COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.] (Hansard, 28 April 1884)

HC Deb 28 April 1884 vol 287 cc759-829 759

§ Order for Committee read.

§ MR. RAIKES
, who had given Notice of the following Motion: — That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the redistribution of seats between the existing constituencies, and for the representation of populous urban sanitary districts at present unrepresented, by the transfer to them of seats from the less populous borough constituencies, said, that on the last occasion that he had had the honour of addressing the House upon this subject, he had expressly to remark upon the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister through serious indisposition. He was now very glad to be able to congratulate the House upon the re-appearance of the right hon. Gentleman, and was confident that with him in his customary place they would find their discussions much more profitable and practical. There had been a disposition in some quarters to represent the Amendment he was about to move, and also another of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Knares-borough (Mr. T. Collins), as merely repetitions of the Motion of his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners); and he wished to state to the House the reasons which led him to believe that it should be regarded from a different point of view. The Motion of his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire invited the House to reject the scheme because it was incomplete, whereas his own Motion was to invite the House to complete the scheme; and it seemed to him that, although it might be supported by those who supported the previous Motion, it really was the converse of that proposition, and was in no degree bound to defeat the Bill, or cause its rejection, or even its delay. They all knew very well that the question of redistribution as connected with the representation of the people had been, as a rule, considered inseparable; and it was only when in the hands of the right hon. 760 Gentleman the Prime Minister that there had ever been an attempt made to sever the two questions. He was of opinion that there could not be a more fatal mistake made by those who were anxious for a really good Reform Bill than to attempt to separate the question of the franchise from that of redistribution. The question of redistribution must always be one of extreme difficulty; it bristled, in fact, with difficulties, for it was impeded by all sorts of personal and local considerations. It could only make progress when strengthened by the motive power of an extension of the franchise. The Bill now before the House was going to give an enormous addition to the county electorate; in fact, the Bill appeared to proceed very much on the familiar doctrine of the rights of man. That principle was to be so far restricted that a vote was to be given, not to every man, but to every man who lived in a house. In the opinion of those who carried the second reading of the Bill by so large a majority, every householder ought to have an. equal right to vote, whether he lived in a borough or a county. But on the same principle every man who had a vote ought to have a right to an equal vote—that was, a vote having about the same amount of influence in returning a Member of Parliament. At the present time the value of a county vote and of a borough vote was about the same. In England and Wales the present borough electorate numbered between 1,500,000 and 1,600,000 voters; the county electorate numbered about 900,000. The borough electorate returned 297 Members and the county electorate 187, which was a tolerably fair division according to the number of voters. But this Bill would add 1,300,000 voters to the county electorate of England and Wales, and there would then be 2,200,000 voters returning 187 Members, while 1,600,000 returned 297. Such would be the anomaly and injustice created by a Bill which professed to adjust the franchise with a special view to fairness. The necessity of a Redistribution Bill in regard to Ireland was, at least, equally necessary. They had to bear in mind not merely the question of the share of representation which Ireland should possess as compared with the other parts of the Kingdom, and the propriety of so altering the franchise as 761 to swamp the only class in Ireland attached to the English connection—they had to consider the extraordinary anomalies which had been perpetuated in Ireland in consequence of the unwillingness of the Government of 1869 to complete the task of their Predecessors. Thus there were at present 16 towns of less than 10,000 inhabitants who returned a Member each, while large counties of 200,000 persons, like Gal-way and Mayo and Donegal, only returned two Members each. The senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) in his latter days had become enamoured of the Act of Union, and said he would take his stand upon it in considering the proportion of representation to be allowed to Ireland. The Prime Minister was equally positive in his declaration that he was not prepared to diminish the share of Ireland's representation in that House. The present 105 Members sent from Ireland consisted of 100 Members as fixed by the Act of Union, and five added by the Act of 1832. There would, he thought, be no disposition to act in a manner that might appear harsh towards Ireland, by making an enormous reduction in its representation. But there would probably be but one opinion in that House—however that opinion might be expressed in the Division Lobby—that if five Members were added in 1832, these might well be surrendered now to Scotland, who was under-represented. As to Scotland, there was a special necessity for the question of redistribution to be dealt with without delay. The Scotch borough representation was full of extravagant eccentricities of grouping. He should like to give the House one or two examples. He found that the Falkirk district had boroughs in three counties—Stirlingshire, Lanarkshire, and Linlith-gowshire. The Stirling group contained boroughs situated in Stirlingshire, Perthshire, Fifeshire, and Linlithgowshire. The Kilmarnock Burghs included Kilmarnock, in the county of Ayr; Dumbarton, in the county of Dumbarton; Renfrew, in Renfrewshire, and another town in the county of Lanark. Those who formed those constellations had, no doubt, their own reasons for so disposing of them, and for making political districts overlap each other. Probably those very astute politicians thought that by throwing as many difficulties 762 in the way of a new classification they would perpetuate the arrangement they were then making. He believed this matter was not dealt with at all in the Reform Bill of 1867. The question of Scottish borough constituencies, he thought, was one which required the attention of the politician, even in a greater degree than the arithmetician or the statistician. At all events, the question was one so congenial to the tastes of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he sincerely hoped he would be the person who would provide the house with a scheme for reforming it. Coming to the case of Wales, the first thing that struck the observer was the great disproportion in the representation of Wales. At present Wales contained 12 counties, represented, he thought, by 30 Members. Those Members represented in each case a constituency, taking it on an average, of at least 10,000 less than a constituency in England. They found in Wales some of those extraordinary anomalies in the way of borough representation which existed in a more glaring manner in Scotland. They found mere villages grouped together; and he believed the smallest borough in the Kingdom was to be found in Wales—the borough of Radnor, which had very recently the honour of being represented by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War. He need not add that this seat had for long been a safe Liberal preserve. Other examples were to be found in the petty constituency of Haverfordwest, surrounded, or, he might say, hemmed in, by the Pembroke district of boroughs, which contained from 20,000 to 25,000 persons, and which embraced four or five large towns, and in the Carnarvon district of boroughs, with 30,000 inhabitants, of which two-thirds resided in two considerable towns, while the remainder were divided among four or five small villages. It was not until such constituencies were analyzed that it was found they contained three or four towns containing less than 3,000 inhabitants, and which yet enjoyed the borough franchise by the mere necessity of having to be squeezed together in order to make up a tolerably adequate group of boroughs. If a limit was recognized below which a place should not be considered entitled to distinct urban representation, then the total number of Welsh district boroughs would be greatly abridged, 763 and an opportunity would be afforded for the representation of important places, which were not at present represented. Then take the case of England. In the small boroughs there was not any marked preponderance of one political Party over another. As a matter of fact, 56 boroughs in England below 10,000 of population were still returning Members to the House of Commons. Those who had seen the very interesting and important Return obtained some time ago by the hon. Member for East Staffordshire (Sir Michael Bass) of the urban sanitary districts which were at present unrepresented in the House would have seen that their number was 187, containing a population exceeding 3,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, told the House that he had been at the pains to ascertain that there were at least 30 constituencies among the county divisions returning 60 Members to Parliament, in which the urban element would predominate over the agricultural. Therefore, they were brought face to face with a state of things in which they would not only disfranchise the existing constituency by adding 1,300,000 voters to the present total of 900,000; but they would also, in the case of 30 counties and 60 seats, disfranchise the agricultural element by the preponderance of the urban element. In addition to that, they had also to consider that those persons in those populous districts who were to be placed on the register in this enormous number would be smarting under a sense of the injustice which excluded them from the urban representation, while it was preserved for the small and decaying towns at present enjoying the privilege. He did not wish to be suspected of a too great desire to obliterate all the tiny constituencies which existed in this country. They had given variety and interest to the character of the House, and they knew that the Prime Minister himself had represented one of those constituencies. But he wished the House and the country to know that as they proposed to go to work under this Bill immense masses of people would be enfranchised on the ground that they were householders; and, therefore, they must make up their minds to such a clean sweep of little constituencies as was not 764 paralleled even under the Reform Bill of 1832. Then there was the case of London, which had six boroughs—Westminster, Marylebone, Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Chelsea—containing a population of 2,500,000, and represented by 12 Members. If they took the electoral unit at 50,000, these boroughs would be entitled to 50 Members. But if they were to take the number at half that, and to adopt the extraordinary theory of the Prime Minister that, inasmuch as they were near the centre of affairs, and were familiar with Imperial questions, their representation should be less than that of persons removed from the centre of affairs, and who were presumably unfamiliar with Imperial questions. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman certainly laid great stress upon that point —that London could not expect to be represented in the same ratio as districts distant from the Metropolis. But supposing they gave London North of the Thames, say, 18 additional Members, increasing the number to 30. They had then to consider that in the South of London there were Lambeth, Southwark, and Greenwich, which contained among them another 1,000,000 of people. These places were at present represented by six Members; but, according to the population scheme, they were entitled to 20 Members. Liverpool, which is the largest borough in the Kingdom, and had a population of 552,000, according to the rule laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, ought to have 10 Members; while Manchester, with nearly 400,000 inhabitants, was clearly entitled to seven or eight Members; and on the same grounds Birmingham ought to have a similar number, and populous boroughs like Wednesbury and the district of Swansea ought to have additional representation. This would give a large increase to the representation of large and populous districts, in addition to the increased representation of Metropolitan constituencies and large and important divisions of counties. This would involve the transfer of close upon 100 seats if justice was to be done under the Bill; and he thought that in a question of the kind an attempt should be made to meet the difficulty as fairly as was possible. The question was whether it was the intention of the Government to do justice, 765 or to make the Bill a mere mockery to the people whom they had announced their intention of enfranchising, but whom they were about to treat as though, like the tailors in the proverbial saying, it required nine of them to make a man. He did not remember a case in which the House had a stronger right than they had on the present occasion to ask that the Government should lay their cards on the Table. The Government might, perhaps, hope to pass this Bill without giving to the House any further light as to their intentions on the question of the redistribution of seats in all places which would be affected by the Bill. The question of proportional representation was, nevertheless, closely connected with the present proposal, though it had been said that the matter could not be dealt with in the Bill as drawn; but he could certainly see no reason why it should not be enacted in the event of the Bill passing that no person should be entitled to give more votes than any present elector had now a right to give. It seemed to him that the country could not accept with satisfaction or confidence a scheme like the present, which was going to give this enormous representation to new voters, who would outvote the old voters without leaving them one shred of their political power. His noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) said the other day that he did not care about checks and guarantees. Neither did he to any great extent; but it was not as a check or guarantee that he would stipulate for the representation of minorities—it was a matter of simple common justice. The future of the country was greatly bound up with the question of the representation of minorities. He could not contemplate without a shudder the prospect of a future electorate unredeemed by any variety, unbroken by any streak of light to recall the bright past upon which they were now turning their backs, and he would entreat the Prime Minister not to let himself be remembered as deserving an apostrophe to be found in some of the best known lines of Pope, when he wrote— Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain fall, And universal darkness buries all. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Instruction with the excep- 766 tion of the words, "by the transfer to them of seats from the less populous borough constituencies."

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the redistribution of seats between the existing constituencies, and for the representation of populous urban sanitary districts at present unrepresented."— (Mr. Raikes.)

