem to have thought I said, that I should support this Bill, I should have scrupled to trouble the House a second time on this question. What I did say was that the action I might think it my duty to take in regard to this Bill would be determined by the language which might be uttered by Ministers in the course of these debates with regard to some questions which appeared to me to be vital and inseparable from the business which we have in hand. That being so, I should wish, before the Division takes place, to be allowed to explain to the House what impression the utterances of Ministers and other Members of the House have made upon me. No man likes his own vote to be misunderstood; and I trust the House will pardon me if I recall what I stated to them on a former occasion. I then strenuously contended that the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 additional voters below the £12 line ought to be accompanied by some precautions which would insure a hearing to minorities, and the protection of other classes of the community. I said— I do wish, in the course of these debates, to know what is in the mind of the Cabinet—what is the tendency of the Cabinet with regard to such vital questions as to how minorities are in future to be heard, and how they propose to prevent the total disfranchisement of the loyal classes in Ireland? I proceeded— If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had been the last word, if there were no other hope to be given to us that Her Majesty's Government would face the problems which I have endeavoured imperfectly to put before the House, I confess that I should feel it my duty to oppose this Bill at every stage. If, on the other hand, I can see in the declarations to be made in the course of these debates by my right hon. Friend himself and his Colleagues that they intend to grapple with these difficulties, and that if there is a Dissolution — a contingency which we cannot put out of sight—before they can carry their Redistribution Bill, they will place before the country a moderate programme in accordance with that which has been sketched out by the Prime Minister, then I can conceive that one might support this Bill."—(3 Hansard, [285] 429.) With regard to the moderate program me of redistribution, I have every confidence it will be placed before us; but I ask any hon. Member of this House whether, in the course of their speeches, Ministers have to any extent faced the problem which seems to me to be so vital and inseparable from the business we have now in hand—namely, whether the Government have any intention of keeping in view the great principle of the protection of minorities? If they hold that principle, at all events they have not disclosed it; but I am inclined to think they do not assent to it, and in that course they will be supported by many hon. Members who sit around me. They do not assent to the principle; and, consequently, what is the position? If there are no declarations from the Government, in the presence of the silence of the Government, what are the chances that any such securities will be obtained? Shall we obtain them in the present Parliament? Contrary to the view of the Prime Minister, I believe—I am sorry I must believe it—that the chances of the Redistribution Bill passing next year are not so favourable as my right hon. Friend supposes; and if the House permits me, I will advance one or two considerations in favour of this view. If the chances are against a Redistribution Bill being passed in the course of next year, what will be the chance for the principle of the protection of minorities, if it should be heard in a Parliament elected on the new franchise? [cheers.] An Election on the new franchise, as I can conclusively prove, will immensely add to the strength of the urban democracy—[Cheers]—which, even without this reinforcement, as we can tell by the cheers we have just heard, will be opposed to any precautions which would weaken the force of solid majorities. If the Cabinet had declared in favour of the principle of protecting minorities, then there would be some chance that a programme would be put forward at the next Election embodying that principle, and that Members would be returned to oppose or support it. But in the absence of any declarations on that subject, it is, I am afraid, hopeless to expect that a Parliament elected upon the new franchise would be in favour of the principles to which I attach so much importance. Those, therefore, who deem these securities indispensable if the franchise is to be extended, cannot, desire to leave the decision to the new Parliament; and I, for my part, see my way clearly—it is, I regret to say, my duty to vote against this Bill. Now, I would entreat my hon. Friends on this side of the House to believe me when I say that I do see a close and intimate connection between these two portions of the great measure of Reform. I quite understand the view they take—that enfranchisement may proceed without redistribution; but I wish them, on their side, to understand the ground on which many of us attach so much importance to certain elements in the redistribution scheme. If we see that the chances of their being duly considered diminish, if not dealt with in the present Parliament, though you disagree with us, at all events you cannot say our belief is irrelevant to the Bill in hand. I have heard some of my hon. Friends say in the course of this debate—"Let us deal with the question as it arises;" but some of us think that when the question arises it will be too late; and that after we have enfranchised the 2,000,000 of voters without any securities, we should never get the securities which we now wish to take. Now I think my hon. Friends should see that there is some force in this plea for tying the two Bills together; or if not for tying the two Bills together—for I have not contended for that—that we should know that when we proceed to redistribution we shall have the assistance of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the points I have indicated. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, in his clear and able speech, has said that if he thought redistribution was to be conducted in such a way as to lead to equal electoral districts he should not support the Bill. That, at all events, shows that in the opinion of the noble Marquess redistribution does hang together with this Bill, and the noble Marquess was exceedingly candid on that point. He said that there was reason in this demand, and that we were entitled to know the general plan of the Government with regard to redistribution. But I can quite understand that hon. Members who are prepared to admit to the franchise 2,000,000 of voters without looking to the right or to the left, without considering any of the consequence of such a measure, and who consider that the best and most ideal test of Representative Government is the number of those who go to the poll—I can quite understand that they would not hold my view, but would be content to leave the decision of this question to a Parliament in which they would be largely reinforced by those who hold the same views as themselves. But surely the position is a different one in the case of Members who do not hold this view. I hope, at all events, that hon Members see that, to my mind, there is an intimate connection between the two subjects, and that it is not a mere crotchet that induces me to take the course I do. But hon. Members will, perhaps, think that I am wrong, not only in saying that we have no securities in this measure, but also in saying that securities are necessary at all. They will say that I have made admissions with regard to the qualifications of the working classes to enjoy the franchise, and that, therefore, they cannot understand why I should take the line which I feel myself compelled to take. I have been reprimanded by several hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) said that it was lamentable that I should have had to make the admission which I have made. But I think that in the present great complexity of political forces it is possible that one may occasionally hold opinions that require to be modified by events; and I do not think that it is humiliating to admit that one has made a mistake. It would be far more humiliating to act as if one were not converted when one is converted. I will put it to the generosity of the hon. Member for Stoke. Supposing that on entering this House he had had the idea that the various sections in the House had not got that same desire to promote the interests of the working classes which he himself has, and that when he was here he had found that, contrary to his expectations, there was a great tendency and a great desire to assist in this work. Would the hon. Member not go before his Trade Union and say to them—"We have been mistaken as to the ideas of the other classes of the community, and I come here to admit it?" I trust we shall all be candid both in acknowledging criticisms and when we change our views. I am bound to say that no single Member has grappled with my other point—namely, the power of resistance of this House. The Prime Minister in his speech, to-night pointed to what had happened since 1867. The Prime Minister said that Parliament had greatly improved, and that there was now more comprehension of the wants of the people than there had ever been before. Hon. Members say—"Why not then go further, and enfranchise 2,000,000 more? That is true in one sense; but I would venture to ask the Prime Minister whether there have not been gigantic changes in the last 10 or 15 years? If Parliament has improved in some senses, are there not totally different views prevailing on political questions, some of which might be dangerous to the State? In this House do we not take a totally different view on many questions from that which we took 10 years ago? Do we not see that Democracy at every turn is clutching the arm of the Executive power? Do we not see that it is influencing our actions in our Indian Empire, and testing our hold on subject races? We see it in the relation of Members to their constituents. [Cheers] Those cheers come from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; they are Democrats, and they know that the measure the House is going to pass is calculated to strengthen the hands of the Democrats. We are perfectly agreed as to its effect; but there is this great difference between us—that what is their hope is my fear. I will illustrate what I mean by reference to hon. Members below the Gangway, if I may do so without impertinence. I admire the great public spirit with which they throw themselves into the consideration of public questions, and I believe there is no body of men more animated by public spirit; but I should not like to see these hon. Members in a vast majority in this House. That precisely illustrates my feeling with regard to this question of enfranchisement. I would gladly see the enfranchisement of large additional numbers; but I do not want to see the preponderating power given to a particular class. It is said that this is distrust of the people. That is not so, because the people do not consist of one class of the community; there are various classes and various interests; and I do not see that there is any class which is not more or less open to criticism with regard to its attitude on matters affecting its own special interests. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in his speech said—"Why bring up this question of classes?" But in this debate the selfishness of the present depositories of political power has been commented on upon several occasions; and what we are asked to believe is this—that all the classes now entitled to the franchise are more or less animated by selfish interests; but that there is one class below the £12 line which will be totally different from all the other classes. I say that that is a little too much. Either let us believe that all classes are liable to the foibles and infirmities of political human nature, or let us believe that they are all superior to them. Do not let us draw the line just, at the £12 household franchise in the counties, and believe that all those below that line will be virtuous, while those above it are systematically content, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would say, to connive at robbery. Now, Sir, we are told—and I wish to believe it—that the classes whom we are about to enfranchise will be under the good influence of other classes; and we have been repeatedly told, and, among others, by the Prime Minister in his speech tonight, that these classes—the agricultural labourers, for instance—would be under the influence of those Conservative forces—the squire, the parson, and so on. But if we are told that we should look to the influence of other classes upon the new voters for political stability, let us, at all events, be assured that language is held to them which will increase their respect for the classes above them. And it would be—and, in fact, is—very inconsistent that, at a moment when we are told to rely upon such influences, a Member of the Government should tell us—and not only us, but, through us, the classes that are to be enfranchised—that this House has not only been indifferent to their interests and to the redress of their grievances, but that it actually connives at robbery. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said that the President of the Board of Trade was made the lightning conductor in these debates. Now, I can assure my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) that it is from no personal antagonism that I allude to him now or on other occasions; but he seems sometimes to invite separate criticism by separate utterances; and we sometimes think that he wishes us to forget that he is a Member of the present Cabinet, because he wishes us to remember that he is, at the same time, the vigorous, determined, and unflinching Leader of the advanced section of the Liberal Party, both in and out of this House. And. therefore, we are compelled in our political utterances—I hope without any personal offence—to allude more to his speeches than to the speeches of any other Members of the Cabinet. I venture to put this to the House. If my right hon. Friend holds such language now, when he is himself a Member of Her Majesty's Government, when the Government is presided over by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, and when the Liberal Party are in a majority, what would be likely to be the language that would be held if it should be a Conservative Government and a different majority which were guiding the affairs of this country? I point to this because I wish to indicate that there is a vital distinction between two sets of speeches which have been made in this House with regard to the admission of these 2,000,000 voters to the franchise. There are many Members who have supported this Bill simply from a desire to enfranchise a large additional number, who have spoken of it simply from the point of view of justice, and in the belief that they would strengthen the Constitution by passing it; and it is in that spirit that we have been addressed to-night by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But there are other Members who tell us plainly that they desire to promote this enfranchisement, not simply from the point of view of the voters themselves, but in order to strengthen the position which they themselves occupy, and to promote those political objects which they, most conscientiously, have at heart. We have been told that we have but to await the advent to power of those 2,000,000, in addition to those already within the pale of the Constitution, to quicken the pace at which we are now going. These persons wish to heap further coals upon the fire, in order that democratic progress may proceed still faster. Such was the tone of the speeches of the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Motley) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). And it is not only in this House, but out of it, that we have indications, that it is not only a question of admitting these voters for the sake of their own position, but that it is to be done in order to strengthen the democratic movement in this country. And from their point of view those hon. Members are perfectly consistent. I certainly shall not, at this hour of the night, put history into the witness-box in regard to this question, because we all know that in these days any allusion to what has passed in other countries is considered most irrelevant to our circumstances. I will not put into the witness-box any of those who have thought deeply on these subjects, because we all know that such witnesses are now brow-beaten. The men who are put into the witness-box are hon. Members who sit in this House—men of the Leeds Conference—men of the autumn campaign, Representatives of the very class which is to be enfranchised; and from their own mouths we hear for what purpose they wish 2,000,000 additional electors to be brought within the pale of the Constitution, and why they would wish for no checks and no restraints. And, meanwhile, other hon. Members rush, with that language in their ears, to throw themselves into the arms of the masses; while hon. Members representing advanced opinions laugh a quiet, but a very triumphant laugh in their sleeve. I think I have shown why I consider that the course of this debate proves that we require securities. But I am told that what I propose is to take away with one hand that which we give with the other. That is not so. It would be true, if we were first to enfranchise, and then, some time afterwards, we were to ask the new voters to give back a portion of their power. But it is not true, if in one and the same measure we take these securities at the time the enfranchisement passes, and as the condition of enfranchisement. The challenge has been thrown out to me and others who think with me—"You have not shown what are the securities that you want, nor said a word about the particular form of representation of minorities that you expect." Well, Sir, my answer to that is, that it is very ingenuous for hon. Members to ask us to tell them what these securities are, while they support the Government in refusing to disclose what their scheme of redistribution is. The securities I wish for would depend, to a great extent, on the Redistribution Bill of the Government. We are to remove anomalies; anomalies are varieties; and varieties often are the protection of minorities; and in proportion as the scheme of the Government does away with anomalies and places electoral power in the hands of large aggregates of population, in that proportion it will be necessary to take the securities to which I have alluded. I certainly should not contemplate any general system of cumulative voting, nor that it should be applied to the whole country. In satisfying the demands of new centres of voting and counties which will have reinforcements of voters, the more you can meet them on the old lines the better; but where you pass the old lines the protection of minorities becomes indispensable. Then I would not propose any separate system for Ireland; but the same system of minority voting, whatever it is, that is applied to England should be applied to Ireland. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade ridicules the three-cornered constituencies. I myself was never enamoured of them; but sooner than have no protection to minorities I should prefer that such a security should be retained, and I should not deem it impossible to extend that system in a certain degree to Ireland. How far, then, has the Government endeavoured to meet this point? With regard to the general, simple scheme of redistribution of seats, the Government proposal seems to be moderate; but not a single sentence has fallen from them showing that they have the slightest desire to provide protection for minorities in any way; and that reminds me of a phrase which I regretted to hear from the Secretary of State for War with respect to the representation of minorities in Ireland. He suggested that they would be adequately represented by the majority in England and Scotland. Now, I cannot admit for a moment that the loyal minority in Ireland would be represented in any such way; because, what we must desire is to see present in this House, not only the Party of Separation, but, in proportion to their population, the Loyal Party in Ireland. We have been taunted, in the course of these debates, as if we had proposed to apply the population test to Ireland in opposition to the plan of the Government, or to that of the Prime Minister, who suggested that Ireland should retain her present number of Members. The population test has not been put forward as the only possible standard to determine what Ireland should have, but as the standard most favourable to Ireland—as a kind of maximum; and if you take population as a basis. Ireland will not be entitled to the full number of Members she has at present. I have heard no one suggest that it should be a population test that should be applied to Ireland; but it is a test the most favourable that can be applied; and what I object to in the Government proposal is this—that Ireland should have a guarantee that she should be treated differently to the other portions of the United Kingdom—a guarantee that, come what may, Ireland should not lose any of her Representatives. I should be prepared to say—"Let Ireland be treated like the other two countries." If you find that there are boroughs in Ireland below a certain point which are not entitled to a Member, let them be disfranchised; if there are counties and large centres of population in Ireland which are entitled to additional Members, let them receive them, precisely as in England and Scotland; but let no guarantee be given that a separate principle will be applied to Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister alluded to what was done at the time of the Union, and also in 1832; and I think, if I may be permitted to say so, he was rather hard upon the great Reformers of those days, because he puts it as if so unjust was their action to Ireland, that now we must be more than strictly just in meeting the demands of Ireland, because then she did not receive her fair share of Representatives from England. But that is because my right hon. Friend has set up the test of population. Mr. Pitt never professed to act upon population; and, therefore, he committed no crime. In 1832 the test of population was not set up; but population and taxation were taken together. For my part, I should be perfectly prepared to meet my right hon. Friend, and to say—"Let Ireland be treated precisely as she has been treated before, taking all circumstances into consideration." Such seems to me the answer to my right hon. Friend on that point. I have shown to the House that, in my view, there is little satisfaction to be obtained in the way of decla- rations with regard to the vital questions that I have mentioned from the Government. And I have to ask myself what chances are there of getting what we want from the next Session of Parliament, or, if not, from the Parliament after? My right hon. Friend believes that we shall, in the nest Session of Parliament, be able to deal with this question of redistribution. Well, I say frankly I hope that my right hon. Friend may be right; but he will have to deal with tremendous difficulties. He will have to deal with hon. Members from Ireland, who will have to submit, if I may use the phrase, to a certain transfer of power from various parts of Ireland to Ulster on account of her growing population; and I think we may anticipate a great degree of opposition which will be made to almost every proposal. Then, we have to deal with right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite—with the Conservative Party; and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said that, without their co-operation, he believed it would be exceedingly difficult to procure a satisfactory redistribution scheme. I am inclined to agree with him; and I am inclined to think that unless the two Parties lay their heads together with regard to the Redistribution Bill that it will be exceedingly difficult to pass a satisfactory Redistribution Bill in the course of the next Session. Hon. Members opposite will be wrong if they oppose a Redistribution Bill next Session; but, looking to the whole circumstances of the case, and looking to the fact that we shall have to pass, and may be invited to pass, a Prevention of Crime Bill in the course of next Session, I think he is a sanguine man who believes that we have got a good chance of passing this Bill. What, then, I proceed to ask, are the chances with regard to the protection of minorities in a Parliament elected upon the new franchise? Now, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put before us this evening the supposition that in the new counties the large majority, as I understood him, would be agricultural labourers.