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, it may be generally convenient that we should state at this moment the view the Government take of their position in respect to this Motion. In the first place, I perfectly understand the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has dropped the words from the close of his Motion, "by the transfer to them of seats from the less populous borough constituencies." The right hon. Gentleman was in a painful state of mind. He told us at the close of his speech that he could not contemplate with anything else than a shudder the state of things likely to be produced if 2,000,000 more persons were added to the constituencies of the same stamp of people as those who have been already found by experience to be perfectly well qualified to exercise the franchise; but, being in this shuddering state of mind, he desires that this Motion should not present to the view of the country any painful ideas; and, therefore, he held out a pleasant conception of populous urban sanitary districts at present unrepresented, and dropped the disagreeable suggestion of the means by which those wants were to be supplied—namely, by taking away seats from other people. So far from complaining of the length of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he exercised a great indulgence to the House in not making it longer; but upon the topics on which he founded himself he might very well have occupied the whole evening. What were those topics? There was not one word in the speech which did not belong to debates which have already been engaged in. There was not an argument on Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, on Birmingham, Manchester, or Liverpool, or upon proportional representation, not a solitary sentence which did not aptly belong to debates we have concluded, and upon which the House has pronounced a very solemn judgment after two nights on the introduction largely given to the subject of redistri- 767 bution, and after five nights on the Motion of the noble Lord, almost wholly given to redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman, before we are allowed to advance an inch—being one of those who have been responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House—steps into the arena, and again proposes to begin from the beginning and discuss the entire question. I think it fair to the right hon. Gentleman to place before the House what I believe to be the construction put, at least by the majority of the House, on this proceeding. I myself was once so bold, and perhaps so rash, as to frame a general definition of what might be called obstructive speaking; and I denned it to be "speaking which is not addressed to carrying conviction to the minds of the House." But though it is not addressed to that end, it occupies the time of the House, and is, therefore, naturally construed and taken to be adopted and addressed for the purpose of consuming that time. I frankly own that is the construction which I, for one, and others on this side of the House, have placed on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and I think very possibly some Members sitting on the other side may do the same. My object is not to go over the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in detail, and I shall not detain the House five minutes on that part of the matter. He began by deploring the enormous disadvantage under which we should place the subject of redistribution by separating it from the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman desires a sincere and genuine reform. He has had great experience of sincere and genuine reform. He sits in the region and belongs to the school which have made sincere and genuine reform the great business of their political life; and, therefore, he comes forward as a prophet and as an authority to expound to us this subject, and to tell us how we are to prove ourselves sincere and genuine reformers. I believe there are some of us who are not entirely disposed to yield to the right hon. Gentleman a monopoly of that claim; and it certainly is the conviction of the responsible Government that the truth will be found by turning inside out and upside down everything said by him on the subject. The mode to insure an absolute and effective redistribution of seats is to pass, and to pass promptly, the 768 measure before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said—"What a cruel thing; you are actually going to pay off the county voters with such a share, it may be one ten-thousandth or one fifty-thousandth of the power over the representation; whereas in a trumpery borough a man no better, perhaps, was possessed of one five-hundredth." He thinks that is a very clever argument, and I admit that is a very sad state of things; but I want to get forward, if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of stopping us, will assist us; I want to propose a measure for the better redistribution of the areas, and for equalizing the share of representation, as well as we are able. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He says, because it is so hard that one man should have a one ten-thousandth part in the representation, while another has one five-hundredth part, therefore, he will stop the Bill, leaving the poor man with no share at all. That does not shock the right hon. Gentleman, nor cause him to go through the shuddering operation. Then he speaks of the unequal distribution as between different parts of the country, which I have said has been very fully considered upon the Motion of the noble Lord; and, again, will be largely considered at the proper time. But as the right hon. Gentleman insists upon debating again that question decided by the House after the devotion of so large a portion of time to that purpose, and as, while he has completely, no doubt, escaped a difficulty in connection with the Forms of the House by the phraseology of his Motion, the Motion is exactly the same as that of the noble Lord—What is our purpose, and what does common sense require us to do? Are we to play into his hands? No, Sir; we cannot consent to do that—we cannot, and we will not. I speak for the Government—and I rather think I am speaking for many others; they cannot, in that state of the Bill, debate the question which it was the very last operation of the House to settle. Such proceedings are fatal to the conduct of Business, and if they continue and receive the countenance of the House, and become systematic, will reach a point at which they will constitute a betrayal of the trust of this House; and for us, with the views we take, it would be a betrayal of our trust if we were to consent 769 to be drawn afresh, into a discussion of the details of redistribution. That much is necessary to say to show that it is from no disrespect that we decline, if we do decline, to enter into this consideration at the present stage. There may be Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have not been able to deliver their views on the subject of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Very good; there will be very fair opportunities for considering these matters and speaking upon them when the Lord Mayor moves that this House do resolve itself into Committee upon that day six months. That is what I call an honest Motion of a fair stand-up fight. Let the Motion by all means be made; if it is made, I trust the sense of the House will be taken upon it. What we say is that this Bill for the enlarging of the franchise, although an imperfect one—that is to say, a measure which, in the ordinary course, requires to be followed up by another measure, which we wish to introduce at the earliest moment—yet, as it stands, it is a good, and a great good in itself. That is the issue that we have not yet been able to decide. I thank the Lord Mayor for having given us the opportunity to decide it, as we shall, when we come to the discussion of his Motion. I think that will be an opportunity, if hon. Members are so minded, for renewing the discussion on the principle of the Bill, and that is the intention of the House in allowing the principle to be raised on the Speaker leaving the Chair. But, Sir, as to the side issue, I hope we shall not be drawn into it; and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right again, after the discussion of the other night, to refuse to allow us to advance a single inch, and endeavours to lead us back into the labyrinth of the infinite and innumerable details of redistribution, we will not be parties to any such proceeding, and we must decline to enter into it.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
Sir, the House of Commons has just been treated by the Prime Minister to the first application, in its most rigid and barbarous form, of the clôture. The Prime Minister, no doubt, Sir, is vastly dissatisfied that his celebrated weapon for muzzling the House of Commons has not yet been put into practice by the Chair, and he has taken the opportunity of giving the strongest hint in his power 770 to those who sit beside him to manufacture an amount of mechanical "evident sense," so sonorous and so terrifying, that you, Sir, may be intimidated into giving regard to it. After one speech only from a Member certainly as much entitled to speak, and I may say more entitled to speak, on the subject than nine-tenths of the Members of the House—a speech dealing with the whole matter of redistribution as plainly and as concisely as it could be dealt with—the Prime Minister says—" I decline to argue the matter; I decline to debate the question; I myself shall keep silence, and I peremptorily order all those behind me to keep silence too." I congratulate the Liberal Party on the servility to which they have been reduced. Four years of unmitigated adulation has reduced them to a state of servility which I venture to say would be degrading to a Hottentot Parliament. I shall be curious to see whether this peremptory injunction—the most peremptory injunction that any Prime Minister, including even Lord Chatham himself, ever issued—will be abjectly obeyed by every Member of that noble army. At any rate, if it is, it will be an interesting and instructive lesson to the country as to the state to which Parliamentary Institutions are reduced. But, after all, what has the Prime Minister said on the question? He has charged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) with deliberate Obstruction—that is to say, resistance to the will of the House otherwise than by argument, as he defines it; and he has declared that the right hon. Gentleman in that able speech has been resisting the will of the House otherwise than by argument. Well, I should like to know has the will of the House been declared as to redistribution being included in this Bill? The House has not had an opportunity of giving a judgment in the matter. The Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), which was rejected by a majority of 130—a majority which the Prime Minister never seems to be tired of bragging about—did not raise that question. Redistribution was only one small item in that Amendment. The decision of the House was that it would not negative the second reading of the Bill; but the House has had no opportunity yet of coming to a decision, "aye" 771 or "no," as to whether the measure should include redistribution. This is the first opportunity we have had of deciding whether these two questions should be combined, or dealt with simultaneously or separately. The Prime Minister tells us—"We are very anxious to deal with the question of redistribution; but we utterly decline to discuss it, no matter how it might be brought forward. We wish to pass this Bill through the House without debate, and then deal with the question of redistribution." There would be something to be said for that argument if the Government were going to deal with the question of redistribution. For myself, I say that if I knew they were going to deal- with that question I should take no part in the discussion at all, for I should not attach the slightest consequence to the Bill. As I said in the country, the other day, it is a Bill which anybody could bring in, and which any Minister could pass if he had a servile majority behind him; but no matter how servile the Liberal Party, or how peremptory the Prime Minister's mandate, the question of redistribution is not going to be dealt with. He has said something about dealing with it next year. Where will the Prime Minister and his Government be next year? He would be a very bold man, indeed, who would hazard a conjecture. I should say they may be possibly at Khartoum; but it is very long odds that they will not be on the Treasury Bench. At any rate, hon. Gentlemen like the Members for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) and Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who express such confidence now that the Prime Minister would be on the Treasury Bench next year, did their utmost to tear him off the other night. Only by a majority of 15 did the right hon. Gentleman retain his place on that Bench, and only by that majority did the House consent to vote Supplies to the Government. Under these circumstances, the promise of the Prime Minister to deal with redistribution next Session is the most wild and frivolous promise ever given to the House of Commons; and there is not the slightest security, good, bad, or indifferent, that it will be redeemed. The right hon. Gentleman cast the most unjust aspersions on the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, because he said he wanted a genuine and sincere 772 Reform Bill. I charge the Government that it is they who are insincere on this question—they, who are dealing with a little bit of the subject, and who utterly refuse to deal with the real difficulties which surround it. Why are the Tory Party to be called insincere in the way they deal with Reform? They passed a much larger Bill than the Prime Minister has ever done, and in face of the opposition of the Prime Minister. Many of those who now sit round the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge were then in Parliament. Why are they, who supported the late Lord Beaconsfield in carrying that measure through the House, to be taunted with insincerity? The Reform Bill of 1867 dealt so completely with Reform that those who supported that measure have a perfect right to ask now for a Bill which deals completely with the question. If the Prime Minister will say he will produce a redistribution scheme directly this Bill passes, he will find that the latter will slip forward much more rapidly than it is otherwise likely to do. Why is not the whole Reform Question to occupy the attention of the House this Session? Why is Parliament only to deal with the subject piecemeal? Why does not the Prime Minister decide to put off the Redistribution Bill till 1887? Why do not the Government announce their intention of dealing with the question completely this Session? They have a majority of 130 at their back on this subject. They do not know that they will have that majority next year. Why is the question of redistribution to be shelved, in order that the Home Secretary may destroy the Lord Mayor? The only valid reason that has been given by the Government for not dealing with redistribution is that they would have no time to deal with other matters. Why should not the Home Secretary be allowed to destroy the Lord Mayor next year? Why not give the unfortunate man one year longer? The Government must be perfectly well aware—I defy them to contradict me—that if they chose to deal with redistribution this year, and to sacrifice their other measures, there would be ample time to do so. This Bill would pass through the House by the end of the month of May if we knew that redistribution was to follow, and the Government would have June 773 and July to deal with, the question of redistribution. The Government have never given an honest reason for postponing the question of redistribution, and, in the absence of an honest reason, we have a right to say that they do not intend to deal with it in this Parliament. There can be no question whatever that the Party manipulators and Party jery-manders who have influence on the Treasury Bench have made up their minds that the most favourable electorate to which the Liberal Party can appeal will be an electorate unredistributed. Her Majesty's Government are perfectly well aware, with, the experience they have had of General Elections, that almost the entire county rural population is dead against them; that every single county which seceded from the Opposition at the last Election will be won back; and they hope and intend, if we are frightened by the attitude of the Prime Minister, to swamp the county constituencies with what they trust will be an overwhelming body of voters who are not rural, supposing that those voters will be on their side. That is a trick to which the Party on this side of the House, I do not imagine, can lend themselves for a moment; and not only is it a trick of an utterly impolitic nature, but it is one which Her Majesty's Government absolutely refuse to debate, or discuss, or explain. The Prime Minister has done a most unusual thing—made a speech only about 10 minutes' long. That is his contribution to the discussion, and he has ordered the Liberal Party not to speak even for that length of time. He expects that those who do not serve under his banner will adopt a similar attitude. I cannot imagine for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition will take part in the practices of the Prime Minister. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of this House, has seen the Prime Minister try this game on more than once, and try it on unsuccessfully; and I cannot help thinking that a Party which numbers 250 Members of the House of Commons will know how to make the Prime Minister emerge from this obstinate and solemn silence, and debate this question of redistribution, not so much because we want to have it debated, as because the country wants it. Why should the Prime Minister be allowed to do that which no 774 Premier has ever done before? Why should he be allowed to introduce a Reform Bill without redistribution? The Reform Bill of 1832 contained an immense measure of redistribution, and that of 1867 included a large measure of a similar kind. It is perfectly idle to say that redistribution is not necessary now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) has proved that a larger measure of transfer of seats will be rendered necessary by this Bill than by any Reform Bill ever introduced before; and to put off that question without giving any security that it will ever be dealt with is a condition that all the rights of minorities must be availed of to their last extremity, in order to break down. There will have to be a great deal of busy manufacture of "evident sense" before hon. Members on this side of the House will give up their attempt to prove to the country the hollowness and utter insincerity of the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government. I only want to say one word with reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge as to minority representation. He quoted me to the effect that I did not care for checks- and guarantees. Well, I said I did not care for the particular kind of checks and guarantees which were involved in the popularly received notion of minority representation, because I know perfectly well that if the majority is bent upon having its way, those checks and guarantees will be swept away in a few hours. But your real checks and guarantees will be found in a measure of redistribution. That is why, attaching as I do enormous importance to this question, I cannot support a Bill which does not deal with redistribution, or a Government which refuses to do so. With respect to the minorities in the country—whether Conservative or Liberal—the real protector is the House of Lords. That is the Assembly which will prevent injustice being done to any class without the consent of the people of the country. I have always looked upon that House as the only efficient protector of the rights of minorities. At any rate, it is one which has lasted the longest and, as far as I can judge at present, seems to possess every element of endurance. 775 But I did not intend, if the Government had made any statement on the question of redistribution which could have been construed as in any way affording a satisfactory assurance that the question would be dealt with this Session, or that the Bill would not come into operation until it was dealt with—I did not intend to take any part in the debates in this House, or to have interposed to prevent the Speaker leaving the Chair; but I do believe now, seeing the attitude taken by the Prime Minister —which is an attitude that the House would never have tolerated from anyone but the Prime Minister—that hon. Members on this side of the House ought to persevere in the use of all their rights, and refuse, in the strongest possible manner, to become partners in the servility of the Liberal Party.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
I do not know if the speech we have heard from the Prime Minister this evening is a type of the sort of speeches we are to hear from time to time in these Reform debates. But it seems an amazing assumption that the Prime Minister should be entitled to get up and tell the House of Commons that he will not himself discuss, and that so far as his authority goes he will not allow them to discuss, one of the most important questions connected with the representation of the people. The right hon. Gentleman has said that an ample opportunity was given some time ago for the discussion of this question. He said that a further opportunity was to come very shortly upon the Amendment to be proposed by the Lord Mayor of London. The Prime Minister's speech reminds one of the nursery story, Alice in Wonderland. Wonderland was a land where there was always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam to-day. The Prime Minister declines to discuss redistribution now, because, as he alleges, it was discussed on a previous occasion, and partly because it is going to be discussed when some other Amendment comes before the House. It is incorrect to say that redistribution was discussed in the former debates, because the Prime Minister would not discuss it, and only gave the House a hazy sketch of his own personal opinions about the subject—opinions which were promptly repudiated by Liberal Members, and did not find support from the right hon. 776 Gentleman's Colleagues. Practically, what took place in those debates enforced my hon. Friend's claim to bring this matter before the House now. It is precisely because the Government have shown that they have no distinct and definite purpose with regard to redistribution—and, if they ever had any such purpose, have quarrelled upon it—that it is necessary to bring this matter before the House. When the Lord Mayor's Amendment comes before the House the right hon. Gentleman may, with perfect justice, appeal to that majority of 130, of which the Home Secretary is never tired of boasting in his country excursions. But the Government having shown itself either unwilling or unable to lead the House on the question of redistribution, is it not the duty of the House to declare, before it goes into Committee, that this question must be incorporated in the Bill? There is one matter that has been referred to here again and again with regard to the effect of this Bill. We had certain figures put before the House by the Premier as to the number to be enfranchised under this Bill; but we have no satisfactory statistics. The only thing we know is that in the figures the Premier gave to the House he was quite wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said, in what have since been called the round figures of a rhetorical speech, that in Ireland 400,000 people would be enfranchised; in Scotland, 300,000; and in England, 1,300,000. These are, I believe, the figures originally given. The argument of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was based upon them; and one of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues got up and said that they were erroneous to the extent of no less than 80,000 in the case of Ireland, where the number to be enfranchised would be 480,000 instead of 400,000. Whether the same margin is to be allowed in England and Scotland we have no means whatever of knowing; but, if so, the matter becomes serious indeed. When the Prime Minister was speaking I ventured to differ from him as to the proportion of agricultural voters to be added to the constituencies. I ventured to say that certainly not more than 500,000 out of 1,300,000 added in England and Wales would be engaged in agricultural pursuits. The whole number of agricultural labourers in England 777 and Wales is 870,000; and when you deduct the number who are already on the Register, and the number who will not come upon the Register under this Bill at all, 500,000 would be the full extent of their enfranchisement under this Bill. Who are the other 800,000? They are the urban population, who are, practically, to invade the counties, and who are relied upon to change the character of the representation of these counties. Now, Sir, it is a very serious question for the House of Commons whether it should allow half a Bill to be taken in one Parliament, when, according to the Prime Minister, the only matter which prevents its being made a complete Bill is the fact that to do that you must give up the whole Session to it. As the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has said, the only measure which disputes the time of the House with this Bill is the Home Secretary's Bill dealing with the Government of London, for the President of the Board of Trade has not yet settled his differences with the opponents of the Merchant Shipping Bill. But is there any reason why either measure should not be put aside in favour of this Bill? If they are not put aside, what will happen? The new electors under this Bill will not come upon the electoral roll until January, 1886. Why will the Liberal Party be asked next year to pass a Redistribution Bill? Will it be to take away the Party advantage which the Franchise Bill gives them? It is scarcely conceivable that when they have passed a Bill which gives them the control of 30 additional county constituencies, and of 60 seats, they will address themselves to pass a Bill which deprives them of that advantage. It is the manipulation of those constituencies which the Government has in view. Suppose the question goes over to another Parliament? Suppose those 30 constituencies should be dominated by the new Radical vote? Who can expect that the 60 Representatives of those counties would support any alteration in distribution? If the separation of the urban and rural populations were proposed, what would be the answer? It would be—" We get two votes for the county constituency; if we divide it into two portions, rural and urban, our opponents would get in for one of the divisions." I believe that a new 778 Reform Bill is an early necessity; but it would have been better to let the question sleep for a while until other matters have been dealt with which it is quite competent for the House to discuss. There are matters of reform in the House itself which would be more useful for the country than the Parliamentary franchise. I therefore protest against this Bill because, while its first result will be to strengthen the Party opposite in 30 county constituencies, the effect then will be to disincline them to measures of redistribution which are necessary for the completion of the work, but which will probably, and I think certainly, deprive them of the Party advantage they have gained. These are matters about which there may or may not be differences of opinion between the two sides of the House; but surely they are matters it is reasonable to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman has been for weeks past denouncing his opponents for Obstruction which prevents this question being brought forward. Yet, what is his attitude the moment he is here? At an early period in the evening we are able for the first time to pass to a large question of this kind. We demand to know, as we are entitled to be told, whether the Government have any definite kind of purpose upon the matter, and the moment that real opportunity occurs up jumps the Prime Minister and says— "We will have no discussion at all." The right hon. Gentleman says we must go on to another Amendment, and then, of course, he will decline again, and decline upon much better grounds. I, for one, think that before any extension of the franchise is allowed to pass into law we should have some distinct scheme from the Government and a pledge that they will act upon it, or by some means or other an appeal to the people should be insisted upon. To alter the constituencies by this measure, and then to appeal to the people, will practically be to have arranged the constituencies for yourselves, and to have defeated any hope of a real scheme of redistribution. Not only will you have 187 Members representing 2,250,000 of voters and 280 representing 1,500,000, but of these 187 who would then represent the agricultural interest 60 seats would be elected by constituences which would, have been swamped by the in- 779 vasion of urban voters. However impatient the Prime Minister may be, surely he cannot expect this measure will pass without resistance. Should it do so, the agricultural constituencies of the country would be absolutely betrayed by their Members. Neither the Prime Minister nor any of his Colleagues will venture to deny that you have a fairer representation now than you would have under this Bill if you pass it without redistribution. Why, then, should we pass a Bill of this kind to make anomalies worse, and to prevent their being remedied in any honest manner? A few years ago the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board published a book upon Parliamentary Reform, and in that book he quoted with approval certain observations that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) at Rochdale. The right hon. Baronet said in his book— Many, indeed, view the assimilation of borough and county franchise as an immediate and pressing question, chiefly because that assimilation is a necessary first step to a just distribution of political power. They agree in the view put forward in 1859 and 1860 by Mr. Bright at Rochdale. Mr. Bright said that while to give a man a vote may be to please his sentiment of independence and equality, yet as regards legislation and government, the giving a man a vote or the giving 1,000,000 of men votes is of no value whatsoever unless what I should call the soul of the representative system be equitably adjusted. Again he says— At Liverpool an aristocracy working with and through a mock representation is the most complete instrument ever devised to squeeze wealth from the toil of a nation under pretence of governing it. In his words a mock representation, says the right hon. Baronet, it is from the context clear that Mr. Bright was speaking not of the deceptions of the franchise partly redressed in 1867, but of those of the distribution of political power which are greater now than they were at the moment at which he spoke. These points were put forward by the right hon. Baronet as being essential; and our complaint against this Bill is that while not carrying out a complete reform it will make a complete reform almost impossible. Under these circumstances, there will be no reluctance on this side of the House to face such, un- 780 just charges as the Premier has made against us for very obvious and transparent reasons. These charges are made to prevent Members of the Tory Party from showing to the country what a sham the Bill is, and that it is a mere political expedient, whose objects are, first, to secure the present Ministry in power until 1886, because they will be able to urge that it would be premature to appeal to the country before the new constituency has been properly registered; and, secondly, to throw enormously increased weight into that class of the representation which they now hold in their own hands. For whom are the denunciations intended which have so undeservedly been uttered this evening? Members on the Opposition Benches will not be thereby deterred from discharging their public duties. I suppose they are intended for Liberal meetings. They supply a kind of oratory useful in the Provinces. It is useful to withdraw attention from questions of foreign or commercial policy by general denunciations of Obstruction. It is to the country that the Conservative Party desire to appeal, and the Prime Minister may be quite sure that every charge of that kind made in the spirit and with the temper which has been displayed this evening will encourage rather than discourage the Party on this side of the House to carry the controversy beyond the walls of this House, and to those constituencies to which they will force the Government to appeal before this Bill passes through Parliament.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he thought that the exceptional action of the Government would lead to the necessity of adopting some exceptional measures. That was not the first occasion, within his (Mr. Brodrick's) own short Parliamentary experience, on which the Government had endeavoured to stifle debate, and to gag their own Followers who were anxious to express their own opinions to the House. There was a large number of Gentlemen opposite who were anxious to speak on the second reading of the Bill, who were unable to do so. They had risen like a flock of birds at each stage of the debate; but they had now been removed, and were not allowed to speak. He maintained that it was absolutely impossible that the debate could be satisfactorily con- 781 tinued solely from one quarter of the House, and without any answer from the Government. It had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) that if the Bill was carried without redistribution, the practical effect would be to deprive agricultural constituencies of one-half of their representation; and, in the face of such a statement, the agricultural constituencies had the right to insist that they should receive explanations of the course the Government intended to take in order to avoid such a consequence. Appeals had also been made to the Government to give a reply upon the question of minority representation, and to furnish assurances which would enable the debates to proceed without difficulty, and yet they had not hitherto attempted to reply to these criticisms or the speech of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) on the predominance that would be given to Irish representation. If Her Majesty's Government did not intervene and take part in the debate and answer the arguments addressed to them, there was but one course open to the Opposition, and that was to move the adjournment of the debate. That course he proposed to take. He had no doubt that the Prime Minister and his Supporters would endeavour, throughout the length and breadth of the land, to saddle the Opposition with Obstruction; but he, for one, did not care a rap for such a charge under the present circumstances. It was a canon of Parliamentary discussion that the arguments of your opponents had to be fairly answered unless they were stated at such a length that it was obvious they were put forward for the purpose of Obstruction. They had had speeches that evening by three Gentlemen holding high position in the House, and not one of them had received any reply except the determination expressed by the Prime Minister, that he would do his best to prevent any reply being made. Under these circumstances, the continuance of the debate would be simply a Parliamentary sham; to carry it on from one side would be simply playing into the hands of the Government by reiterating arguments that were not answered and letting the Opposition talk itself out. He felt personally very strongly on the matter, as he represented a county which, in respect of 782 population, Income Tax, and registered electors, was properly entitled to more Members than any other county, and more than the whole Principality of Wales; and, whatever standard was adopted, the county of Surrey would be entitled to from 22 to 29 Members, instead of 11 as at present, and therefore he represented a strong interest on the question of redistribution. Under these circumstances, he would not submit to being told by the Prime Minister that he was guilty of Obstruction in bringing that question before the House. It was an ill-chosen time for the Government to intrench themselves in the reserve of silence at the opening of these discussions on the Reform Bill, and was eminently calculated thus to give a handle to and provoke scenes that all must desire to avoid. Hitherto there had been nothing done by the Opposition in the discussion of the measure that was not perfectly legitimate, and he challenged the Prime Minister, in the whole of his Parliamentary experience, to tell him of any Reform Bill of similar magnitude which had passed its various stages with less discussion. Why, the Reform Bill of 1867 occupied eight nights in the discussion on the second reading; and on the last night of the debate on the present Bill, great influence had to be exercised on the Opposition side of the House to prevent the debate being prolonged. Seeing no indication on the part of the Government of their intention to conform to ordinary Parliamentary practice, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Brodrick.)

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick) seems to me to be extremely indignant without cause, and has taken an unusual course; but it appears to me that the position that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has taken is one which is perfectly feasible and defensible. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if they wish to be answered, and have a debate upon the subject, perhaps hon. Members will allow me to state why I think so. Practically speaking, the question now sought to be raised has been already debated, having been under discussion for seven nights. ["No, 783 no!"] If you insist on having debate, do let a speaker on this side of the House finish a sentence; it is not encouraging to be interrupted in this way when one is making a simple statement. When the Bill was introduced, there was very little said by the Opposition on the question of principle. During the two nights devoted to the introduction of the Bill, and the five spent on the second reading, every possible reason was alleged why this Bill should not proceed singly, and why it should be connected with a Redistribution Bill. The knowledge of everyone in and out of the House will confirm the statement, that the staple of the seven nights' debate was the propriety and necessity of joining redistribution with franchise; and, therefore, to assert that, for seven nights, this question had not been discussed is to assert what is contrary to everybody's knowledge. In point of fact, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire(Lord John Manners) raised that distinct issue by his Amendment, and it was upon that Amendment, and not upon the question of extending the franchise, that the debate proceeded and the Division was taken—that Division which the last speaker will not allow me to be proud of. After seven nights' debate, on the question whether the. franchise must be connected with redistribution, there was a Division taken by this House of an overwhelming character; the meaning of that Division—and no one can deny the proposition—was that the House was not of opinion that it was expedient to connect these two measures immediately in the present Session. ["No, no!"] The Opposition themselves tried to represent that it was not a Division against the principle of the Bill, but that it was a Division against the separation of redistribution from the question of the franchise; that was the light in which they desired it to be viewed. This House pronounced in favour of separation— ["No, no!"] Do let me make my statement; you may contradict it in debate, but do not endeavour to clamour people down; you insist on our speaking, and the moment we make a statement you contradict it by clamour. I repeat the statement, that the Division on the noble Lord's Amendment was substantially a Division on the question whether redistribution should be connected im- 784 mediately with the extension of the franchise. ["Oh, oh!"] The noble Lord did not demand that the two measures should be combined in the same Bill; he was more moderate than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). The noble Lord said he would be quite satisfied if we laid our redistribution scheme on the Table to be debated afterwards; but the House rejected that demand by 130; and now the right hon. Gentleman advances the demand that they shall be taken in the same Bill. Is that a reasonable course after the issue has been raised and a Division taken upon it? The last speaker is indignant, because we do not desire to give any encouragement to that course of proceeding. We say that there has been seven nights' debate, practically upon the necessity and propriety of combining inextricably together, at the same time, the questions of redistribution and of franchise. We say that, after full and ample debate on the subject, the House has given a decisive voice upon it. It was said by the hon. Member who has moved the adjournment of the debate (Mr. Brodrick) that my right hon. Friend has ordered hon. Members on this side who are anxious to speak to be silent. I do not observe that my right hon. Friend or anybody on this Bench is able to order hon. Members on this side not to speak, when the Government do not want them to speak. If such orders were given, they would not be obeyed. The real truth is, that hon. Gentleman who sit on this side of the House are as little disposed to play the game of delay as if they sat on this Bench. They knew perfectly well what was the intention of a Motion of this character, which is a reproduction, and nothing but a reproduction, of the point already decided. We have said, both in and out of the House, that we are willing that this issue shall be judged by the arguments we have advanced. Hon. Members say they have not spoken enough on the question of redistribution and the franchise being joined together; we think we have; if they have more to say on the subject, we must let them say it. We can only listen, for we do not desire to reproduce the arguments which for seven days we offered. We think that seven days' argument on this question, followed by a Division with a 785 majority of 130, is quite enough, and that all beyond that is simply a waste of time. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) invites us to go into the question of minority representation.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
I have done nothing of the kind.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
No; he has settled that for himself. He says that the House of Lords represents the minority in this House.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
No, I did not.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
However that may be, they may represent the Conservative minority; but they are not very admirable Representatives of a Liberal minority. How often have they ever been found to be so? However, I am not going to be led into that question. What we say is, that this House has decided that it will not connect in one Bill, neither in the manner proposed by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire, nor in that proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, the two questions of the franchise and of redistribution. They have determined, by that majority, that they will take the two questions separately, one after the other. That was the question debated for seven days; that was the question then decided. In our opinion we have said all we desire to say, all that requires to be said; and we will be no party to a further waste of time by reviving a discussion practically identical with that which has occupied seven days of the time of this House.