MR. GLADSTONE

The majority to be enfranchised by the new Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

That is precisely what I mean—that the largest class to be enfranchised under the new Bill would be the agricultural labourers. That is true; but it is only true to a certain extent. I have looked very carefully into that matter. Let me remind the House that in the days when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary used to bring forward his Motions we were always told that the numbers were about equal—500,000 urban population and about 500,000 rural population, which would be enfranchised, putting them roughly at half and half. Now, that may be so; but then they are very variously distributed. I have looked very carefully into this matter, and I venture to submit my examination to the earnest attention of the House. I find that in 30 county constituencies out of 95 the addition to be made to the constituency from what I may call the industrial and urban element will be so great as to entirely outvote the agricultural constituents. I can refer hon. Members to industrial statistics upon these points, and many hon. Members know these facts from their own experience. The urban element will be strongly increased; and it must be so, because the boroughs will be left unchanged by this Bill, and although there are service and other franchises, they are exceedingly slight and insignificant compared with the numbers which will be otherwise introduced. Hon. Members will see that this process will go on; that a large number of urban voters residing in unrepresented towns or the suburbs of boroughs will be placed in the counties in numbers entirely out of proportion to the labourers, the landlords, and others. When I say that, I refer not only to the dwellers in towns, but to all who have affinities, political and otherwise, with what I may call the urban democracy. It is the industrial and the urban, the gregarious classes, which will be enfranchised in large numbers; and it is the wish-of hon. Members that they should be enfranchised in those large numbers. They will be enfranchised in such numbers that in 30 county cnnstituencies returning 60 Members; there will be an entire transfer of political power from an agricultural and farm class to the urban class. I have looked carefully into the matter; and it is not a question between the Conservative and the Liberal side. I hope the House will see that I have not dwelt upon any Party consideration; but it is a question between the rural and the urban element. I say, with reference to the next Parliament, to which, we refer redistribution and the protection of minorities, we shall find that it will be reinforced by 60 Members returned for county constituencies, which will have become practically urban or industrial. But I will only assume 40 votes. We know there will be a gain to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) of, at least, 10 or 15 votes; and the result will be that in this new Parliament there will be at least 50 Members, representing 100 on a Division, who will strengthen the urban Democracy, and who will have in their hands power for the purpose of the Redistribution Bill, and for the resisting of those securities for which some of us have pressed so much. I have submitted my argument to the House, and I thank it for the attention it has given to me. Many hon. Friends of mine who sit around me say—"What is the good of your individual vote or your speech against the Bill?" I believe there is no greater temptation, no more seductive influence to which we in these days ought more to close our ears than to the siren voice which says:—"Swim with the stream; let the boat glide; statecraft is no more than the clever use of the pole to keep it from the bank." That is not my view; and I believe that resistance, even if it fails on a particular point, nevertheless is not without its influence. I believe that a campaign is influenced in its results even by a hopeless resistance made on a particular point. It is said that the wish is father to the thought. I can assure the House that in my case no proverb is more untrue. I have endeavoured to persuade myself that I could vote for this Bill; but I have not been able to persuade myself. My Party seem to breathe an atmosphere of Utopia, and to feel a confidence I cannot share. But I wish this House to feel assured that if I cannot join hon. Members who will crowd through the Lobbies to carry the second reading of this Bill, that if I must sit silent while the cheers are heard which will greet the victory when the numbers are announced from the Chair, I shall none the less breathe a most fervent and earnest hope that my own misgivings, which compel my dissent, may be put to the rout by the future course of events; and that the Democracy to which the large majority of the House is content to confide the future destinies of this country may stand out in splendid contrast to the Democracy of other coun- tries, and that by its superior fairness and greater moderation it may prove that history does not always repeat itself, and that examples do not always teach a lesson. It is with feelings such as these that I am obliged most reluctantly to announce my intention of voting against this Bill.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it seemed to him that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down might more appropriately have been uttered on the first reading of the measure by the Leader of the Opposition, or some of his Colleagues. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman's skill as a debater, he confessed to some disappointment that he should not have attempted to answer the speech which was delivered that evening in favour of the measure by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He had warned them against moral cowardice and swimming with the stream; but he did not think that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman showed so much courage in not swimming with the stream. To use another metaphor, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the desperate resolve of jumping overboard, hoping that he could buffet the waves of Democracy by himself alone. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) looked upon every proposal of this kind as an effort made by a wise and far-seeing statesman to guide the ship of State over the turbid waters, and to allow it to pass along on its course into a harbour of refuge. He would sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly in not going with the stream when it was going in the wrong direction; but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman occupied the peculiar and unique position of being directly and emphatically opposed to the principle of the Bill. If there was danger to the State by this increase of political power being placed in the hands of the people, that argument would more properly have come from the Leader of the Opposition. But if the Conservative Party were afraid to raise that issue, because they knew that it could not be successfully defended on logical or Constitutional grounds, the right hon. Gentleman must admit that he was engaged in an entirely hopeless resistance. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman harped upon a few strings, one of which was the Irish Separatist Party. He supposed that no one would accuse him (Mr. O'Connor Power) of undue sympathy with the tactics of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues in that House. He would, however, emphatically deny that; what had been described as the Constitutional Home Rule Party in Ireland, which numbered amongst its ranks some of the most loyal subjects of Her Majesty in that country, was one which advocated a policy of separation. He lamented that these tactics were resorted to by, it seemed to him, every English politician who wished to make it appear that the aspirations of Ireland were inconsistent with the integrity of the Empire. It was that which had baffled English statesmen for centuries in their attempts to govern the country; and he thought it ought to be the proud ambition of the Leaders of public opinion on both sides of the Channel to endeavour to solve the difficulty satisfactorily and finally. The Separatist bogey had been thrust before them by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) no less than half-a-dozen times in the course of his speech a few nights ago. He thought no good purpose was served by such attempts to put forward this erroneous conception of Irish demands. He believed that no Member of the Party which followed the Leadership of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would make any proposal of a serious character tending towards the separation of Ireland and Great Britain; and it would be time enough for hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the maintenance of the Union and in the integrity of the Empire to raise their protests when any proposal of that kind was really brought forward. The principle of the Bill was simply that household suffrage should be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom; while the Amendment asked the House to declare that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with until the redistribution scheme of the Government was laid before Parliament. The fact, however, was that no risk whatever was run in passing this measure as it stood, because Parliament would have the power of moulding the Government redistribution scheme as it thought fit. He was sorry that the Conservative Party, who had threatened the House with a Dissolution, should so soon have forgotten the principle which had been laid down by their late illustrious Leader (the Earl of Beaconsfield), in introducing his Reform Bill of 1867, that it was not for the advantage of the country that the question of Reform should involve the fate of a Ministry. He apprehended that if they had his guidance there that day he would reproach his Colleagues and political Friends for their opposition to that Bill They were being constantly asked what was to become of the loyal minority in Ireland? For his part, he did not think that the "loyal minority" were in such danger as those hon. Gentlemen seemed to believe. They could rely upon the protection of the great loyal majority in England and Scotland; and he was satisfied that they would sustain the loyal minority in Ireland in the exercise of every one of the rights to which they were entitled. The time was, however gone when they would sustain the "loyal minority" in Ireland in the exercise of undue and exceptional privileges They had sought to govern Ireland through the agency of the loyal minority in Ireland for centuries, and in order to gratify them they had divided the nation into two classes. The privileged few were placed at the top and the people were placed at the bottom, in order that they might be trampled on by the privileged few; to the loyal minority had been handed over the government of the country. They had erected their schools, endowed their Colleges, and subsidized their churches In their interest they had disinherited the nation, degraded them, and deprived them of their civil and religious liberty On the ruins of their laws they had erected a system of class domination and territorial government in its most hateful form, and had added insult to injury by making them support an ecclesiastical ascendancy; and now, because in this age of enlightenment they were endeavouring to put an end to this nefarious policy, they were told that they were about to extinguish Constitutional liberty in Ireland. It was alleged that the Irish householders whom this Bill proposed to enfranchise ought not to be enfranchised, because of the objects which their Leaders had at heart; and the two most odious objects pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) were the destruction of landlordism and the disintegration of the Empire. He did not see how landlordism could be saved by withholding the Parliamentary vote from the people who, while still beyond the pale of the Constitution, had by methods, some of which all hon. Members deplored, contrived to attain the objects they had in view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster declared that if the Bill passed in its integrity the Irish Members would hold the balance of power and control the destinies of the Empire. Who could be so absurd as to imagine that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork came back to the House with every single Irish Member pledged to support him—with the whole 100 Members—the 560 English and Scotch Members would be so powerless and feeble that they would not be able to maintain the integrity of the Empire against the action of the hon. Member? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had given his views upon this question, and had asked, in the speech he had delivered the other night —" Why do you not wait until Ireland has quieted down?" The answer was plain. It was unreasonable to expect a state of quiet and tranquillity in Ireland so long as there remained any inequality between the peoples of the two countries. It was vain to expect it. They would have the same cycle of events, appeals for the restoration of liberty followed by agitation, agitation followed by attempts at rebellion, and attempts at rebellion followed by coercion. This would be repeated again and again, unless they took their stand once for all on the principle of Constitutional equality between the peoples of the two countries. They had been invited, at a very early stage of this discussion, to consider what action was taken by Irish and English statesmen respectively at the time of the Union in respect of the number of Members which Ireland should have in the United Parliament. He had taken the trouble to look up what passed between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Grattan. He thought it was in the very last debate which took place in the Irish Parliament on this subject. Ireland had 300 Members in the Irish Parliament, and it was enacted in the Act of Union that her representation in the United Parliament should be limited to 100. Lord Castlereagh, in referring to the subject in the last debate on the question, used these extraordinary words— It is a matter of no moment what are the number of Irish Representatives, provided that they be sufficient to state the wants, and watch over the interests, of their country. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) cheer that observation; but, surely, the hon. Member would not bind Ireland by the declaration of Lord Castlereagh. To tell him what Mr. Pitt's view of that contract was, and to tell him the opinion of Lord Castlereagh, was to interest him very much, and to present to him something for his consideration, which ought not to be treated with indifference or neglect; but, certainly, if they were to try to make Ireland content, they must satisfy themselves what the Leaders of Irish opinion in the Irish House of Commons thought about it. Mr. Grattan, in reply to Lord Castlereagh, said— In defence of his plan of Union, he tells us that the number of Irish Representatives in the British Parliament is of little consequence. This doctrine is new—namely, that between two nations the comparative influence is of no moment. He supposes 100 Irish Members will be sufficient, because he supposes any number will be sufficient. Further on, in the same speech, Mr. Grattan contended that— If Yorkshire were governed by a Lord Lieutenant, and a different code of laws, it would not be simply a part of England in the Constitutional sense, but a nation allied with England, or, if you like, a Province of Great Britain. With regard to Scotland, Mr. Grattan said— The Constitutional sympathy of England defends her, and renders the number of her Representatives less essential. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not ask hon. Gentlemen from Scotland to accept the concluding part of that quotation as a conclusive argument against their demand for increased representation; but it had been well said by the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) that though the physical distance of Ireland from Great Britain entitled her to some increased representation, in that respect her moral distance entitled her to more. It might be said that the activity of certain Irish Members in the House ought to compensate for any moral distance between Great Britain and Ireland; but he thought it ought not to compensate, for he was one of those who deplored the fact that legislation should be passed under the physical pressure of walking into the Division Lobby and obstructing the Business of the State, and who trusted that in the future they would not be tempted to rely upon any tactics of that description. Let them come a stage lower down in the history of this Reform Question as between Great Britain and Ireland—to the year 1831. The late Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, referring to a speech in which it had been urged that the Reform Bill of that day would give too great a preponderance to Ireland, and that the proportion laid down at the time of the Union should be preserved, said— For my part, I am not inclined to attach any great importance to the strict maintenance of the relative proportion between the three countries. As long as I find large, wealthy, and populous places unrepresented in any of these three countries, I care little whether they are to be found in England, Scotland, or Ireland. I thank God that there is now an United Empire. and I am for meting out the same measure of strict impartiality to all. The two hon. Members who, he said— Struggled so pertinaciously for the maintenance of the proportion of Members between the three counties; and who grudged Ireland any increase to her Representatives beyond the number given to her at the period of the Union. He cautioned— To consider well the arguments they are putting into the hands of those who are contending for a measure which I conceive would be most mischievous—those who put forward the doctrine that Ireland is not adequately represented in the House, and was, therefore, to have a domestic Legislature of her own. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) asked the attention of the House particularly to the concluding part of this quotation from the late Lord Derby. He said— If you fear to give any more Members to Ireland, why did you pass the Relief Bill; why did you grant Catholic Emancipation? And he (Mr. O'Connor Power) said that if they feared the presence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and his new accession to strength in the new Parliament; if they believed that it would be fatal to the existence of the State and the integrity of the Empire, why did they give the Irish constituencies the trouble of returning any Members at all? They could not halt half way in a policy of restriction and exclusion. They must govern Ireland on Constitutional principles, or they must govern her by force. It had been the conception of the Conservative Party that Ireland was not a nation to be governed, but was simply a military outpost, to be held by the strong arm, and to be kept down by the iron hand. If that was the opinion of hon. Members, then, he maintained, they had not the courage of their convictions—they were stopping half way, and were taking up a ground that was absolutely untenable. The Prime Minister had referred to the injustice, in regard to the number of Members, under which Ireland had laboured for so long a time, without any great disposition being manifested by the Representatives of England and Scotland to redress the wrong. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not intend to dwell on that question; but, for the purpose of showing how far the Prime Minister was justified in his reference to that part of the Reform Question, he should like to make one very brief quotation from O'Connell on the subject. O'Connell had said in 1831— One great objection to the Union is the gross partiality of the arrangement by which Ireland has only 100 Members to watch over her interests; whilst England, with only twice her population, has five times that number. Well, after all that had been said on the subject, he trusted hon. Gentlemen would have no difficulty in supporting the Bill; and that no further attempt would be made to affix the stigma of inferiority to the people of Ireland by excluding them from the scope of the measure. There were a great many right hon. and hon. Members in the House—the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), he believed, being of the number—who considered that certain persons in Ireland made a parade of their grievances in order that they might make political capital out of them. The right hon. Gentleman was one of those who believed that many of the grievances spoken of were of a purely imaginary character. Well, if they were imaginary, they were not likely to last long. It was a very illogical position for the same hon. Members to take up to say—"Because Ireland has no real grievances of which she can justly complain, we will manufacture a grievance ready to her hand; and, in the present excited state of the relations between the two countries, we will supply every leader of popular opinion in Ireland with a just ground of complaint against the people of England and Scotland." Almost every hon. Member who had addressed the House on this subject had discussed it in connection with some contemplated redistribution of seats; and upon that point he only wished to express a hope that, when the Government came to deal with the question of redistribution, they would consider worthy of their attention what was called the self-acting Reform Law in operation in the United States of America. At the close of the last century, and for some years at the beginning of this century, the number of the population each Member of Congress represented at Washington was 30,000. In 1811 the proportion was raised to one Member to 35,000; in 1822 it was one to every 40,000; in 1832 one to every 17,700; in 1842 one to every 70,680; in 1852 one to every 93,000; and almost every 10 years a similar change had been made, until now each Member of the House of Representatives represented about 145,000 people. The effect of this was obvious. They had a continually growing population; but so great was the desire of American statesmen to keep down the number of Representatives that, though the country had a population considerably larger than that of the United Kingdom, he supposed the number of Representatives at Washington was not more than half those who, at the present time, occupied seats in this House of Commons. He trusted, therefore, that when this redistribution scheme was taken in hand, Her Majesty's Government would consider that arrangement worthy of serious consideration. Well, he thoroughly endorsed every opinion expressed by the various speakers on the Ministerial side of the House in reference to the essential principle of the British Constitution. He believed its essential principle was its representative character. That was its main strength; and he believed the reason why the British Constitution had remained unshaken, whilst other systems of government had been overthrown again and again in various countries of Europe, was because it was an elastic Constitution, which tried to embody the legitimate aspirations of the people and of the community of which it formed so great a part. Regarding the Constitution of the Empire in that light, and believing that this measure was a wise and prudent one, founded upon justice and expediency, he should certainly, for one, give it his hearty and sincere support.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Earlier in the evening we had the advantage of a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He gave us, in terse language, his view of the discussion which has taken place; and he also invited us to consider certain points with regard to the measure which we are now considering. I wish, before I take notice of some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, to call attention to the exact nature of the issue which we are presently to pronounce upon. We are now discussing an Amendment moved by my noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) upon the second reading of the Bill. As hon. Members are perfectly well aware, there are two ways of dealing with a Bill which you desire to discuss and oppose. One is by moving that the Bill be read on some future day, three or six months hence; the other is by an Amendment of a distinct and argumentative character—not necessarily disposing of or rejecting the Bill, but laying down the points upon which the House is dissatisfied with it, or dissatisfied with the proposal by which it is accompanied, and requiring something else to be done. There can be no doubt, with regard to the principle of my noble Friend's Amendment, although there may be some doubt with regard to the principle of the Bill. When we come to discuss the Bill we shall see that there is reason enough for the observation of the Prime Minister, and that the debate has been, to a certain extent, languid, because of the doubt as to the issue involved in it. I think, when you come to consider the Bill, the circumstances in which it is brought forward, and the arguments by which it is supported, the House may fairly say that there is a certain amount of doubt as to what is the principle of the measure. But with regard to the principle of the Amendment I contend that there is no doubt whatever. The principle involved in that is neither more nor less than this—that an alteration of the balance of the Constitution by the introduction of so large a number of new voters as this Bill proposes to introduce is a matter of a very serious character, and is one which requires to be viewed and considered from all points; and it is impossible to pronounce upon a measure of this sort without knowing whether it is part of a larger scheme, and, if it is part of a larger scheme, what that larger scheme may be. We are told that the measure which, we have now to consider is one that the Government offer with great confidence, because it embodies a principle which they think the House cannot possibly reject, and because it is supported by arguments which they have brought forward; but when we begin to discuss these arguments and that ground, and when we begin to inquire as to some points in the position of the Government, we are met with vague and shadowy explanations, which, after all, we are told, or we are as good as told, by the Prime Minister are only meant to be shadowy and sketchy arrangements, and which, when we attempt to grapple with them, we find are constantly changing in their form. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I shall be able to prove what I have stated. At all events, I would observe that the right hon. Gentleman told us that this Bill was presented to an earnest Parliament by an earnest Ministry, and he said that that being the case it was absolutely certain that the measure must be adopted. I will not say anything about the earnestness of this Parliament—I give hon. Gentlemen on both sides credit for desiring to deal with this matter as earnestly as they can; but when I am told that the Government is in earnest, I must say that they have not produced upon me an impression of their real earnestness, because they are so vague and uncertain, and, as it seems to me, so little agreed upon the main principle of the proposals they are making, and upon the grounds on which they defend them. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as he did this afternoon, that he calls upon us to trust the people; it is a question of whether you can trust the Government. It appears to me that we have no encouragement, and no ground given to us, to warrant us in putting in the Government that trust which they require, for it is no inconsiderable matter they are asking of us. It is not a simple and insignificant transaction they are asking us to take part in; it is not a small social question, or a mere matter of detail; but this is a question of revising and altering the whole basis of your Constitution, and the whole balance of your Constitutional system. Surely, if we are in earnest we must insist—we are bound in duty to insist—upon a full explanation and consideration of all the points which are involved in so great a change. What was it the right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech at the beginning of the evening? He began by saying that there had been certain charges brought against the Government and against himself in respect of the measure that he had brought forward and the speech in which he had explained and defended it. He said the first of these objections was a want of positive argument. I do not say that there has been an absolute absence of positive argument, but there has been a great deficiency of positive argument in support of the measure, considering its great importance. We must bear this in mind. It has been said, on various occasions, in the course of this debate and elsewhere, on the one hand, that this is not a measure which has been, called for by the people, and then, on the other hand, we are rebuked for using such an argument as that, because we are told that it is as much as to say we desire to see the people goaded on to riot and disorder, for the purpose of obtaining that which they ought to obtain without such pressure. Well, I entirely agree that we ought not to wait for riot and disorder if we are convinced that a measure of this kind is desired; and that we ought to consider in what way the legitimate wishes and desires of the people can be gratified and met without injuring the Constitution. But, I may say, when you have a quiet time, as by the hypothesis and by the I confession of all you have; when there is no pressure from below, and when the change comes recommended from above; when it is proposed by a Government who has been three or four years in Office, and who, we may assume, have been carefully considering the question, who tell us it was the first task imposed upon them by their return to power, and who have had three or four years to consider the matter, being conscious of its importance, I say it was their duty to have so considered it that they should be able to present to us some strong ground for taking the step, and present to us a complete plan. What I say is, that at every turn in the argument the Amendment of my noble Friend rises up, and is a rebuke to the Government for the manner in which they are dealing with the subject. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says—"When you speak of want of positive argument we deny the charge; we say we have given you positive argument which redeems something of the pledges of the Government, and realizes something of the expectation of the people." But the point put forward in the first speech, and which has been repeated to-night, was this—that it is a matter of advantage to the State that the largest possible number of capable citizens should be admitted to the right of election. We want to know the meaning of that rather vague phrase. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "capable citizens?" and what does he mean by "the largest number that can possibly be admitted?" If "capable citizens" means all who are able to give a vote, it is obvious that there is a much larger number than you propose to include in your Bill who would answer to that description. If you mean to tell us that anybody who is not incapable, by reason of some physical or mental infirmity, or some extraordinary circumstance of position, and who is untainted with crime and anything of that sort—anyone who, in that way, is a "capable citizen," ought to have the franchise extended to him, then you ought to extend the principle very much beyond the limited number you propose to include. If you make a capable elector the test, you will find that you are bound to go very much further, and in very different directions in some respects, to what you have done in order to complete your definition. I take, for instance, the case of the female franchise. There cannot be a doubt, if you ask who are capable electors, that you would find it very difficult to declare that the females who are in a certain position as taxpayers and ratepayers, and who are electors for municipal purposes, are not capable citizens, and should not be in- cluded in the franchise. I believe, from Returns I have seen, that about one-seventh of the electors of the municipalities of the Kingdom are females; and, on the principle on which you are proceeding, you will find it difficult to say that they are not entitled to vote. You find it. I think, inconvenient to give us a definition of "capable citizens." It is an easy term to repeat, and when the Prime Minister is called upon to give us a definition, or thinks he is called upon to give us something of a definition, instead of doing so, he says—" At all events, the persons whom we propose to bring into the electoral body are capable citizens, for they belong to the same class whom you have already enfranchised in other parts of the Kingdom—those resident in the counties are just the same class as those you enfranchised in the boroughs, and enfranchised with such excellent effect." The right hon. Gentleman says—"Or, if they are not the class you have enfranchised, then they are agricultural labourers, whom you must necessarily trust as being men whose circumstances make them trustworthy—indeed, who are shown to be trustworthy by the fact that they exercise the franchise very properly in certain boroughs." Then the right hon. Gentleman, having laid down these two propositions, which, no doubt, are correct so far as they go, says—"That is a proof that the measure we are proposing is a safe measure, and that it only includes capable citizens." Well, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that in this measure he is introducing into the electorate not only those classes of agricultural labourers, artizans, and others in the English and Scotch counties, but that, according to the principle he is acting on, he is introducing into the electorate a very large number of electors of whom you cannot say the same thing that you have said of the English and Scotch electors. The right hon. Gentleman contends that the proof that the addition to the electorate is safe in England and Scotland is that we have already tested these classes of men and found them capable and good persons to trust with the franchise. He assumes, on the strength of that, that he is right in carrying the same doctrine into the whole of the United Kingdom, and so include Ireland. We are twitted, if we venture to allude to this subject, and are told that we are proposing or suggesting that this measure should be passed for England, or England and Scotland alone, and that Ireland should be excluded. We say nothing of the kind; but we want to call attention to that point, which is of such vital importance to the character of the Bill, as a proof that it is necessary that you must make your whole scheme with reference to that electoral fact, that electoral element, you are going to introduce. And here comes my noble Friend before the House with his Amendment, and says— "Before we can give you the verdict you claim we want to know your whole scheme; we want to know how you are going to deal with the questions that were raised in the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) just now—the question of the protection of the loyal minority in Ireland, and the question of the share or proportion which Ireland is to have in the Representative Body of the United Kingdom." These are questions which it is not necessary for us to pronounce an opinion on, because we want to know what you are going to propose. I say you have no right to turn on us and ask—"What is it you propose?" until you have at least done us the honour of communicating to us what it is you propose. With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I have offered what I consider to be an answer to the House. Now, with regard to other observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish also to point out the force of the Amendment of my noble Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said that the representation of classes will be far more perfect and equal under this Bill than it is at the present time—and this is one of the strongest recommendations he can offer. I want to know how he makes that out? That is a most difficult assertion to make, and it is certainly one which is not self-evident. If you have got a certain distribution of power and a certain description of the electorate, and if you suddenly throw into that body an amount of voting strength equal to two-thirds of the existing power, you certainly do not, on the face of it, make matters more equal, and I require a proof that you will do so. If we saw your measure of redistribution, we might, perhaps, find that you had so devised it as to accomplish that object. But you are entirely silent on the subject; you do not tell us anything about it; and you leave us to accept that proposition entirely on your authority. Now, that redistribution has a great deal to do with the character and the justice of your measure is a fact which requires no argument, no proof. But, if I am to appeal to any authority on the subject, I will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who, I remember, many years ago, in a very powerful speech he made in Birmingham, said that redistribution was by far the more important question of the two, and that, take what franchise you pleased, if you left redistribution to him he would undertake to produce certain results. That was the opinion of a Gentleman extremely well qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. And I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—I will not say this Session—has not said something very much to the same effect. What did he tell us the other day? He told us that in the discussions which have occurred on the different Reform Bills in the past, it has always been on the redistribution question that the great fights have taken place; and that the Divisions on that point have been in the proportion of 20 or 30 to two or three on the franchise question.