§ MR. GIBSON
Sir, I was in hopes, from the earlier utterances and the earlier tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he was going to perform the function unfamiliar to him of pouring oil upon the troubled waters; but, whether he got some practical suggestion which we could not witness, or whether the strength of his nature asserted itself, I do not know, but, unquestionably, towards the close of his speech he adopted a tone and used expressions that I do not think are calculated to restore harmony to our proceedings, or to promote an easy transit of this Bill through its present stage. To my mind, my hon. Friend who moved the adjournment of the debate (Mr. Brodrick) was not only within his right, but acted discreetly and with 786 wisdom in the course that he took; and I, unquestionably, if this debate is allowed to close without some speech more in accordance with what the House has a right to expect, shall support him when he goes into the Division Lobby. I venture to think also that my hon. Friend will be followed there by every Member of the House of Commons who feels himself at liberty to support the requirements of public discussion and the decencies of ordinary Parliamentary debate. What has been the course adopted in reference to this, the greatest Bill introduced into Parliament during this century—a Bill which will not only reform the constitution of Parliament, but which will change almost all the constituencies and make an absolute revolution in Ireland? On this, the second most important stage of this great and vast Bill of stupendous dimensions, a Bill for which you have demanded the sympathy of Parliament and of the country, on the ground of the grandeur of its conceptions and the vastness of its scope —on the very first day of this stage, when one who is not a novice in Parliamentary debate, but one who for many years has been an honoured and distinguished Member of this House, who presided with dignity in the Chair as Deputy Speaker for a long period, and who made a speech which attracted attention on the second reading of this Bill, and commanded even the respect and attention of the Liberal Press—when he, with the weight of his authority and with a gravity of diction which the subject requires, gravely moves an Instruction to the Committee, how is he met? He is met by the Prime Minister in a speech of unrivalled shortness. I believe the space of time occupied by the right hon. Gentleman was within 10 minutes. But did he, in that time, condescend to use one single argument or one word of courteous recognition that it was a matter as to which those who felt strongly had a right to their opinions? Not at all. The Prime Minister would not attempt to argue the matter himself, protested against it being brought forward, and urged, as a piece of advice, that his followers should not be led into argument upon it. Is that the way to meet an important Motion, one as to which men feel strongly, and on which they have a right to hold very strong opinions? Both right hon. Gentlemen, the 787 Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, have stated that this matter has been fully threshed out in the seven days' debate on the second reading; but that stage of the Bill only occupied a part of seven days. Sometimes those days were very short periods, especially when the debate did not commence until 8 and 9 o'clock. And why was that? Because the Government, in the earlier hours of the Sitting, would not give clear and frank answers to Questions addressed to them about Egypt. Those seven days, of course, were taken up in debating the Motion of my noble Friend (Lord John Manners), but the debate also turned upon the whole scope of the Bill; and any hon. Member who rose addressed his observations exactly as they struck his mind in reference to the measure. Some dealt with the Irish Question, some with redistribution, some with proportionate representation, and some with other points. Compare the period of seven days with the time occupied in discussing other Parliamentary Reform questions, and you will see an immense moderation of debate shown. ["Oh, oh!"] How many days were occupied in the debate on the introduction of the Reform Bill of 1832? I believe more than have been taken up by the whole discussion on the second reading of the present Bill. Take the Reform Bill of 1866, which was not so large a measure as the present Bill, and on which the Liberal Government of the day were signally defeated. Two days were occupied on the introduction, and eight days were taken up on the second reading. The debate on the Motion to go into Committee on that Bill extended over four days, and the catastrophe which overcame the Government did not take place until the Bill had been in Committee four days. Now, what is the case with regard to the present Bill? On this, the first night of the discussion on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," the Prime Minister says that he will not debate the first Instruction to the Committee which has been presented in a serious Parliamentary speech; and he invites all his Followers to enter with him into an absolute conspiracy of silence. Is that treating the House of Commons, the Opposition, and the rights of debate with that fair and legitimate courtesy 788 which we have a right to expect? One of the Resolutions on the Motion to go into Committee the Prime Minister picks out, and says that it should be discussed, and that the speeches should be reserved for it. On turning to the Notice Paper, I find that the Resolution stands there in the name of my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of London. What it that Motion? I was surprised when I saw what it was. I think I may clearly assume that the Prime Minister was not joking. The Motion is absolutely, Sir, that you do not leave the Chair for a period of six months. Is not the Prime Minister playing with the House in making that suggestion? The right hon. Gentleman could say, with greater force upon that Motion than he could upon, the Motion now before the House, that the question had been discussed and affirmed on the second reading. Then, again, what was really the nature of the argument of the Secretary of State for the Home Department? He used the words, "the game of delay." Were there ever words more ludicrously absurd addressed to that House? Everyone knows that when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking at Derby he did not venture on that kind of rhetoric, or say that there had been any delay in regard to this Bill. He talked very glibly about Obstruction, and the inconvenience of putting Questions, and said how they could be shortened; and yet, this very evening, he has given an answer occupying nearly a quarter of an hour with reference to his domestic affairs. If the truth is confessed, it seems to me that the Government are rather afraid that the Bill is going forward a little too quickly. Everyone knows that great pressure was used to enable the debate on the second reading to close at the time it did; and that there were many hon. Members on both sides of the House who desired to deliver speeches which they had carefully prepared and thought out, and which their constituencies expected them to deliver. It is, therefore, simply absurd to talk about the "game of delay" and to use the expression "waste of time." Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that this is a topic of Obstruction; but the Conservative Party are not going to be, in the slightest degree, frightened by that. One hears of the cry of Obstruction every day, We 789 are getting almost tired of it. We cannot take up a letter written by any of the Prime Minister's Private Secretaries that does not contain some reference to it. I believe that those who have put down Amendments have not the faintest desire unduly to prolong the time for discussing the Bill at this stage, and, therefore, the charge of Obstruction cannot be brought against them. It is suggested by the Government that the Opposition have started the Egyptian troubles in order to kill the Reform Bill. That, I think, is one of the Derby prophesies. I never retort; but if I were to do so, I would suggest that the Government are trying to flog up an interest in the Reform Bill in order to kill the interest in Egypt. I have had no desire since I entered Parliament, and as long as I have the honour of a seat in Parliament I hope it will continue to be so—to prevent a debate taking its natural course without prolixity. I very much regret that the Prime Minister did not try to meet the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) in a manner more respectful to the House, and less hurtful to hon. Members on this side. We had a right to think that the question would be adequately debated, while those who entered into the discussion would make short speeches. I hope even now that some observations will be made by the Government which will indicate a desire and a permission that this debate should proceed like every other debate conducted with propriety in, the House of Commons, and if some such indication is not given I shall be obliged to support the Motion of my right, hon. Friend.

MR. GLADSTONE
I will endeavour, in the few observations I shall make, to avoid all heated expressions. I may not be very successful in pouring oil upon the troubled waters, but I will not add to the heat. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) and some others entirely misrepresented the words used by me, and put into my mouth words I never uttered, and which I entirely repudiate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) did fairly represent what I said—that we, the Government, intended not to debate redistribution on the present occasion, and I advised all who would listen to my advice that they would act wisely if they did not debate it. That is now 790 said to be an outrageous proceeding, and the minority say that they must have recourse to extraordinary measures, and that it may have the effect of stopping discussion on the subject altogether. There are, no doubt, very serious differences of opinion between us. We think we have introduced a Bill of great simplicity and moderation; that we framed it so as to conciliate all that can be conciliated; and it may be that proposals might be made in Committee which we should endeavour to meet in the same spirit in which we have framed the Bill. That is our case for claiming that this Bill should be fairly dealt with and fully discussed. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman who has made this rather remarkable Motion (Mr. Raikes), "this is a debate in extreme circumstances." "And," says the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, "Look at the moderation of our proceedings as regards this Bill compared with what has been done on former occasions." I accept that challenge. What Bills does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to? What examples does he quote to justify what he is now doing, except a reference intended to show that upon two former occasions his own Party have done still worse?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
The right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1832, belonged to that Party.

MR. GLADSTONE
I was not concerned in any of those proceedings. I certainly belonged to that Party when it was a very different Party indeed from what it is now—when it was a Party under Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Aberdeen. I have never been ashamed before Liberal audiences to refer to my connection with that Party. I have always said that, though I may have given votes at that period which I now regret, that that Party, in its high and honourable conduct, in its patriotism, in its contempt for un-Parliamentary proceedings, in its incapability of condescending, by indirect and unworthy means, to obtain its ends, was as pure and high-minded a Party as ever sat in this House. Now I come back to matters of fact. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do to show the moderation of his Party is to point to what they did on two former occasions. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) was 791 much, bolder. He referred to the Be-form Bill of 1867, and he told us that it was debated for eight nights.

§ MR. BRODRICK
That I believed so; I meant the Reform Bill of 1866.

MR. GLADSTONE
No doubt the hon. Member believed so. The Reform Bill of 1866 was killed by Obstruction. It was killed by Obstruction at a period when the art of Obstruction was not nearly so fully developed into a fine art as it is now. It was then in a rude state. There was not the smallest idea of that Obstruction which is now pursued. The only idea of Obstruction then entertained was direct Obstruction by waste of time on the measure itself, whereas now an indirect method is adopted. I will come presently to the Bill of 1867. It is natural enough that we should look back to the course taken in years when Obstruction was not practised. In regard to the Bill of 1830, I do not believe that seven nights' debate was too much, or that it was an obstructive debate. It was the first time when a Government, except when Mr. Pitt was hardly out of his nonage, had taken up a measure of Parliamentary Reform, and the Bill then introduced went so far beyond expectation that the effect produced in the country was, according to the familiar expression, "a revolution." The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have told us what happened on that Bill. There were two nights on the introduction and seven nights on the second reading—that is, one week and one day—because the measures of the Government were then allowed to go on from day to day. The second measure of 1831 was introduced in one night. The Bill which finally passed was introduced in one night. The Bill of 1854 was introduced in one night. The Bill of 1859, when the Liberals were in Opposition, was introduced in one night. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: And debated eight nights on the second reading.] The Bill of 1860 was introduced in one night. The Bill of 1867 was introduced in one night; and the solitary example that can be quoted on the other side is the brilliant precedent of 1866, when the methods of Obstruction were most successfully pursued to their conclusion. The hon. Member for West Surrey said that eight nights were spent by the Liberals on the Bill of 1867. [Mr. BRODRICK: I did not say 792 by the Liberals."] There were two nights, not eight nights. That was the way the Liberals treated their responsible opponents. One night was spent on the introduction, two nights on the second reading, one night on going into Committee, and of that one night a portion was occupied by a Motion of a Conservative Member. Now, that being so, I am not so sensible of the great moderation of hon. Gentlemen in spending only seven nights on the discussion of this Bill on the introduction and second reading. The Bill of 1867 was a Bill of the most insignificant character as regarded its operative power ever introduced into Parliament; but it was a Bill that contained a principle of enormous consequence that might have been debated for a long time. This Bill is really a sequel to the Bill of 1867. It simply applies in the counties the principle of the Bill of 1867, not as it was introduced, but as it was finally passed, and as it was supplemented by the Bills of 1868 and 1869. Under these circumstances, it does not appear to us that spending seven nights before the second reading on a Bill which is in the nature of a sequel, is a great proof of moderation as regards the consumption of the time of Parliament. However, we did not complain on that occasion. We heard the question of redistribution discussed through those seven nights. It is impossible to deny that, by far, the greater portion of those seven nights was spent in discussing that point. The question of minorities and other matters occupied not, I believe, four-fifths of a night. At the close of those seven nights, the House by a majority of 130 decided, what?—that it would refuse a Motion which simply asked that the Government plan of redistribution should be laid before it, not that it should be embodied in the Bill. That was the last act of the last night on which the Bill was before the House. That being so, this is the very next night on which we approach the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes), in the face of that majority, will not allow us to discuss the question of the Speaker's leaving the Chair, but insists that we shall again discuss the question of the insertion of redistribution in the Bill, which is a larger demand than that which the House rejected by a majority of 130. There is no reason for being 793 hot about that matter, but we entertain a very strong opinion upon it. We think that there is evidence which appears to be conclusive upon a certain point which I need not again develop. What I have said is that we are not bound to play into your hands by creating a debate for you. The majority has decided that the scheme of redistribution should not be produced, and, therefore, a furtiori should not be embodied in the Bill. You, the minority, thereupon immediately make a Motion insisting that redistribution shall be placed in the Bill; and not only does the minority stop, and arrest entirely, and bring to a deadlock, the Bill approved by the majority, but it actually insists that the majority shall, by making speeches which it does not want to make, provide material for the minority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he believed I was in joke in referring to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor. For my part, I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have been in joke throughout his whole speech. We are only using such means of defence as we have—very feeble, and ineffective means, I am sorry to say—in declining to supply to hon. Gentlemen opposite pabulum and fodder with which to spin out speeches for which otherwise they could not possibly find material. I think our proceedings are moderate, and that the proceedings on the other side of the House are immoderate, and we must assert the view that we take, by refusing to agree to this Motion.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says it cannot be expected that the Government should play into the hands of their opponents. I think that we may also fairly say that we cannot be expected to play into the hands of the Government. We cannot approve the very remarkable position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in not only objecting to my right hon. Friend's (Mr. Raikes's) proceedings; but in picking out among the Amendments the one which he considers the best suited for discussion, from the point of view of the Government, and recommending us to delay further discussion until we come to the Amendment of the Lord Mayor.

MR. GLADSTONE
I did not recommend that course to the right hon. 794 Gentleman or his Friends, but to those who sit on this side of the House.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
I thought that the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman was addressed to us as well. It may suit the purposes of the Government very well to take the issue upon that Amendment; but then they will say, if you vote for it, you will kill the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge asks the House in his Amendment to discuss a definite proposition, and I deny that his arguments are so trivial that they do not merit an answer. He says— "Bring forward your proposition, and let us discuss it." That proposition may be a good one, or a bad one, and the House may or may not entertain it; but I absolutely deny that, by what the House has done up to this point, it has pronounced on the question of redistribution. I absolutely deny that the argument of my right hon. Friend is of so trivial a character as to justify the Prime Minister in getting up and saying that he is not going to make any answer himself, nor that anyone on that side will. I assert that is not the way in which this matter should be treated. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there were many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who desired to take part in the debate on the second reading, but who were induced to abstain from doing so, in order that time might not be lost. I spent myself many uncomfortable quarters of an hour in using efforts to induce hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House to keep silence. I cannot go into these comparisons with regard to how many days were spent on this occasion and on that; but even, according to the statement that has been made, there have been, many occasions upon which an equal length of time has been spent. But there is always something peculiar in these cases; and, in this case, we are dealing with a measure of which the larger part is kept and buried in darkness. My noble Friend (Lord John Manners) in his Amendment on the second reading said—" We ask the House not to go on in the dark, but to insist upon having the whole plan of the Government." The Government said—" We will not produce our whole plan, and if you agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord you will stop the Bill." Consequently, 795 many hon. Gentlemen felt that they could not vote for the Amendment of my noble Friend, because they were told that by so doing they would prevent the further progress of the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University says—" You have chosen to take that position, and as you have chosen to say that you will not have the whole plan of the Government produced, let me at least point out the consequences, that this matter cannot be dealt with without dealing with redistribution," which is not raised in the question of my noble Friend. My right hon. Friend asks to be allowed to prove that redistribution must come, and that power shall be taken to include it in the Bill. That proposal is not met by arguments, but by a refusal on the part of the Prime Minister to enter into any discussion, as if the subject were not worth consideration. I think myself that, under the circumstances, the course proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) is not unreasonable as marking our sense of the manner in which the Government are inclined to treat this question, and if he goes to a Division, I shall support him. I still hope, however, that the arguments of my right hon. Friend may be answered. Anyhow, whether they are answered or not, I think it is right that we should put on record our protest against this manner of conducting a Bill of this enormous importance.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 108: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 72.)

§ Original Question again proposed.

§ MR. ELTON
, in supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes), said, he hoped that, without laying himself open to charges of Obstruction, he would be permitted to make a few remarks on the intimate connection between the questions of redistribution and the franchise. The Prime Minister had held it out, as a bid to the Irish Party, that no reduction should be made in the number of Representatives to which Ireland was to be entitled; and he had also, in the course of his Mid Lothian campaign, promised that Scotland should have several more Members. In the present political complexion of Wales, it was 796 not to be supposed that any Members would be taken from the Principality to make up the required number, nor was it to be supposed that the large towns of the North of England would lose any of their Representatives. Therefore, he was led to the conclusion that the South and West of England would be called upon to make up the deficiency which would ensue in carrying out that arrangement, by giving up some of their Members. Being connected with that part of the country he was naturally alarmed, and therefore earnestly protested against such a course being adopted. It was because this plan had been suggested, that he thought the House was entitled to fuller explanations of the policy of the Government than it had yet received. He maintained that the House ought not to pass this measure without getting a clue to the redistribution scheme, and that it was unwise to blindly increase the power of the Irish Nationalist Party. He thought the Prime Minister might have moderated his wild denunciations of those who only wished to secure what they thought to be right.

§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDER
said, he rose, in his capacity as a Scottish Member, to say a few words on a Bill in which Scotland had, at the present time, a more than ordinary interest, and, also, because he felt very doubtful whether, under present arrangements, Scotland would ever receive the additional Members to which the Prime Minister had acknowledged she was entitled. The reason why he claimed for Scotland an interest in the Bill beyond that possessed by England or by Ireland was that, in any scheme of redistribution, or, to speak more correctly, in any fair scheme of redistribution, she alone could claim, in her capacity as a separate country, a considerable number of additional Representatives. He said advisedly as a separate country, because, although there were many populous places both in England and Ireland which were insufficiently represented at the present time, a remedy for the evil might easily be found, he thought, within the limits of those countries themselves. The Government ought to take Members from the small, decaying boroughs, and give them to the populous city or county. Scotland, so far as he was aware, had never been considered to be over-represented. On the con- 797 trary, there were many places in Scotland either insufficiently represented or not represented at all. No one, he thought, would be found to deny that upon any fair computation, whether based upon either population, property, or taxation, Scotland was entitled to at least some 10 or 12 additional Members. The question then arose whence those Members were to come, and where they were to be found. Many people in Scotland, including the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), were simple and sanguine enough to believe that Ireland might, in that respect, be made to satisfy all the just claims of Scotland. He (Major General Alexander) honestly confessed that he had not shared those opinions. How the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and those who agreed with him, could have been so simple as to suppose that Her Majesty's Government for a moment seriously contemplated the withdrawal of a single Representative from Ireland passed his comprehension. When, some months ago, the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the gratuitous announcement that he was prepared to govern Ireland, not with cold justice, but with "sympathetic" justice, he (Major General Alexander) was convinced there lurked danger in that mysterious phrase; and he accordingly told his constituents that whatever "sympathetic" justice to Ireland might be supposed to mean, lie would not be far wrong in assuming that it meant the greatest possible injustice both to England and to Scotland. A few weeks before the opening of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), the man who, beyond all others in the Cabinet, was to manipulate the constituencies, let the cat out of the bag, and told them just what they might expect with regard to the maintenance of Irish Representation in that House. That statement shocked and alarmed even Liberal Scotch Members; and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy himself wrote a letter to The Scotsman, saying it had always been understood in Scotland that, in any scheme of redistribution, Scotland should gain, and Ireland, with a diminishing population, certainly lose some of her Members. But the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board well 798 knew that any measure of Reform which did not include Ireland would encounter serious opposition in the House, and so he deliberately bid for the support of the hon. Members from Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was at present the master of many legions, and he would be master of many more when this Bill passed; and they could scarcely wonder if he used the power which was gratuitously and recklessly thrust into his hands by Her Majesty's Government. Before the Prime Minister introduced the Bill, he was informed that a certain number of the Scottish Liberal Members were inclined to withhold their support from the second reading of the Bill, unless they got a distinct guarantee from the Government that the claims of Scotland to additional representation would be allowed. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen whether the vague declaration of the Prime Minister, admitting that Scotland was entitled to such increase, really afforded any indication whatever, in the way of guarantee, that Scotland would obtain her just rights in this respect? The Prime Minister admitted that he was only speaking for himself, and that he could not be supposed to be binding his Colleagues, or that he could expect them to acquiesce in his views. The Prime Minister, however, had not given any satisfactory indication as to the source from which the additional Members for Scotland might be expected to come. Ireland, it was said, was quite out of the question; and for this reason. The people were expected to require a larger share of representation, according to the proportion of their distance from the seat of Government. He would ask whether the Prime Minister had ever seriously considered to what extent the logical application of that principle might carry him? Might not Orkney and Shetland, for instance, or the sparsely-populated county of Sutherland urge distance from Westminster with as much propriety as Ireland? The Prime Minister proposed to satisfy the claims of Scotland, either by the immolation of certain small boroughs in the South of England or by adding to the already unwieldy number of Members in the House. But he (Major General Alexander) would predict that Scotch Members would have to wait until the Greek Kalends before either of these 799 objectionable alternatives were realized for the enlargement of the representation of Scotland in the House of Commons. Exactly four years ago the Prime Minister said, in Mid Lothian, that if Scotland were represented according to her population, she would have 70 Members instead of 60. Were those words to be acted upon? The answer to that question depended in great measure on the action of the Scotch Members, both Liberal and Conservative, and especially of Scotch Liberal Members. He had not, however, much faith in Scotch Liberal Members, not even in the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy himself. They would have, it was true, the benefit of his voice, but could they at a critical moment depend upon his vote? He (Major General Alexander) exhorted the Scotch Members, without distinction of Party, to stand shoulder to shoulder upon this occasion, to press vigorously on the Government the claims of Scotland to additional representation, and so take advantage of an opportunity which in the lifetime of the present generation might possibly never recur.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, he regretted, on personal grounds, that he was unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) into the Lobby. But political duty must be placed before private feeling. As the Representative of a small English borough (Leominster), he (Mr. Rankin) deemed it his duty to say a few words on this subject. In introducing this measure the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister appealed to the Members who sat for small boroughs not to be selfish; and if it was only the Members themselves who were concerned, he (Mr. Rankin) would be ready to agree. But it was the constituencies that had to be considered; and, in his (Mr. Rankin's) judgment, they could not be fairly taunted with selfishness, if they made some struggle for existence. As representing one of the small boroughs of the West of England, he should endeavour to withstand every attempt to bring about their political extinction. He voted for the Amendment moved by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord John Manners), because it asked the Government to place the whole of their redistribution scheme before the House; but he was unable to 800 support the present Amendment, which evidently aimed at taking Members from the smaller constituencies and giving them to the large ones. That was a method which, on behalf of his own constituency, he could not altogether agree to. If Ireland was to be left unaltered as to her representation, it was manifestly unfair to deprive the small and loyal English boroughs in the South and West of England of their Representatives. Ireland had 16 boroughs where the number of electors was under 500. In England there were only 23 boroughs with less than 1,000 electors, and none with less than 500. Dealing evenly and justly between the three countries, and taking the four tests of population, taxation, number of voters, and rateable value, the figures worked out in the following manner:—

	England andWales.	Scotland.	Ireland.	Total.
Population	490	70	98	658
Taxation	526	72	60	658
Number of Voters	547	65	46	658
Rateable value	534	72	52	658
Mean of the above 4	524	70	64	658
Present state	493	60	105	658
Difference of	31	10	41

§ Showing, as a conclusion, that England should gain 31 Members; Scotland should gain 10; and Ireland should lose 41. All he (Mr. Rankin) asked for was justice between the three countries, and that the English small boroughs should not be sacrificed to meet the wants of the larger centres of population, when the Irish constituencies were left undisturbed. Small boroughs had, in times past, been the means of bring- 801 ing into public life many men of eminence who otherwise probably would not have succeeded in obtaining seats in the House of Commons, as, for example—

LEOMINSTER.
Date.
1705.	Edward Harley, Esq., Auditor of Imprest (afterwards Lord Harley).
1841.	James Wigram, Esq., appointed Vice Chancellor.
1847.	H. Barkly, Esq., Governor of British Guiana.
1852.	Gathorne Hardy, Esq.
ABINGDON.
1710.	Sir Simon Harcourt, Attorney General.
1847.	Sir Frederick Thesiger, Attorney General.
TAVISTOCK.
1831.	Lord John Russell.
CALNE.
1826.	James Abercromhy, Esq., Judge Advocate General.
1830.	Thomas Babington Macaulay.
1859.	Robert Lowe.
	Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.
WOODSTOCK.
	Lord Randolph Churchill.

§ Again, it might be urged that the possession of Members by small towns had a tendency to keep up centres of population in the country districts; and that, in his opinion, was a very desirable object to be encouraged. He feared, moreover, that if they ceased to have Parliamentary Representatives, their interests would be liable to be overlooked, if not sacrificed.