MR. GLADSTONE

That was the proportion of the length of time spent in debate.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Well, of the length of time spent in debate. It was evident, therefore, that redistribution was the more important part of the whole, and was felt to be the more important part; and now you are undertaking an easier and simpler part, and are purposely putting off the more difficult and important part to a more convenient season. By what argument do you justify such a proceeding? The right hon. Gentleman used to-night a most extraordinary argument as a defence of what he is doing. He said—"If we had undertaken to deal with the whole question, including redistribution, this Session, we should have had time for nothing else." Why, what could be more important? What could be more proper than that you should give up everything else, if required? Are we to be put off from dealing with this great question in what is, I think, admittedly, the best manner? ["No, no!"] [Mr. GLADSTONE: the worst manner."] The best manner is to bring the whole of the matter before the House of Commons at the same time. You have got your plan ready. It is not necessary, if you find it impossible to do it, that you should put it all into one and the same Bill, or that you should carry your two Bills, though I believe you would find that as easy as the course you propose. But that you should keep us entirely in the dark with regard to this important section of business, seems to me to be utterly indefensible. When your defence comes—that you have got to deal with Local Government, and to bring in a Bill for the Municipal Government of London, and matters of that sort, I must say it appears to me to be an insult to common sense. It is unworthy of the magnitude of the question that such an argument as that should be used. The right hon. Gentleman tell us that redistribution is a question of local character, to be settled on local grounds. That is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever seen or heard. Settled on local grounds! What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? He tells us that redistribution is a matter of a local character, as though it had to be settled like some dispute between Gloucester and Birmingham, or between one part of England and one part of Scotland—whether there shall be one or two more Members in the one place than in the other. That is not the question. What you want to get in your redistribution and re-arrangement of the franchise is a better electorate and a better Parliament as the result. If that is not a national question, I do not know what it is. It is not only a national question, but an Imperial question; because, after all, you must bear in mind what this great House of Commons is, the composition of which you are now so especially considering. Consider what are the interests within the purview of this House—that they are not limited to the domestic affairs of this country; that they are not limited merely to the affairs of the United Kingdom; but that they touch all your relations with your Colonies, with India, and with all parts of the world. Therefore, consider of what enormous importance it is that you should do your best to constitute a really good House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-day that the Reform Bills which we have hitherto passed had largely improved the character and constitution of this House. That is a point which I am not disposed to take up as an argument. I think the proposition is one which is not altogether self-evident; but, at the same time, there is a considerable amount of truth in it. But we must feel that while we have been introducing a much larger amount of the popular element, and greatly increasing its power, we are, at the same time, suffering certain inconveniences from the enlargement of the constituencies, and have not yet learned thoroughly how to manage the footing on which the Member ought to stand with reference to his electors; and we must feel that there are difficulties and dangers attending our present system that we must take care we do not increase by a hasty and premature increase of the electorate. Take one point. You have had to legislate quite recently upon the subject of corrupt practices. You have introduced a Bill that is of the greatest importance, but which is also of a novel character, and which, in the first instance, it will not be at all easy to apply to your existing electoral system. Will you make it easier to apply it by suddenly throwing a large number of new voters into your constituencies? I doubt if you will; and so on with regard to other matters. You will find that by the sudden throwing upon your electorate of 2,000,000 of voters you will be raising questions that you will find it difficult to deal with. What will be the effect of introducing so large a body if you have not properly arranged the manner in which they are to fall into your system? There is always this to fear—that the masses you import will prove unmanageable, unless a system of training and manipulation is adopted; and the difficulty you will have to face will not be altogether with the masses themselves, who will be untrustworthy and wanting in experience, but it will be in the danger of their falling into the hands of persons who will misdirect them. I believe that the chief thing you have to guard against when instituting an electoral reform is anything likely to lead to a diminution of individual freedom and responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has told us a very curious thing—namely, that it is really impossible for the Government to say how they are to distribute seats before they have got the Franchise Bill and the Registration Bill. That is very confusing. When shall we have those Bills? The Registration Bill, apparently, will not be introduced this year.

MR. GLADSTONE

I know no reason why it should not be.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