§ MR. WHITLEY
After what has been said, we can hardly expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to anything in the shape of argument; but I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believe that the House does not realize sufficiently the importance of the measure before it, or the importance of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), and I regret this very much. I think what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago has been forgotten—namely, that the Bill before the House was the most important that had been discussed since 1867; and I think it strange that the Government should find fault with us for endeavouring to bring before the House and the country the reasons why we think it inexpedient to pass this measure without a redistribution scheme. Representing, as I do, a very large con- 802 stituency, largely composed of the working classes, I should be the first to welcome the admission of the working classes to the franchise. I believe they would exercise the franchise with wisdom and discretion; but, at the same time, I think it is important, with a measure which seeks to enfranchise 2,000,000 of our fellow-subjects—a larger addition than has previously been made to the franchise at any time—that we should consider well the point at which we have arrived. There is one point which it seems to me has been lost sight of in the discussion. It is continually said—"Why do you on that side fear a greater admission of the working classes to the franchise?" In answer, I deny that we have any such fear. But the House forgets that, in all former extensions of the franchise, the distinction was kept up between the country and the borough; and, whether the Reform Bill was passed by Liberals or Conservatives, it was always felt that one part acted as the counterpoise of the other. Now, however, for the first time, we are going to pass a measure which destroys all distinction, and makes an equal franchise. The question, then, the House and the country have to face is this—Are we to say that multitudes, and multitudes only, are, in the future, to exercise a controlling voice in the destinies of the country? The Prime Minister said that the object of the Bill was to strengthen the foundations of the country, and, by the addition of a large number of capable citizens to the franchise, to add to the greatness of the country. I agree in the wish that the foundations of the country should be strengthened by the admission of large numbers of our fellow-citizens to the franchise; but I think, when you are embarking for the first time on a new enterprize, and when the result may be perilous on account of the addition of numbers, we have a right to consider well our position, and to see whether the change should not be made in such a manner as to secure that which the Prime Minister said he desired. But to-night we have not one word from the other side as to any safeguard in the admission of these numbers. We have no statement whatever, and, therefore, we are driven to rely on former statements. The hon. and learned Attorney General, speaking some months ago to 803 his constituents, said he could be no party to a measure which -would destroy the rural votes of the country. But, under this Bill, will there be any guarantee that the rural votes will not be destroyed and out-numbered by the working-class vote of the great manufacturing centres of the North? For my own part, I believe the greatness, the wealth, the prosperity, and the contentment of the country depend on all classes being represented and having a vote, and, with that vote, the exercise of real electoral power. We were told by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that, if he believed it would disfranchise the present voters, he would be no party to a scheme of electoral districts. To my mind, those were very assuring wordsindeed; but very soon afterwards, on the next evening, up jumped the right hon. Gentleman opposite the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), and told the House lie was in favour of the principle of electoral districts, or, if the matter was left in his hands, he would manipulate a plan better still. I should be very sorry, for my own part, to leave the destinies of the country to the manipulation of the President of the Board of Trade, or to any other individual. I believe it is not the duty of this House to commit the destinies of this country to one individual; but I am prepared to entertain some form of redistribution of electoral power combined with proportional representation. Everyone, both on this side and the other side of the House, has a duty to perform; and I feel we should be failing in our duty if we did not insist, as far as possible, that we should have some statement from the Government on the question of redistribution. What will be the effect if we pass this Bill without any such scheme? Does anyone believe that, if the House passes the Bill, there will be a Redistribution Bill in the present Parliament? We do not think so. We believe there will be a Dissolution; and then do you think that the New Parliament will, immediately after its own Election, vote its own Dissolution? Nothing of the kind. For my part, if the Bill applies equally to the whole country, and if any scheme is propounded which can guard the interest of the rural population in which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) is so deeply interested, I should welcome the 804 admission of the working classes to the franchise. I have trusted the working classes, and I know them well, and I believe they would exercise the franchise with wisdom. But it is a very different thing indeed when you come to transfer the voting power of the country to one class—namely, the working men. We do not believe this Bill will be of value to the labourer and the agricultural interest; and when you speak of the agricultural labourer being benefited by the measure, we do not believe they will be anything of the sort. We believe that they will be trampled upon and swamped by the vote of the great masses in the large towns, and that the labourers and the agricultural interest and the tenant farmers will feel that, while you have given them the promise of a vote, you have not given them any electoral power at all. I shall vote against the Bill, because I believe that will be the effect of it. I believe it is a dangerous measure in the interests of the country, which I am sure all love so well. I believe it is the duty of the Government and this House to strengthen the national institutions of the country. I believe that, in strengthening and expanding the boundaries of the Constitution, we are doing much to preserve our greatness in the future; because I am anxious to remove every complaint which could possibly arise. I do not object to any extension of the franchise in reason; but, at the game time, I ask the House to pause before it passes this Bill, which may be of advantage to enormous classes, but may destroy other classes. The greatness and prosperity of the country do not depend upon the simple mass of people, but upon all classes having a thorough and proper representation. Those measures are the wisest which secure the equal rights of all. Because I believe this measure will sacrifice the rights of many of our fellow-countrymen, I, for one, will not consent to pass this Bill, unless it is accompanied, as I have said, with a scheme of redistribution or some scheme of proportional representation by which the interests of all classes can be secured. For these reasons I shall vote against the Bill.

§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL
said, that, being among those hon. Members who I had been crowded out on the second reading, he was anxious now to say a 805 few words. As one of the few Members of that House who had steadily opposed and had voted against the Bill of 1867, he wished to enter his protest against this measure. In doing so he should be only proving his consistency. His view at the time was that Lord Beaconsfield made a mistake in bringing in the Reform Bill of 1867; but, owing to the course which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and his Friends, the Bill left the House as a Household Suffrage Bill pure and simple; but he had never attempted—not holding that there existed such a thing as finality in matters of Parliamentary Reform—to say that finality was reached when the measure of 1867 was passed. He was not, however, unreasonable, and did not stoutly oppose all necessity for change; but he thought the time had come when, if hon. Members thought the time had come at which a new Reform Bill was necessary, it should be passed—if passed at all—with certain Provisos by which the rights of property, intelligence, and, he might add, the just representation of the agricultural interest, should be preserved. The main fault that he found with the Bill was that it would enfranchise numbers at the expense of intelligence and property, and that it would intensify what already existed—namely, the inequality between representation and taxation. Let the House consider what it was about to do. If the Bill was passed it would increase the number of persons exercising the franchise from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000, of whom 4,000,000 would belong to what were described as the wage-earning or working classes; and what did they pay in the way of taxation? They contributed, undoubtedly, to the Customs Duties paid on tobacco, tea, and alcoholic spirits; but those were about the only forms of taxation which they bore, and the result of passing the Bill would be that the upper and middle classes would pay at least two-thirds of the taxation, and would be numerically not more than a fifth of the electors. He had no distrust of the working class as a class; but he could not help thinking that to put so great a power into their hands would not only offer to them an enormous temptation, but would have the same effect upon those men who led or professed to lead and guide them— among them being Mr. George and Mr. 806 Davitt, whose examples would not, he hoped, be followed. He hoped there was no danger, and he had sufficient confidence in his countrymen to believe there was no danger, of anything approaching to revolution; but he looked with apprehension on a proposal which would put the greater part of the political power in the hands of the working classes, leaving the middle and upper classes to pay the greater part of the taxation. That apprehension was heightened when he considered the extreme Democratic views which had been, advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and by some hon. Members supporting Her Majesty's Government; for instance, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had declared himself in favour of free education, a free breakfast table, and——

§ MR. SPEAKER
, interposing, said: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; but the noble Lord is going rather far from the Instruction to the Committee.

§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL
I beg pardon if I have exceeded my bounds; but I understood I was at liberty to debate the whole question.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is not in Order to refer to the whole question of the Franchise Bill, which is not now before the House. The Motion before the House is, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee," which is a substantive Motion by itself; and the discussion ought properly to be confined to the terms of that Instruction, which are the provision for the redistribution of seats and the representation of populous urban sanitary districts at present unrepresented.

§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL
said, there had been very few opportunities of getting a hearing on the principle of the Bill, and he thought he might conveniently do so now. He had in vain attempted to speak on the second reading, and he was naturally not desirous of postponing his remarks until the third reading, or to some future stage of the measure. The state of Ireland was very far from satisfactory. They had not yet done with the Coercion Bill; it came to an end next year, and when that took place they would see the effect its removal would have. The land legislation of 1870 was by no means a success, otherwise further legislation would not 807 have so soon be deemed necessary. Nor had the Disestablishment of the Irish Church had the desired effect of reconciling the people to their condition. Looking at the facts as they were, he could not say that recent legislation had done anything towards creating a better feeling and a more contented feeling throughout the country than that which existed in former days. He would not refer to the legislative Business alone in that House. Wherever they went, they had heard a great deal lately in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen about the House of Commons not being what it used to be; that the Business of the House was interrupted in every possible way; that personalities and trivialities were indulged in; that there was a plague of Questions; and that there must be a very great change, for things could not go on much longer as they had been going on. A system of deterioration, almost of decay and a want of tone, had undoubtedly come upon them, and deserved the utmost consideration. But his point was, whether that state of things would improve under their new Franchise Bill. He believed the result would be quite the contrary, and he looked forward with dread to the change. He was lately comparing the opinions of Mr. Walter Bagehot, who died only a few years ago, as expressed in the last edition of his works, with the opinions of the present Liberal Party. Mr. Bagehot was considered a representative Liberal a short time ago; but now his opinions would be more suitable to the Opposition Benches, for he was opposed to the indiscriminate extension of the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) very properly dwelt upon the great change in the constitution of Parties since the carrying of the 1867 Redistribution Bill. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) confessed to sharing those feelings which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed with so much eloquence. He also had seen great changes. Within a very short time he had seen, on his own side of the House, surrender and compromise over and over again; and he had seen even a new Party arise there—a Party which had been termed the Tory Democratic Party. He knew what a Tory Party was, and what was a Democratic Party; and he understood opinions which, if expressed on the other side of the House, would be 808 called Radical; but a Tory Democratic Party was an entirely new feature in political life. Again, he had also seen many changes on the other side of the House. He had noticed that there now was, in particular, on the Ministerial Benches, a want of that independence which they used to look for in all quarters of the House—a want he very much grieved for. Whether it was due to the action of the Caucus or not he could not say; but, undoubtedly, there was a lack of independence such as existed in former days, and which they had witnessed on that very evening. That was not the only occasion on which they had observed it. Both inside and outside the House, hon. Members submitted to the lash of the whip directly and indirectly, and in a manner that they would not have submitted to in former days. Were these things to be better in the future? He believed they would be worse, and that so-called Members of Parliament would sink their opinions, and become mere delegates. He deplored the absence of independence, as well as of dignity, and consideration for others, in their remarks. Now, he would come to the question of redistribution. Those who represented agricultural counties; who had always had among them farmers descending from the ancient tenantry, who had been upon the land for generations past, they, as well as the tenants, felt that they were to be swamped out of existence. He would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to some language used by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on March 24, admitting that this measure, if it passed into law, would terminate the supremacy which had till then existed in the county elections in such tenant farmers. In other words, the existing tenant farmers would be swamped; and yet those tenant farmers were just as fit as a class as the working classes, into whose hands the Government proposed to place so much power. Formerly the tenant farmers had some sort of counterpoise given them; but now they were to be deprived of what they had enjoyed for centuries, without any countervailing advantage. There was nothing in the shape of redistribution, as far as they had yet seen, that could be counted on and worked out, further than this—that they knew that the small agricultural boroughs of the 809 South, of England, which had represented the tenant farmers and the agricultural class, were to be taken away and given to Scotland, to Ireland, and to the North of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had told them, the other day, that 35 constituencies, represented by 60 Members, were to be taken away from the counties and given to the urban population. When they looked at the number of county Members in England, Scotland, and Ireland as compared with the number of urban Members, they would find that both in Ireland and in Scotland the county Members exceeded the borough Members; but in poor England the county Members were in a minority of more than 100. The fact was that the English counties were most unjustly under-represented; and before the electorate was so largely increased as was now proposed he thought that the Prime Minister was bound first to redress that inequality as a mere matter of right. It would be something if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some information — something that could be weighed and examined— as to what was to be done, for at present he had told them nothing. The Prime Minister had only said—"Put your trust in the people." He (Lord Eustace Cecil) would ask the right hon. Gentleman to trust the House of Commons, which represented the people; and if he did not put his trust in it, then he would ask him to dissolve it, and appeal to the people. But at present the right hon. Gentleman seemed to trust neither the House of Commons, nor the present electorate, and therefore it was that he brought in a Franchise Bill without a measure of redistribution. Could the right hon. Gentleman, then, be surprised at their making the resistance which they had made? In his speech in introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman exhorted them "not to wander on the hill-tops of speculation" —in other words, that they were to swallow the Bill as a whole and take a leap in the dark. For his own part, he (Lord Eustace Cecil) had taken one leap in the dark, and he had no desire or intention to take another. The resistance of the Opposition had been magnified ten-fold by the manner in which the Prime Minister had approached the subject. If their fears were idle, as 810 they were told by the supporters of the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman really wished this measure to be accepted by the House, the country, and the agricultural Members, he should take them into his entire confidence, and not merely into a portion of it, and then he would not find the Tory Party so unreasonable as he thought. They were ready to let bygones be bygones, and adapt themselves to the times; but they did not like to be led blindfold to a precipice, and then thrown down without knowing what was at the bottom of it. The right hon. Gentleman could dispel that fear by putting the whole of his plan before them. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) might be told that he was too late, like all that the Government had done in Egypt, or that there was some other plausible reason, which the Prime Minister knew so well how to enunciate, why their pleading should not be listened to; but that he had heard in 1867, and would very possibly hear again. He maintained it would be found that the Bill of the Prime Minister, if passed in its present form, would, instead of removing the anomalies that existed, create others far greater than any that were now to be found. The Franchise Bill by itself left a number of anomalies behind it, and he could not help thinking that the Prime Minister's famous "flesh and blood" speech of 1865 was always coming back to his mind, and that either the Prime Minister, or his Successor on the Liberal side, whoever he might be, would find out that there was some very good reason why the anomalies of the Bill of 1884 should be redressed. In the anomalies of the service franchise, as established by the present Bill, it might be discovered that there was a good excuse, sooner or later, to go into manhood suffrage, and then to womanhood suffrage, and so on, perhaps, to childhood suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman told them it was a Bill founded on an Imperial basis; but he (Lord Eustace Cecil) must confess that after carefully listening to all that had been said, he thought the Government had not succeeded in refuting the charge made against them that that Bill was brought in for a Party purpose, and for a Party purpose alone. The Secretary of State for the Home Department not very long ago talked of something that had been done on the Opposition 811 side of the House as "a dirty trick," and the right hon. Gentleman was very properly called to Order, as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) also should be, if he now made use of the same language. But he could not help thinking that the introduction of this measure had very much the appearance of a trick; and he could only hope that before the Bill had proceeded very much further there, either some alteration would be made, or some explanation on the part of the Government would be given. What hon. Gentlemen sitting on his side complained of was that, whatever arguments they put forward, they got little or no response. If they said they were not fairly dealt with, it was regarded as the idle wind. Indeed, he did not remember that any Opposition had been treated in the way they had been; because, whatever they said or did, they were always met with the parrot cry that they were guilty of "wanton Obstruction." Considering that that Bill was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be one of the greatest revolutions that had been proposed in this country since 1688, it was but right, but fair, but generous, that the Party opposite, who had been able to command—he did not say how—a majority of 130, should, at least, give their opponents credit for f eelingstrongly about that Bill, for desiring to put every aspect of it before the House and the country, so that, at all events, there should be no precipitate action in the matter, and that, if such should be the will of the country and of Parliament, they should arrive at a real and fair settlement of that question, for a mere one-sided settlement of it must either sooner or later recoil on its authors, or, perhaps, end in the practical destruction of all their Parliamentary institutions. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would not persist in the policy they had hitherto pursued, of refusing them information as to the redistribution of seats, but would take them into their confidence. As things, however, stood at present, he was unwillingly compelled to support the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), because he felt that the action of the Government in this matter was fraught with injustice not only to property and intelligence, but especially to the agricultural interest, which, he was convinced, 812 would be completely swamped if that "Franchise Bill only was allowed to pass in its present shape.

§ MR. ECROYD
said, he intended to give his hearty support to the Instruction moved by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). In districts like that in which he (Mr. Ecroyd) resided, the effect of giving the franchise by the extension of the boundaries of boroughs, or by the creation of new boroughs in populous centres, would be extremely different, and, he thought, more just, as well as more acceptable to the working classes, than the bare extension of the franchise in the manner proposed by the Bill. It was popularly supposed that the Bill would place householders in country districts outside boroughs in exactly the same position as householders in boroughs; but, though theoretically that might be the case, it was not so in practice. A man, for example, who lived in a borough and owned his own and another house, would have a double share of political power as compared with the man who lived in the country outside a borough, and there owned his own and another house. There were tens of thousands of working men living in the country who were in that position, and who wore just as worthy of a second vote as their fellow-working men in boroughs, and who would feel their position under this Bill, should it become law, to be a great grievance. In Lancashire they had outside the boroughs a population of 1,500,000, of whom 850,000 were an urban population, precisely similar in character and occupation to the inhabitants of the boroughs, and 650,000 were a rural population. Working men who, by industry and self-denial, had saved money and become owners of property could not understand why, in a Bill said to be founded on principles of absolute justice, and which was presented to the House as a final settlement of that question, their neighbours in the boroughs were to be left with a double share of political power as compared with their own. There was nothing of which the working man was more justly proud than of the second vote which he enjoyed as the owner of property; it was, so to speak, his patent of nobility; and nothing could be more calculated to strike a severe blow at the moral development of the working population 813 than to reduce the provident and the improvident to the same political level. Again, there were two forms of taxation in this country—Imperial taxation and local rates. The burden of the former was gradually diminishing; while that of the latter was constantly on the increase. It would be a very dangerous thing to hand over the control of that legislation, which in many cases enforced an increase of local taxation, to a class which contributed little or nothing to that rapidly-increasing burden. Unless the measure was one which would establish absolute justice as between dwellers in town and country, it would not be acceptable to the working classes. There was no danger in the addition to the franchise of all householders, if this sufficient safeguard were provided, as had been done by the late Lord Beaconsfield in 1867. For 10 or 15 years he (Mr. Ecroyd) had consistently advocated the extension of the franchise to every householder; but he hoped it would be extended as far as possible in the just and safe manner proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University. Unless some such course were adopted there would be great danger in passing the Bill. It was because he believed the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would tend in some degree to secure the end he wished to see 'gained that he should cheerfully vote for it.

§ MR. MACFARLANE
said, that anyone who had listened to the opposition to the Bill, assuming it to be sincere, must have discovered that what hon. Members on the Opposition side feared was not the Bill before the House, but a Bill which was to come after it. They feared decimation, and did not know upon whom the lot would fall. He had a Motion which was preferable, he thought, as the smaller evil, to the other remedies for the difficulty which had been proposed; and that was, instead of taking Members from England, to add a small number to the Members of the House. When the present number was fixed the population of the country was only half of what it was now. In that way the controversies with respect to Ireland and the just claims of Scotland might be settled. If 10 or 12 Members were added, there would be no material inconvenience to the House, and a difficulty would be cleared out of the way.

814

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that, so far as he had been able to gather from public opinion in the district he represented, the general feeling amongst those proposed to be enfranchised was one of indifference, of those who possessed the franchise one of apprehension. It could hardly be otherwise, and the constituencies there in the Southern counties of England could not but view the Bill with some feeling of dread. They were apprehensive of the very shadowy and indefinite character of the redistribution scheme which was set forth by the Government; and they desired to emphatically protest against Members being taken from the South of England in order that Ireland should be left as it now was. In the county which he represented there were several boroughs which had always been loyal to their country, and had done their duty in returning valuable Members to the House. One of them was now sitting on the Treasury Bench. Those constituencies were as worthy of consideration as any in the country. The larger boroughs must, no doubt, have an increased representation, and Scotland was fairly entitled to a larger number of Members. But they had been told that Ireland was still to retain her present representation. He protested against that determination on the part of the Government. He had been at some pains to ascertain the number of Members to which Ireland, taking population and contribution to the Revenue, was entitled. He had been much assisted by a pamphlet on the subject which had been published by a learned counsel, a friend of his own; and he was quite prepared to adopt and stand upon his calculations. Now, he would take three elements on which the representation of Ireland might be based—namely, the electorate, the contribution to Imperial taxation, and the population of the country. Taking the first of these on the new franchise, as far as the number of voters could be ascertained the proper proportion of Members for the Three Kingdoms would be as follows:—England, 488; Wales, 28; Scotland, 66; Ireland, 70. The second element of calculation—namely, the contribution to the burdens of the country—gave the following result:— namely, England, 522 Members; Wales, 18; Scotland, 69; Ireland, 43. The population test, 815 no doubt, gave a somewhat different result, which was as follows:—Eugland, 460 Members; Wales, 25; Scotland, 70; Ireland, 96. But by combining these different modes of calculation, and taking the mean of them, they arrived at a fair and legitimate result, which gave:—For England, 490 Members; Wales, 24; Scotland, 68; Ireland, 70. And this, he contended, would be the proper proportion of Members to be allotted to the three countries on any fair and just scheme of redistribution. Now, with respect to the Bill generally, it appeared to him to involve most uncertain and, it might be, dangerous elements. They were told to trust the people; but he could not place implicit confidence in a new electorate of 2,000,000, of whom they knew little or nothing. He already saw measures of a very Democratic, if not a Socialistic, character promoted and advocated in the House—measures affecting the rights of property and freedom of contract in the most vital manner—supported by those who were, or hoped to be, Members for large constituencies, and some of those on his own side of the House as well as on the other. He could not but contemplate with alarm and apprehension the action of the new constituency upon these and kindred subjects; and he feared that they might be supported by a pressure which would be irresistible. For these reasons, he thought that they ought to have some more definite knowledge as to the future redistribution, so that they might know how far they were going, and what would be the constitution of this Assemby when the work of Parliamentary Reform was completed.

§ MR. THOMAS COLLINS
, who had on the Paper a Notice of a Motion— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to enlarge the scope of the Bill so as to include the redistribution of Seats in the United Kingdom, said, he thought the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made some uncalled-for remarks about the mechanical majority of the Government and the declaration of the Prime Minister as to silence being observed. Such silence never did any good to a Party with the country. In 1859, when a Vote of Censure on Mr. Disraeli was moved, word was passed in the usual way that the sup- 816 porters of the Government were not to speak. It was a "mechanical majority," and it obeyed; and nine Members spoke in succession from the side of the Liberal Opposition. One of those Members subsequently became a Judge in England, another a Judge in Ireland, and a third was elevated to the House of Peers; and he hoped some of the speakers of to-night would have equal good fortune. The Prime Minister said that speeches on the principle of the Bill might be reserved for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor, that the House go into Committee that day six months; but the Lord Mayor might be induced by pressure not to propose that Amendment; and it was, therefore, rather hard that those who could not speak on the second reading should be charged with Obstruction for availing themselves of this, probably their only opportunity. It was very difficult, indeed, for a serious politician like himself to speak upon a Bill of this kind, because he considered the measure to be one which had been brought in by a weak, feeble, and discredited Government. Everybody inside that House, and everybody who occupied a seat in "another place," and everyone outside Parliament, knew very well that the Ministry had produced a stillborn child; that already it was as dead as a door-nail, and had no chance of finding a place on the Statute Book. He protested against the introduction of a Franchise Bill which did not contain clauses dealing with redistribution. In 1858 a certain right hon. Gentleman, speaking at Birmingham, urged that, whenever a Reform Bill was brought forward, they should never take their eyes off the subject of redistribution. And the same right hon. Gentleman said at Bradford, in 1859, that redistribution was the very soul and marrow of the question. That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the middle Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). In short, there was a catena of authorities, from 1832 downwards, all coming to the same conclusion—that the two questions ought to be dealt with together. When Mr. Disraeli brought in his Bill, he tried to conciliate the county Members by retaining a high franchise for the counties, and to bribe the borough Members by saying—for he was a master of Parliamentary jargon—that "no centre 817 of representation" should be wholly disfranchised. The consequence was that the Representatives of the small boroughs all supported him. The Prime Minister was now doing the same thing in an exaggerated form. His Bill was a thoroughly dishonest measure from end to end; but, at the same time, it was undoubtedly extremely popular with hon. Members opposite. It held out to the borough Members the prospect that, for one Election more, their seats should be left untouched. But the Bill went hammer and tongs at the county Members, who would come back by-and-bye—those who would come back rari nantes in gurgite vasto; while the borough Members would return untouched, because the Bill was not made for them. Conservative Members were not opposed tooth and nail to the extension of the franchise in the counties. That was not their game. They would go to the country upon the cry of a packed House of Commons. They would say that the borough Members shrank from any Bill which would interfere with their seats, and therefore they made a raid upon the county Members. Whether the majority was 130 or 300 was all the same. The Party opposite would not bring in a fair Bill, and the Party on that side meant to make them. He thought the Bill of Mr. Disraeli went too far so far as related to the extension of the suffrage in boroughs, but not half far enough so far as it related to the redistribution of seats. He would not say that it had improved the House, and he did not see any prospect of improving the House by an extension of the franchise. But after the Tory surrender in 1867 they must make the best of the circumstances in which they found themselves, and they would be obliged to give a large extension of the suffrage. A vast deal too much had been said of the over-representation of Ireland, and very exaggerated fears had been raised on the subject. He was disposed to recognize the right of Ireland to the number of Representatives fixed by the Act of Union. But he would take away the five extra Members which were given to Ireland by the Act of 1832. In England each Member, on an average, represented 53,000persons; in Ireland each Member represented 50,000; and in Scotland each Member 818 represented 62,000; so that Scotland was much under-represented. But Wales had a Member for every 45,000, and was manifestly over-represented. He would strongly protest against any Members being taken from England, which was the most intelligent, thriving, and industrious part of the Kingdom. Five or 10 Members ought to be taken from Wales, in addition to those from Ireland, and given to Scotland; but none from England, seeing that it was not over-represented, as the two former countries he had referred to were. When the redistribution scheme was settled, another thing they ought to get rid of was the system by which they got over-representations of majorities. He should, therefore, like to see the two-Member constituencies abolished, for he thought no two Members of the same sort should be returned from the same place. Why should a majority be doubly represented? As to the question of the representation of minorities, he knew it was a subject which many hon. Members did not like. It was said that among other great authorities who had been opposed to this scheme of the representation of minorities was the late Mr. Disraeli, and there was a famous saying of his that minorities ought to make themselves majorities. But everybody knew perfectly well that Mr. Disraeli was one of those persons who thought that the good of his Party ought entirely to outweigh every other consideration. ["Oh, oh!"] Mr. Disraeli naturally conceived that the good of his Party was the good of the country; and that he was opposed to the representation of minorities was shown by the system he adopted, when he brought in his Reform Bill, of trisecting many of the counties, rather than bisecting those counties which returned two Members each—for instance, the counties of Essex, Surrey, Norfolk, and Cheshire were made to return six Members each, and those counties returned 24 Conservaties. But if Mr. Disraeli had gone on the opposite line of bisecting them, and had given a minority Member to each, those counties, instead of returning 24 Conservative Members, would only have returned 16 and counted for 8. Probably that would have been a much fairer representation; but it was one that was not satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buck- 819 inghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). He, therefore, waited until the Bill got into the House of Lords, and allowed Lord Cairns to insert an. Amendment, giving these limited votes to constituencies returning three Members each, which afterwards became the law of the land. No one could doubt that it was unfair to carry out this system of representation of minorities in a few places only, and not universally. In the same way, it was unfair to the inhabitants of the borough of Leeds that they should count no more than the inhabitants of a large number of small boroughs whoso representation was based upon a different system; but if the system had been carried out pretty universally, there would have been nothing unfair in it. He (Mr. T. Collins) lived in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in the West Riding, at the last General Election, six Liberal Members were returned to Parliament—if, in reality, they could be called genuine Liberals. However, be that as it might, the West Riding returned six Members to Parliament; and the number of persons who voted for them was, excluding odd figures, 31,000; while the voters for the Conservative candidates numbered 25,000. Therefore, in round numbers, the Liberal electors in the West Riding had one Member for 5,000, while the 25,000 Conservatives had none. Would anybody contend that that was a bonâfide representation, where 30,000 electors had one Representative to each 5,000, and the other 25,000 had none at all? If they had a system of minority representation, such as existed at Leeds, the minority would have returned at least three Members, which would have been one for every 8,000 voters, while the majority would have returned one for every 5,000 voters. Even in that case the majority would have been considerably over - represented; but the discrepancy would not have been so gross as it was at present. Therefore, he contended that what was really wanted was to deal with the question as a whole. He had some experience of the working of the minority system, because he had been a Member of the London School Board, and the School Boards were all elected on that principle, under the system of cumulative voting. The principle adopted there was that the majorities should rule, but that the minori- 820 ties ought to be heard. There was another question which also merited some attention at the hands of the House —namely, the question of extending the boundaries of boroughs. A good deal might be done in that direction. To confer upon a man a vote was said to have an educational tendency. It made him a man and a brother, and had a good effect upon him. He wanted, then, to know, if it was calculated to have a good effect upon the voter, why the right hon. Gentleman opposite threw out the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in 1867? The Boundary Commissioners in 1867 proposed to enfranchise a large proportion of the people, and to add them to the boroughs. Lord Eversley—a Liberal—was at the head of the Commission; Sir Francis Crossley, who sat at the time for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and was also a Liberal, and the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), another Liberal, were Members of the Commission. In point of fact, the majority of the Commission were Liberals; but, in the most barefaced manner, the Opposition refused to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the result was that, for 15 years, a large number of those who were now to be enfranchised had been kept out of the franchise. He would give the House an instance. The Boundary Commissioners proposed to add the town of Leamington to the borough which was at present, represented by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair—namely, Warwick. Why was it that the inhabitants of Leamington had been deprived of the franchise for 15 years by the Liberal Party opposite? He thought they had a great right to complain. It was part of the jargon and cant of the Liberal Party in the House to talk of the wrongs to which their fellow-men were subjected, and then to rob them of their rights. The Liberal Party took very good care that Leamington should not be represented as a borough constituency, and in the teeth of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in their Report they declined to connect Leamington with Warwick. They thought it would answer their purposes better, the borough of Warwick being already quite Liberal enough for those that liberalize the counties by maintaining large boroughs within them. They all knew what that 821 sort of thing meant. He was himself a Party man, and of course, when he saw that this Bill was to be a single-barrelled Reform Bill, he could not believe it, because he thought the Government were far too good tacticians to bring in such a palpable fraud upon the people of England. He thought they would bring in a reasonable Bill, disfranchising any place with a population less than 20,000, and taking one Member from a place with less than 40,000; and when they submitted this single-barrelled Bill, he said at once—" The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." "Hoc Ithacus velit et magus mucentur Atridœ." The same game was played in 1852. In 1852 the borough Members were sent to the country on the principle of Free Trade; while the county Members went to the country on the principle of Protection. They were doing the same thing now; but he could not have believed, if anyone had told him before the Bill was introduced, that it would have provided such a handle for electioneering purposes as the present Bill gave. It seemed to him that what they really wanted was to go to the country; and the Government could not have a better opportunity. They had introduced this wretched, contemptible Franchise Bill, which was a fraud upon the people from beginning to end. They had a muddle in Egypt, of which the most long-sighted man could not see the end; and they had Ireland coerced and groaning under tyrannical laws, brought about by their incapacity to govern. He would, therefore, invite the Government to go at once to the country upon this Franchise Bill, and take the opinion of the country upon these questions.