We are by degrees extracting a few statements from the Government. We may, then, hope for a Registration Bill this year. That is very important. I do not know, however, how the registration can be conveniently managed if you have not fixed the character of the constituencies to which it is to apply. I do not profess to be an expert in the conduct of a whole system of registration; but, to my inexperienced mind, it would appear necessary that you should have your redistribution first, and then get your registration to work in the constituencies you are going to form. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that it is desirable that all those measures should be passed by one and the same Parliament, although he says it is not essential. But will you be able to do that, considering the present stage and age of your Parliament? Remember that in order to get your registration to work before the Parliament which may have to be elected in 1886 comes into existence, you have to get your redistribution and registration plans through by somewhere about the month of June next year; but will you be able to do that? What will be your position? You will find that you will have as much time to spend over the Redistribution Bill as over the Franchise Bill; and you will find it very difficult indeed to get them forward so early next year as to enable you to have your registration ready before the Parliament which may have to be elected in 1886. Now, I think the House has a right to look at all these matters from this point of view. Here is a Government which has been in Office for four years, having received, as their first charge, the charge of dealing with this great question of a Reform Bill—with this great question of the Franchise, and with this great question of redistribution—and who have also undertaken to deal with Municipal Reform, but have allowed these four Sessions to pass by without beginning one of them. And now, at this time of day, they tell us it is impossible to carry all this through, because they have to deal with Local Government and the Government of the City of London, and various other matters. I say that this is not treating the House fairly. Well, the right hon. Gentleman told us another thing. He observed that fault had been found with him on account of the indications—faint and shadowy indications, but still sufficiently significant—which he has already given us of the plan of redistribution as it exists in his breast. Well, we were very much astonished at some of the points in that scheme, and especially—let me go back again for a moment—at those which dealt with the question of the Irish representation. The Irish representation, we were told, was not to be diminished. The number of the Irish Members was to remain as it is at present; and we were told that whereas Scotland, undoubtedly, ought to have an addition made to the number of her Members, that addition was to be made in such a way as not to diminish the number of the Irish Representatives, and the number was to be made up by taking certain seats from the South of England and handing them over to Scotland and to constituencies in the North of England. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not know whether he questions my statement; but I am speaking not of what he said to-night, but of what he said some days ago. Possibly there may have been some change in the plans of the Cabinet since then; but I think I am in the recollection of the House, and I think that even the right hon. Gentleman will not deny it, when I say that in the scheme which he shadowed forth the other day he told us that he attached importance to retaining the number of the Irish seats; and he told us, further, that, undoubtedly, Scotland ought to have a greater number of seats, and that from the Southern parts of England it would be necessary to find the number required to make up the number for the North of England and for Scotland. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman still shakes his head. It shows what a terribly bad plight we are in. Of course, this is not what he intended; but I will venture to say it is what everybody thought he intended. Well, then, we come back to what was said by my noble Friend who sits beside me (Lord John Manners). If my noble Friend's advice could be followed, and if we could have the whole plan in any shape before us, we could not have all these doubts and disputes in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are. But I admit—and it is, in fact, part of my case—that since we had that statement made we have had several other statements, some of which are of a very curious character. We were rather surprised that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War should have been content with an arrangement of that character which involved no diminution in the Irish representation, because we remembered various speeches and observations of the noble Marquess which seemed to point to something very different. But when the noble Marquess came to speak on the subject the other day he pointed out that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made only in conjunction with the laying down of two other principles, one of which is that you are to have regard to the distance of the constituencies. That is what, I believe, is commonly called the centrifugal theory. The other principle is that you must contemplate a moderate addition to the total number of Members sitting in the House at present. Now, we want to know—and the right hon. Gentleman this evening has repeated the words of the noble Marquess and has made some significant remarks upon them—we want to know what is the meaning of those words, "in conjunction with the other principles?" I can understand that the argument in regard to this is one that might be entertained; but when the right hon. Gentleman talks of the Irish Members, and says he proposes that the number of the Irish Members shall not be diminished, but that he proposes it in conjunction with the centrifugal theory—that you are to have regard to the distance of the constituencies—I want to know what he means? Does he contemplate a scheme founded upon keeping the Irish Members as they are, or does he not? Really, at the present time, we are in absolute darkness upon this point. And what is the meaning of this centrifugal theory? It seems to me to be one of those curious, mysterious things that make one feel quite uncomfortable. It is like a sort of ghost, that you cannot explain. We do not know what he means by it. Why are we to have this principle, that distance is to entitle a constituency to a larger proportion of representation? To what extent is it to apply? Are we to apply it all through, and to say that as Ireland, as a whole, is to have a larger proportion of Members than England, therefore Connaught, being more distant than Ulster, is to have a larger proportion than that Province? Are we to say that the more distant parts of Scotland are to have a greater proportionate number of Members than the more Southern and active portions of that country? What is the ground on which we are to say that? Are we to take the ground that those who are least in the way of receiving intelligence—that those who are at the greatest distance from the Metropolis—are best qualified to guide the policy of the State? It would be quite interesting to know whether that is the ground which we are to go upon. But now, to-night, the right hon. Gentleman has started a new theory, and it seems to me to be one which is also of a very curious and alarming character. He has made the suggestion that the Irish representation should not be diminished upon this plea—that formerly we did much injustice to Ireland by giving her too little; and that now, by way of redressing the evil, we ought to do injustice to this country, and give Ireland too much. Really the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are extremely ingenious, and they are always interesting to listen to. But is this the way in which we ought to deal with a large and important question of this character? Are we really justified in taking up one thing after another in this manner, lightly, and I may even say carelessly, as who should say that any argument is good enough to support a foregone conclusion? I venture to say that the spirit in which the House ought to be called upon, and the spirit in which the House is prepared to deal with, a question of this kind, must be something very different from that in which we are now told to approach it. If this debate has been languid, as the right hon. Gentleman says it has, it is owing to the very great uncertainty in which the whole of the proceedings of the Government have been involved. It is very difficult to believe that they are really in earnest in endeavouring to carry even this Franchise Bill; because it is perfectly clear that the Bill is one which can only be part of a scheme, and it is so uncertain when the remainder of the scheme is to be laid before us, and what its character is to be, that it really looks as if they could not seriously expect the House to do more than discuss the subject and pass certain stages of the Bill, and stop there. They can hardly expect this to be taken as a redemption of their pledge. Now, Sir, the matter is really in their own hands. If they will only meet the natural desire and wish of the House, and will lay aside all other Business, and proceed to reveal to us the remainder of their scheme—if the House and the people are put in possession of the views of the Government, those views will be considered and judged in no narrow and in no purely Party spirit. There would be a perfect readiness to consider and discuss such a scheme as might be presented. I call on the House to consider what its duty in this matter really is. I call on the House to consider that it will not be doing that duty if it receives, adopts, and passes this large increase of the franchise without more light than has yet been shown to the House as to the effect of the measure. No doubt, we shall have other opportunities of discussing many of the questions of detail that arise. I am not desirous now to enter into matters which may arise out of the details of the Bill. There are many points upon which I think the Government have made proposals of an interesting character which will require very careful consideration. I think, for instance, that this "service franchise," as it is called, is one that will require very careful consideration indeed, and there are other matters also which require it; but this is not the moment nor the opportunity for discussing the details of the measure. The Bill is one of a very important character—indeed, its importance has not, I think, been exaggerated by any of the speakers who have recommended it to us; and yet we are asked to consider it in a way which seems to imply that it is of very little more importance than a Turnpike Bill. I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) in his place. He, at all events, knows perfectly well what he wants; and there are expressions which every now and then fall from his lips which are worthy of the attention of the House. I have not got the exact words here; but I recollect that in a speech he made—I think at Bristol—he distinguished between the two measures of the Government, and said that the question of the franchise was a question of principle, but the question of redistribution was a question of tactics. Now, that is a very important distinction.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg the right hon. Baronet's pardon. I did not say that. What I did say was that the question of uniting the two subjects in one Bill was not a question of principle, but a question of tactics.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Well, Sir, there is not a great deal of difference between that version and mine—between the meaning which I thought I found in the words, and the meaning which is now given to them. Is it correct to say for the Government, as it certainly is to say for the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a question of tactics how far they will allow their redistribution scheme to be known before we are committed? Glimpses we have sometimes of the Redistribution Bill, such as have been afforded by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by the noble Marquess; and we can judge from their observations that whenever it comes it must be one of a very large and important character, and one very far in excess of any we have seen, at all events, since the Reform Bill of 1832. We have had these glimpses. From time to time the corner of the veil has been lifted, and we have been allowed to see a little of what is beyond. But it is a question of tactics, as the right hon. Gentleman is very well able to tell, as to how much, of this redistribution scheme you had better let be seen before you carry your Franchise Bill. The two measures cannot possibly be separated. I do not mean to say that they cannot be separated in a certain sense, because you have done it. It is said that the speech of my noble Friend (Lord Derby), made in this House some years ago, was an, unanswered and unanswerable speech. It certainly was unanswered at the time; but it has been shown that it was not unanswerable, because my noble Friend has contrived to answer it himself, by the process which we used to call in our old days of logic, solvitur ambulando He has cut the knot of the difficulty by doing that which he said was impossible. I do not think he has destroyed the argument of his speech; but he certainly has shown that there are things which appear to be impossible which may be accomplished. But it is in the nature of things impossible that you can complete anything like a reform of your representation without dealing with both these subjects together. If you separate them one from the other, you must do it in such a way that you have no fair clue, and worse than no fair clue, because you have shadowy and deceptive indications—I do not mean intentionally deceptive—but shadowy and deceptive indications of what the details of the measure may be, and, therefore, you are acting in the dark. I trust the House will consider these views, and that it will pause before it consents to the second reading of this Bill. I trust that it will consider the Amendment of my noble Friend; and insist that before the Bill proceeds any further we shall be furnished with that which we ask for, and which we have a right to ask for.