§ Original Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 174: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 73.)

§ MR. TOMLINSON
, in rising to move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to enlarge the scope of the Bill, so as to provide, where desirable, for the extension of the Boundaries of the Parliamentary Boroughs, said, he would express a hope that his Motion would be considered in a less acrimonious and less controversial manner than the one the House had been just discussing; and he hoped that the Government would not 822 think that he had brought it forward for the purpose of Obstruction, but that they would be induced to give to the question the attention which was due to an attempt to amend the Bill. He took it as clear that a complete scheme of Parliamentary Reform must include proper provisions for determining the constituencies in which the householders who would be enfranchised ought to be registered. It had been admitted, in the course of the debate, that the Bill, if carried, besides enfranchising a considerable number of agricultural labourers, would also enfranchise a large number of artizans. The population of England had been going on increasing at a very considerable rate, and it would continue to increase at a rate of not less than 500,000 per year. But this increase was attracted principally to the large towns; nearly every large Parliamentary borough had its accretion. He said this without meaning to deny that the boroughs which did not receive direct Parliamentary representation at present were also largely increasing. In the part of England which he (Mr. Tomlinson) represented it was a matter of notoriety, so far as the large boroughs were concerned, that there was a considerable number of people just outside the Parliamentary boundary, whose interests were entirely bound up with those of the borough itself; and who, when votes were allowed them, ought to vote in the borough with which they were really connected. In the borough which he represented—Preston—this was certainly the case; and he was of opinion that all the inhabitants who were included within the municipal boundary ought to be brought within the Parliamentary borough. The same remark would apply to Wigan and other boroughs. When the question of redistribution came to be considered, the subject would, of necessity, be brought before the House, and each borough would have attached to it the population which naturally belonged to it; and if this step were taken in the first instance with regard to existing boroughs, the House would be in a much better position for seeing afterwards how to distribute the representation. He could not conceive what objection or difficulty there could be in attaching a boundary clause to the present Bill. They knew very well, from the experience of former 823 Reform Bills, how to deal with boundaries. A clause would be inserted appointing a Boundary Commission. If the same course were taken now, a Boundary Commission would be able to go to work at once, and would complete their task, as regards existing boroughs, before the question of redistribution came on. For this reason he would be glad to know what objection there could be against introducing a clause into the Bill? If an event happened, which he sincerely hoped would not happen—namely, a Dissolution after the passing of a Franchise Bill, and before Parliament had dealt with the subject of the redistribution of seats—it would, at least, mitigate the calamity to have enabled, where possible, the new voters to record their votes in the boroughs to which they belonged, rather than in the adjoining counties. It seemed to him to be a matter so easy and simple that he would not enlarge upon it further, but would simply move the Instruction to the Committee which he had placed upon the Paper.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to enlarge the scope of the Bill, so as to provide, where desirable, for the extension of the Boundaries of the Parliamentary Boroughs."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

MR. GLADSTONE
The hon. Member has stated, with perfect fairness, the case for the Motion he has made. No person can doubt that the consideration of the boundaries of boroughs must be a portion of the subject of the Parliamentary statement of the question of Reform; but the question really is, whether it belongs naturally to the franchise, or whether it belongs to the subject of areas. I will only point out that the very fact that the hon. Member has been able to move the Instruction indicates that the matter he has called our attention to belongs to the delimitation of areas; because, if it had belonged to the subject of the franchise, the hon. Member would have been able to propose it as a clause in the Bill. I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman in order to see whether there was any reason for detaching this particular point from the general question of the delimitation of areas, and I must confess that I did not hear or find that he gave any such reason. Of course, the 824 question whether the delimitation of areas with a view to redistribution is to be comprehended in a Franchise Bill is a very large question which the House has previously treated as a question of principle, and which it has decided upon accordingly. But this mode of taking a small fragment of the question of the delimitation of areas, and thrusting it into a Franchise Bill, ought, after the decision which the House has given on the main subject, to be supported unquestionably by some very strong argument which should tend to show that it would be more conveniently dealt with here than in a Redistribution Bill, notwithstanding the general decision at which the House has arrived. I do not think that any such argument has been shown. It is plain that the question of the boundaries of boroughs is a question which belongs to delimitation. Moreover, it might, in some instances, lead to a great deal of inconvenience to alter the boundaries of boroughs, independently of redistribution; because, in particular cases—indeed, supposing a Dissolution wore to take place, and I hope it will not—but if it were to take place with the boundaries of the boroughs altered without redistribution, it would greatly tend to augment the existing anomalies. But it is upon the general ground that clearly this proposal belongs, as a particular item, to that portion of the subject which the House has decided not to entertain, that I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment upon the attention of the House.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, he was very sorry to hear the Prime Minister speak of this proposal in the tone he had. He had expected that if the right hon. Gentleman would not assent to it as an Instruction to the Committee, he would have held out some hope that steps would be taken by Her Majesty's Government to meet the difficulty pointed out by the Instruction. The Prime Minister said that it was a question which formed part of the question of delimitation, and must be dealt with at a subsequent, and, perhaps, a distant date, as part of the measure which was to relate to the redistribution of seats. But the settlement of boundaries was a matter which must take considerable time, and the effect of postponing it would be obviously and 825 necessarily to entail also the postponement of the scheme for the redistribution of seats. He would point out to the House, if it would allow him, in a very few words, what the effect of the refusal of the Government to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) would be. Assuming that the Franchise Bill passed in its present form, unencumbered or unamended, as the two sides of the House might choose to call it, by the addition of a scheme of redistribution, the new voters under it could not, unless some special arrangement were made in regard to registration, come upon the register until the 1st of January, 1886. There was no chance of the Bill, if it passed into law, becoming law before August, and before August the notices would be given for the register which would come in force next January. Therefore, it would be 12 months longer before the new electors could come on the register. If, next year, Her Majesty's Government brought forward a Bill for the redistribution of seats, it would be necessary to decide the question of the boundaries of the boroughs. They would not be in a position to issue a Royal Commission, or to deal with the question, until a He-distribution Bill should have been passed. So that, assuming a Redistribution Bill to be brought in, pressed forward, and passed into law by the month of June of next year, it would not then be possible to attach the boundaries so as to make them ready for the application of the new constituencies until the following 1st of January. Therefore, it was not possible, unless the Government took some prompt steps to appoint a Commission for dealing with the boundaries of the boroughs, to have the redistribution of seats and the new franchise coming into operation at the same time. But then there was another and a very serious point indeed. Suppose this Franchise Bill were allowed to pass; and suppose, during the early part of next year, in the months of April, May, or June, the political Parties throughout the country were preparing for the registration which would take place in the Autumn, for what register were they to prepare, and what register would it be with which the Revising Barristers in September would have to deal? They would have to add to the register of the counties 826 a large number of voters who would only be put there in order to be taken off again by a Redistribution Bill whenever it should be brought in. In that way the Revising Barrister would be settling, with regard to Middlesex, a very large register of voters who would afterwards have to be carved out again. Therefore, he said that to allow the Act to come into operation without re-arrangement of boundaries would be to create an extraordinary difficulty and an enormous expenditure, by putting a large number of voters upon the provisional registers, from which they would have to be removed when the Redistribution Bill passed into law. Then, if they allowed the Act to come into force without any redistribution of seats, the result would be to swamp the large rural and agricultural constituencies by urban voters, and they would be doing that, although they had now an opportunity of taking measures which would prevent the mischief. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said it would be difficult in Committee to deal with any clauses which should affect the boundaries of boroughs. He might as well have said that this matter should be dealt with by Royal Commission—by Gentlemen nominated by the Ministry, and whose character assured the country of their fairness in dealing with that difficult and important question; and if the right hon. Gentleman were to say now that a Commission should be established in the Autumn for deciding the boundaries of boroughs in preparation for the Redistribution Bill, that would be the only assurance which could be given to Parliament that a Redistribution Bill would be brought in. It was possible that the borough constituencies might be made very large; but it was better to put a large number of voters in an urban constituency, which was to remain an urban constituency with added Members, than it, was to put the same number of county voters into a county constituency, where they were not intended to be ranked as voters, but to be shifted to another register subsequently. He hoped they should have from the Prime Minister that evening a promise that a Boundary Commission should be at once appointed, in order that the House might feel secure that in the next Session of Parliament, if the present Parliament lasted 827 until then, that they should be able to deal satisfactorily with the question of redistribution.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
SAID, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Clarke) had placed his view of this matter very ably before the House; and his (the Attorney General's) reply would be very brief. The proposal which had been made involved the whole question of redistribution. If the House would consider for one moment, they would see the impracticable nature of the proposal. The suggestion was that there should be a Commission appointed to fix the boundaries of boroughs? But what boroughs? It was, of course, impossible to define the boroughs which, might exist after the Bill had become law. They might be existing boroughs, or they might be new boroughs; or parts of existing boroughs might be amalgamated with counties. It resolved itself into this—that his hon. and learned Friend showed a desire to obtain a reversal of the decision already arrived at by the House with regard to redistribution; and for that reason the Government could not accept the proposal of a Boundary Commission.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had hardly done justice to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tomlinson), because, as far as he (Mr. Grantham) could see, it was not necessary to deal with the now boroughs. He wanted to know how they were to determine whether or not the existing boroughs were to be swamped, or grouped under the Bill? That must depend entirely on the area of the boroughs as they were found to be when the Redistribution Bill was brought in. Under the circumstances, lie did not follow the hon. and learned Attorney General in saying that the scheme could not be carried out, because there were no materials for knowing what the boroughs were to be. They could only prepare for it by knowing what were the existing areas of boroughs at the time; because, until then, the House must be in absolute ignorance as to the registers of the various constituencies of the country and the way to deal with them. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would reconsider the decision arrived at, because the Prime Minister had admitted the other night that, as far as he was concerned, his 828 wish was that the county constituencies should be kept to themselves, and the county voters not swamped by the urban voters. He (Mr. Grantham) was convinced that the best way to show the honesty of that desire was to have the redistribution scheme fairly considered apart from all Party views. He, therefore, hoped the Government would consider this really important question with a view to giving effect to the proposal of his hon. Friend.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 158: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 74.)

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
, according to Notice, rose to move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision for the due registration of all persons entitled to be registered as voters under the Bill.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
rose to a point of Order. He wished to take the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move this Instruction, seeing that the Committee already had power To make provision for the due registration of all persons entitled to be registered as voters under the Bill. In a Bill dealing with the representation of the people, and affecting the franchise —placing new voters on the register— there must, of necessity, be a power to deal with registration. In the Representation of the People Act—a title similar to that of the present measure— of 1867, provision was made for the registration of the voters who came into existence under the Act. If, then, a clause dealing with the subject could be introduced in Committee, it was obviously unnecessary to move this Instruction; and he, therefore, asked Mr. Speaker whether the Motion was in Order?

§ MR. SPEAKER
In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say, from the best consideration I have been able to give to the point raised, it appears to me that the subject of registration would be relevant to the Bill, and that, therefore, it will be competent for the Committee to deal with it. If the Committee is compotent to deal with it, it will be out of Order for an Instruction 829 to be moved, calling upon the Committee to do that which it is already empowered to do. Under these circumstances, I should think the course the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) ought to adopt would be to move an Amendment in the Committee of the Whole House.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
I am glad to hear your ruling, Sir. I may say that' my object has been entirely gained. I should like to ask, as it is competent for the House to deal with the subject, and as we know from the Prime Minister that the Government have a Bill prepared on the subject of self-acting registration, whether the Government themselves will not bring forward these clauses?

MR. GLADSTONE
I am not prepared, at this moment, to state the course which will be pursued by Her Majesty's Government on this question.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)
I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The right hon. Member is not in Order in moving "That the Debate be now adjourned," inasmuch as there is no debate now proceeding. The right hon. Member would be in Order in moving "That further Proceeding upon going into Committee on the Bill be adjourned."

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)
Then I make that Motion.

§ Motion made, and Question, "That further Proceeding upon going into Committee on the Bill be adjourned," — (Mr. R. N. Fowler,) — put, and agreed, to.

§ Further Proceeding upon going into Committee deferred until Thursday.