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I can only hope for the indulgence of the House by promising that I will trespass upon its attention for a very short time. I make this promise, not only because of the lateness of the hour, but because it would be out of place for me to attempt to make any general reply on the part of the Government. That general reply has been made five hours ago by the Prime Minister; and hon. Members will feel, as I do, that it would be absurd for me to attempt to supplement that speech. But as I take some interest in the form in which the Bill has been framed, perhaps the House will forgive me if I refer to one or two subjects of which mention has been made during this discussion. In the first place, I think that the cause of the enfranchisement of the masses of the people has made great progress during the debate. The discussion may have been languid, and so it has been from one point of view; but admissions have been made of a large and grave character which ought to give great encouragement to those who support the Bill. When this Bill was placed upon the Table there was, on the part of those who were responsible for its introduction, a desire to ascertain whether it contained that measure of reform which would satisfy both its supporters and its opponents. Putting on one side for the moment the main principle of the Bill, there has not been a single criticism upon the minor details of the proposed Reform; and the Government have the satisfaction of knowing that those prophecies which have been made the ground of attacks upon the Government have been all falsified. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) stated at Aberdeen that the Government were about to introduce a Bill which would destroy all the rights of property; that no man was to have more than one vote.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

I said it had been stated by Members of the Government that that was what would probably be brought forward.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

The right hon. Gentleman warned those whom he addressed to give no support to a Government which was likely to bring forward such a Bill. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), during the election in the City of York, appealed to the freemen of that city not to support a Government that was about to introduce a Bill which would allow no freeman to vote, and would deprive them of their ancient privileges. Not one of those prophecies have been fulfilled; and, notwithstanding all these prophetic attacks upon the Government, not one of the predictions have proved true. The Government now have the satisfaction of knowing that the settlement of this question is to be found in the Bill which they have presented to the House. No Conservative Government will ever venture to introduce a Bill that is more Conservative; and no Liberal Government will be wise to introduce one that is more Liberal than this. If this Bill in its details is acceptable, there are really only two questions remaining on the subject. The first is, whether the main principle of the Bill is acceptable to the majority; and upon that point the Government are encouraged to believe that the answer will be favourable to the Bill. Those who are responsible for opposing and criticizing the Bill have not answered in the negative, and have not said they object to the principle of the Bill. Their own supporters, representing large constituencies, have said, one by one, that they approve of the principle of enfranchisement; and I therefore hold that I have a right to claim that as they have allowed the Bill to proceed thus far no one can now go back. It is now only a question of time when this great question is to be solved; and on whomsoever the responsibility for that solution should rest, the sooner that question is determined the better. Upon the main question some light has been thrown by the course which the Opposition have taken, not by introducing the Amendment, but by the statements of those who are mainly responsible for the criticisms upon the Bill. I heard the speech of the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment with regret in one sense, because it seemed to bear the tone rather of a past time of warfare. I cannot refrain from saying that the noble Lord, although he used arguments that were not without force, never allowed a word of an acrimonious character to escape him, and never said a word to which a political opponent could object. The noble Lord dealt with the question of the peasant class; and there is, perhaps, no one more entitled to deal with that subject than the noble Lord, for years ago he belonged to a Party which took great interest in the prosperity of the peasant class. But what has that interest done for the peasantry? Has it made their position any better, or given them any greater power, or opportunity of speaking for themselves? Now, the noble Lord asked why this class should be enfranchised at all; and argued that they have representation already in certain agricultural boroughs by means of the Members for those boroughs. But is not that statement, so far as it goes, the cardinal principle in the matter? And when the noble Lord endeavoured to persuade the House that for this reason the peasant class should not be permitted to enjoy the franchise, did he not see that he was paying them the greatest compliment he could, for he was telling the House that these agricultural voters were of like capacity and character with urban voters, and not only equal in their electoral character to town householders, but were in fact, so superior that they had sufficient intelligence and judgment to elect Members for all the agriultural labourers throughout the country? While the noble Lord was thus bearing his testimony to the efficiency and capacity of these agricultural labourers who already have votes, he was, at the same time, saying that they were such ignorant men that to give them votes would be to destroy the Constitution, and annihilate the agricultural interest. In face of the view that there is not sufficient capacity on the part of these men, is there any encouragement to be learned from the Bench opposite as to the course which Gentlemen opposite will take? The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has told the House what he would do if his Party had to frame a measure; and, knowing the district which the right hon. Gentleman represents, the idea came into my mind that if his scheme were carried out labourers in East Gloucestershire would have to visit some distant town such as Cheltenham to vote, and the registration officer would have to wander over the Cotswold Hills in order to select the agricultural labourer whoso alleged incapacity would have to be punished by making him vote far away from, his fellows and his home. On the part of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman seriously asked for delay, in order that they might deal with such a scheme; and this is from an ex-Cabinet Minister, putting forward what he thought should be the basis of a measure of Reform to be introduced by the Party who claims to take charge of the question. Then there is another right hon. Gentleman who is an authority on Provincial matters—namely, the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), who has a peculiar capacity for attending elections, and who always greets the issue for a new Writ with pleasure, because of an intention to take part in the coming fray. I hope the House will forgive me if I say the right hon. Gentleman reminds me somewhat of a certain dog that used to be in the habit of going to fires. Whether it was asleep or awake, at home or abroad, that dog was always present at a fire; but, although it barked a great deal, I do not know that it ever did any good; but in justice to the right hon. Gentleman I must say I do not know that he ever did any harm. The right hon. Gentleman was present at an election in the City of York, and he there appealed to the intelligence of the electors, and told them he had the greatest confidence in their electoral capacity. That was very gratifying to them. But when he went down to an agricultural constituency in Somerset, he there said the farmers were alone the persons fit to vote, and that no householder ought to have a vote unless he was a £12 householder; and also that according to the size of the farms they held the more votes they ought to have; or rather, that according to the amount of taxation they paid so they should have a corresponding number of votes. The right hon. Gentleman likewise advocated the principle of Sturges Bourne's Act as applicable to the franchise—the principle which determines the election of Vestries; and he said that was the principle upon which he would give Reform. That is the kind of Reform which the country may expect when the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends come to deal with the question. But I perceive that there are signs of mutiny against the Front Opposition Bench; and the greatest advance the Government could have made was to find that there was mutiny on the part of the Lord Mayor. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has advanced nothing by way of contradiction to this Bill; and in what shape does he plead for delay? He does not plead for an indefinite delay; but he says he wishes first to see the Registration Bill. Why does he want to see that? He does not only wish to look at it. He wishes to discuss it together with this Bill, and to be able to point to every line of it as a reason for opposing the present Bill. He wishes to be, in effect, in Committee on a Registration Bill whilst we are discussing the Motion to read a second time this Franchise Bill. It is also urged that the present time is inopportune for this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) has said, in a very able speech, that such a measure ought never to be introduced at the tail of a Parliament. Does he wish the Government to introduce such a measure in the first years of the existence of a Parliament? Does he not know that a Franchise Bill can never be introduced except at the tail of a Parliament; because the moment it is introduced the tail of a Parliament comes into existence? Then it is said, that before we introduce such a Bill as this we ought to look and see what is going on around us, and only introduce it when the surrounding circumstances are favourable. Then, when are we to introduce the Bill? We are to introduce it whenever there shall be peace at Home and abroad, either in relation to this country or to the whole world. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), in a speech to-night which I wish more Members had heard, pointed out another argument which has been used. It is said, he remarked, that you must introduce your Bill when the agricultural labourers and the working classes of England are in a state of disturbance, and when similar classes in Ireland are in a state of perfect content. But if you are to wait for that time to arrive, when will the Bill be introduced? It is idle to say that justice should be denied, if it be justice, until all this is accomplished. I have but few words to say in regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). Sir, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, wish that my personal regard for him shall not interfere with what I may think it right to say in regard to his speech. If he will allow me to say so, that speech scarcely scorned to mo to be a speech that should have been delivered by a Member of the Liberal Party. Perhaps it will not be agreeable to him if I say that there will be very great difficulty for him to make that speech accord with the views of the Liberal Party; but all I will say is that the Members of the Liberal Party will find it very difficult to make their views come into accord with that speech. [Opposition cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman listens to the echo of those cheers, and finds that the Conservatives are in accord with him—a fact which supports what I said just now. I have read speeches something like that of my right hon. Friend delivered in the year 1866 by Mr. Robert Lowe, a supporter of the then Government, and who spoke just in the same tone. And I heard a speech very much like it delivered in the year 1876 by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who then spoke from the ranks of the Liberal Party. Taking that speech which my right hon. Friend has made to-night—taking it as a whole, I will say that it is not one which can support the cause of the Liberal Party. What did it amount to? Total timidity towards those who have not a certain degree of wealth, and nothing else. "Aye," said the right hon. Gentleman, "I have no confidence or trust in the class below the £12 householder!"

MR. GOSCHEN

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would not wish to misrepresent me. I said nothing of the kind. I said I was not prepared to give them an absolute preponderance among the electors; but I also spoke of their high qualifications.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give them a preponderance, as he calls it, because he wants confidence in them. Why is that? My right hon. Friend's whole argument was founded on the fact that he could not have sufficient confidence in them to give them a vote? How are they to get a preponderance unless they get a vote? The preponderance is the result of the vote. My right hon. Friend's statement was that he had not confidence in them sufficient to give them the vote—[Several MEMBERS: Preponderance.]—to give them the vote which gives them a preponderance.

MR. GOSCHEN

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that they should not have the vote; but I claimed that it should be accompanied by checks and safeguards. [An hon. MEMBER: Flash cheques!]

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I agree that my right hon. Friend did not say that he wished they should be deprived of the vote: but he wanted it to be accompanied by checks and safeguards, so that he has not the same degree of confidence in the class below the £12 householder that he has in the classes above, or he would not want to inforce checks and safeguards in the case of the one class and not in the case of the others. Sir, that very phrase "£12 householder" sounded to me as a phrase from a bye-gone time; that language is obsolete. It became obsolete in 1867. You cannot elect to use the phraseology of the £12 householder in the county and not to use it in the town. You swept it away from the Statute Book in 1867. My right hon. Friend wishes to restore it in 1834. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this Democracy, of which he is so timid, is far more strongly developed among the urban than among the rural populations? he has cheerfully trusted it in. the towns in 1867 and 1869; and now that he sees the effect and knows what it is he refuses, with great timidity of political character, to trust it. Sir, hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered my right hon. Friend. They were quite right to show their satisfaction with his speech—to show more joy over the right hon. Member for Ripon than over the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). But they cheered him as if he were a new convert. He is nothing of the kind. It is true he has had different opinions at different times. I know no one who has done more for the cause of enfranchisement than my right hon. Friend. In 1869 there was an Act passed which bears his name, by which was enfranchised, if I may use the term, the most democratic section of our town populations. He freely gave the vote then to the Democracy who did not pay the rates. Let the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) bear that in mind when pleading for a rate-paying qualification—let him bear in mind that it was the hand of the right hon. Member for Ripon which removed that qualification from all the householders whose dwellings were so small that the rates were not worth the trouble of collection. His was the hand which trusted the Democracy of the towns—it was he who gave the vote to that very Democracy of which he is now so frightened. Between 1869 and 1876 the fruits of experience brought him to the conclusion that it was impossible, or at least unwise, to extend the franchise and the influence of the Democracy; and, speaking from that Front Bench opposite, he formed one of a Party of two who voted against the proposal made in 1876. Happily, his Party is less in 1884 than it was in 1876. It did number two Members then; it will only number one to-night. Not a single Member upon these Benches will he take with him into the Lobby. He has been cheered by the Tory Party in every proposition he has laid down; and that is the reason why there is a difficulty in making our views and our principles accord with his. But what are the chocks and safeguards which he asks for? He says—"I would ask you, before I vote for the Bill, to tell me what are the safeguards which you are about to give in order to insure the representation of minorities?" Will not my right hon. Friend consider that in thus acting as an opponent to the Bill on its second reading he is taking a course which will do harm to those who are seeking to secure the representation of minorities—to those who, as matters stand, want to see no undue preponderance given to any particular class? What are we to do? We are to introduce, I suppose by way of a Bill, some measure which will show what safeguards are to be given to minorities, and which will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman. The price is too high, and the return too small. We shall endanger the Franchise Bill and gain one vote on this coming Division. What would be the fate of such a Bill if we placed it on the Table and we had my right hon. Friend discussing it, and the noble Lord opposite discussing it, and the whole House discussing it, while the Bill which is now before us, and which presents the main principle, would have to be put on one side until we had satisfied all the most learned views and scruples of my right hon. Friend, and of all those who would support him. My right hon. Friend admits that he does not claim to be a friend to this Bill —at best he accepts it reluctantly. He has told us that he is not one of those who wishes to swim with the stream. Well, Sir, that may be true enough; perhaps it is not always wise to attempt to do it. But has he not learnt that there are some streams which you cannot breast—some onward streams which bear men with them? This question which we are now discussing is like one of those powerful currents. We have gone too far with it to enable us to recede; and the extent to which it has been developed rests not with individual Members, but with the whole House. This question stops the way; and whoever may have charge of this measure must know that the sooner it is put out of the way the better it will be for all concerned. No Conservative Government could live for a year in this House without undertaking this question and dealing with it. "Put it out of the way," says the noble Lord. Does he think it can be put out of the way by the Amendment he has moved? The right hon. Gentleman has rightly described it. He says it bids us pause. You might just as well say that a comma in the middle of a sentence means the end of a book as to tell me that the adoption of the Amendment before us would settle this question. It is idle to bid us pause; for you know that the work must be resumed, and must be continued to the end. The introduction of those 2,000,000 of men to the franchise must come. How, then, are we to receive them? Are we to receive them with words of distrust, and with a grudging instead of with an open hand? When we are giving them political power, are we to tell them that they are enemies and not allies? After we have given them education and political knowledge, are we either to refuse to give them the franchise, or admit them to the Constitution as men who are to be distrusted? But now that the support of this measure has gone so far, it has become impossible to resist it, and the only wise course for every man of patriotic views to take is to be generous with an open hand, to welcome to equal rights with ourselves those people who must before long be allowed to record their votes; and not to teach them that we have assumed over them a superiority and an authority which can only produce injustice, and which may result in disaster to the country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 340; Noes 210: Majority 130.

AYES
Acland, Sir T. D.	Bass, H.
Acland, C. T. D.	Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.
Agnew, W.	Beaumont, W. B.
Ainsworth, D.	Biddulph, M.
Allen, W. S.	Biggar, J. G.
Anderson, G.	Blake, J. A.
Armitage, B.	Blennerhassett, Sir R.
Armitstead, G.	Blennerhassett, R. P.
Arnold, A.	Bolton, J. C.
Asher, A.	Borlase, W. C.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Brand, hon. H. R.
Baldwin, E.	Brassey, Sir T.
Balfour, Sir G.	Brassey, H. A.
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.	Brett, R. B.
Balfour, J. S.	Briggs, W. E.
Barclay, J. W.	Bright, J.
Baring, Viscount	Brinton, J.
Barnes, A.	Broadhurst, H.
Barran, J.	Brogden, A.
Barry, J.	Brooks, M.
Bass, Sir A.	Brown, A, H.

Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.	Firth, J. F. B.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Fitzmaurice, Lord F.
Bryce, J.	Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.
Buchanan, T. R.	Fitzwilliam, hn. W. J.
Burt, T.	Flower, C.
Buszard, M. C.	Foljambe, C. G S.
Buxton, F. W.	Foljambe, F. J. S.
Buxton, S. C.	Forster, Sir C.
Cameron, C.	Forster, rt. hn. W. E.
Campbell, Lord C.	Fort, R.
Campbell, Sir G.	Fowler, H. H.
Campbell, R. F. F.	Fowler, W.
Campbell -Bannerman, H.	Fry, L.
	Fry, T.
Carbutt, E. H.	Gabbett, D. F.
Carington, hon. R.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Causton, R. K.	Gladstone, H. J.
Cavendish, Lord E.	Gladstone, W. H.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.	Gordon, Sir A.
Chambers, Sir T.	Gordon, Lord D.
Cheetham, J. F.	Courley, E. T.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.	Gower, hon. E. F. L.
Clark, S.	Grafton, F. W.
Clarke, J. C.	Grant, A.
Clifford, C. C.	Grant, D.
Cohen, A.	Gray, E. D.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Grey, A. H. G.
Collings, J.	Guest, M. J.
Collins, E.	Gurdon, R. T.
Colman, J. J.	Hamilton, J. G. C.
Colthurst, Colonel	Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.
Commins, A.
Corbet, W. J.	Hardcastle, J. A.
Corbett, J.	Harrington, T.
Cotes, C. C.	Hartington, Marq. of
Courtauld, G.	Hayter, Sir A. D.
Courtney, L. H.	Healy, T. M.
Cowen, J.	Henderson, F.
Cowper, hon. H. F.	Heneage, E.
Craig, W. Y.	Herschell, Sir F.
Creyke, R.	Hibbert, J. T.
Cropper, J.	Hill, T. R.
Cross, J. K.	Holden, I.
Crum, A.	Holland, S.
Cunliffe, Sir R. A.	Hollond, J. R.
Currie, Sir D.	Holms, J.
Davey, H.	Hopwood, C. H.
Davies, D.	Howard, E. S.
Davies, R.	Howard, G. J.
Davies, W.	Howard, J.
Dawson, C.	Illingworth, A.
Deasy, J.	Ince, H. B.
De Ferrières, Baron	Inderwick, F. A.
Dickson, T. A.	James, Sir H.
Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.	James, C.
Dillwyn, L. L.	James, W. H.
Dodds, J.	Jardine, R.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	Jenkins, D. J.
Duckham, T.	Jerningham, H. E. H.
Duff, R. W.	Johnson, E.
Earp, T.	Jones-Parry, L.
Ebrington, Viscount	Kenny, M. J.
Edwards, H.	Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.
Edwards, P.	Kinnear, J.
Egerton, Admiral hon. F.	Labouchere, H.
	Lambton, hon. F. W.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.	Lawrence, W.
Fairbairn, Sir A.	Lawson, Sir W.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Lea, T.
Fawcett, rt. hon. H.	Leahy, J.
Ferguson, R.	Leake, R.
Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.	Loamy, E.
Findlater, W.	Leatham, E. A.

Lee, H.	Power, R.
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.	Price, Sir R. G.
Lloyd, M.	Pulley, J.
Lubbock, Sir J.	Ralli, P.
Lusk, Sir A.	Ramsay, J.
Lymington, Viscount	Ramsden, Sir J.
Lynch, N.	Rathbone, W.
Lyons, R. D.	Redmond, J. E.
Macfarlane, D. H.	Redmond, W. H. K.
Mackie, R. B.	Reid, R. T.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Rendel, S.
Macliver, P. S.	Richard, H.
M'Arthur, Sir W.	Roberts, J.
M'Arthur, A.	Robertson, H.
M'Carthy, J.	Roe, T.
M'Coan, J. C.	Rogers, J. E. T.
M'Intyre, Eneas J.	Rothschild, Sir N. M. de
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.	Roundell, C. S.
M'Lagan, P.	Russell, Lord A.
M'Laren, C. B. B.	Russell, C.
M'Mahon, K.	Russell, G. W. E.
Maitland, W. F.	Rylands, P.
Mappin, F. T.	Samuelson, B.
Marjoribanks, E.	Samuelson, H.
Martin, R. B.	Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Marum, E. M.	Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-	Sellar, A. C.
	Sexton, T.
Mason, H.	Shaw, T.
Maxwell-Heron, J.	Shaw, W.
Mayne, T.	Sheil, E.
Meagher, W.	Sheridan, H. B.
Meldon, C. H.	Shield, H.
Mellor, J. W.	Simon, Serjeant J.
Milbank, Sir F. A.	Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Molloy, B. C.	Slagg, J.
Monk C. J.	Small, J. F.
Moore, A.	Smith, Lieut.-Col. G.
Moreton, Lord	Smith, S.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.	Smith wick, J. F.
Morley, A.	Smyth, P. J.
Morley, J.	Spencer, hon. C. R.
Morley, S.	Stafford, Marquess of
Mundella, rt. Hn. A. J.	Stanley, hon. E. L.
Nicholson, W.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Noel, E.	Stanton, W. J.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.	Stevenson, J. C.
Norwood, C. M.	Storey, S.
O'Brien, Sir P.	Sullivan, T. D.
O'Brien, W,	Summers, W.
O'Connor, A.	Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Connor, T. P.	Tavistock, Marquess of
O'Donnell, F. H.	Tennant, C.
O'Donoghue, The	Thomasson, J. P.
O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The	Thompson, T. C.
	Tillett, J. H.
O'Shea, W. H.	Torrens, W. T. M.
Otway, rt. hn. Sir A. J.	Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-
Paget, T. T.
Palmer, C. M.	Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Palmer, (T.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Palmer, J. H.	Vivian, Sir H. H.
Parker, C. S.	Vivian, A. P.
Parnell, C. S.	Waddy, S. D.
Pease, A.	Walker, S.
Peddie, J. D.	Walter, J.
Pender, J.	Warterlow, Sir S.
Pennington, F.	Watkin, Sir E. W.
Philips, R. N.	Waugh, E.
Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L.	Webster, Dr. J.
Potter, T. B.	West, H. W.
Powell, W. R. H.	Whitbread, S.
Power, J. O C.	Whitworth, B.

Wiggin, H.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Williams, S. C. E.	Woodall, W.
Williamson, S.	Woolf, S.
Willis, W.
Wills, W. H.	TELLERS.
Willyams, E. W. B.	Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.
Wilson, Sir M.
Wilson, C. H.	Kensington, rt. hn. Lord
Wilson, I.
NOES.
Alexander, Major-Gen.	Eaton, H. W.
Allsopp, C.	Ecroyd, W. F.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Archdale, W. H.	Egerton, hon. A. F.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Elcho, Lord
Balfour, A. J.	Elliot, G. W.
Baring, T. C.	Elton, C. I.
Barne, F. St. J. N.	Emlyn, Viscount
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Ennis, Sir J.
Bateson, Sir T.	Estcourt, G. S.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-	Ewart, W.
	Ewing, A. O.
Beach, W. W. B.	Feilden, Lieut.-General
Bective, Earl of	Fellowes, W. H.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Finch, G. H.
Beresford. G. De la P.	Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.
Biddell, W.
Birkbeck, E.	Fletcher, Sir H.
Blackburne, Col. J. I.	Folkestone, Viscount
Boord, T. W.	Forester, C. T. W.
Bourke, right hon. R.	Foster, W. H.
Broadley, W. H. H.	Fowler, rt. hon. R. N.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Fremantle, hon. T. F.
	French-Brewster, R. A. B.
Brooke, Lord
Brooks, W. C.	Galway, Viscount
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Gamier, J. C.
Brymer, W. E.	Gibson, right hon. E.
Bulwer, J. R.	Giffard, Sir H. S.
Burghley, Lord	Giles, A,
Buxton, Sir R. J.	Goldney, Sir G.
Cameron, D.	Gore-Langton, W. S.
Campbell, J. A.	Gorst, J. E.
Carden, Sir R. W.	Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Grantham, W.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Greene, E.
Chaplin, H.	Greer, T.
Christie, W. L.	Gregory, G. B.
Churchill, Lord R.	Halsey, T. F.
Clarke, E.	Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Coddington, W.	Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Cole, Viscount	Hamilton, I. T.
Collins, T.	Harvey, Sir R. B.
Compton, F.	Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir. J. C. D.
Coope, O. E.
Corry, J. P.	Herbert, hon. S.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.	Hicks, E.
Cubitt, right hon. G.	Hildyard, T. B. T.
Curzon, Major hon. M.	Hill, Lord A. W.
Dalrymple, C.	Hill, A. S.
Davenport, W. B.	Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.
Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.	Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.
Dawnay, hon. G. C.
De Worms, Baron H.	Houldsworth, W. H.
Dickson, Major A. G	Hubbard, right hon. J. G.
Digby, Colonel hon. E.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D.	Kennard, C. J.
Donaldson-Hudson, C.	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Douglas, A. Akers-	King-Harman, Colonel E. R.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

Knight, F. W.	Phipps, P.
Knightley, Sir R.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Lawrence, J. C.	Price, Captain G. E.
Lawrence, Sir T.	Puleston, J. H.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Legh, W. J.	Rankin, J.
Leighton, Sir B.	Read, C. S.
Leighton, S.	Rendlesham, Lord
Lennox, right hn. Lord H. G. C. G.	Repton, G. W.
	Ritchie, C. T.
Levett, T. J.	Rolls, J. A.
Lewis, C. E.	Ross, A. H.
Lewisham, Viscount	Ross, C. C.
Loder, R.	Round, J.
Long, W. H.	Salt, T.
Lopes, Sir M.	Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Lowther, rt. hon. J.	Scott, M. D.
Lowther, hon. W.	Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Lowther, J. W.
Marcartney, J. W. E.	Severne, J. E.
Mac Iver, D.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Macnaghten, E.	Smith, A.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.	Stanhope, hon. E.
Makins, Colonel W. T.	Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.
Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.	Stanley, E. J.
	Storer, G.
Marriott, W. T.	Strutt, hon. C. H.
Master, T. W. C.	Sykes, C.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Talbot, J. G.
Miles, Sir P. J. W.	Thomson, H.
Miles, C. W.	Thornhill, A. J.
Mills, Sir C. H.	Thornhill, T.
Milnor, Sir F.	Thynne, Lord H. F.
Monckton, F.	Tollemache, H. J.
Morgan, hon. F.	Tollemache, hn. W. F.
Moss, R.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.	Tottenham, A. L.
	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Mulholland, J.	Wallace, Sir R.
Newdegate, C. N.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Newport, Viscount	Warburton, P. E.
Nicholson, W. N.	Warton, C. N.
Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.	Watney, J.
	Whitley, E.
Northcote, H. S.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Onslow, D. R.	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Peek, Sir H. W.	Wroughton, P.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Pell, A.	Yorke, J. R.
Pemberton, E. L.
Percy, rt. hon. Earl	TELLERS.
Percy, Lord A.	Crichton, Viscount
Phipps, C. N. P.	Winn, R.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 24th April.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

MR. NEWDEGATE

gave Notice that, on the Order for going into Committee upon the Bill, he would move—"That the House do go into Committee on this day six months."