MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

HC Deb 03 March 1884 vol 285 cc393-466

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [28th February], That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Representation of the People in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Bill to amend the Representation of the People of the United Kingdom will be satisfactory which does not provide an increased number of representatives for the Kingdom of Scotland up to the full measure which justice demands, according to population and the share of revenue which it contributes,"—(Admiral Sir John Hay,)

—instead thereof.

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

Debate resumed.

MR. BLENNERHASSETT

said, that he did not consider it necessary to touch at any length upon the arguments put forward against the principle of the Bill, which had had as little reality about them as the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) about the vacant spaces on that side of the House during its introduction. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) had said that the temper of the country was indifferent about this Bill; it was true that the country was not excited, but that was only because the country had perfect faith that the Bill was safe in the hands of the Government. There was, undoubtedly, a very deep and strong feeling in favour of it throughout the country, and excitement would very soon arise if it was thought that there was the slightest danger to it. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University remarked that when the very large addition to the Irish electorate was mentioned he saw no hilarity on the Liberal Benches. Well, it was a grave and momentous question, and he (Mr. Blennerhassett) saw nothing in it which should cause hilarity. Subject to one condition, which he would mention presently, there was no part of the statement of the Prime Minister to which he personally listened with more entire satisfaction. The object of Parliamentary reform was to elicit the opinions and public purposes of the people; and although they might think the state of public opinion in Ireland was not entirely satisfactory, no course would be more unwise or foolish than to refrain from allowing the opinions that existed there to be expressed. He had heard with extreme satisfaction that the provisions of this Bill were to be extended to Ireland, and that it was proposed to remove all invidious distinctions in civil rights between Ireland and England, and he rejoiced that the great bulk of the Irish householders were to be told that there was a place ready for them in the Constitution, He had been glad also to hear the statement of the Prime Minister that he did not propose to reduce the number of Members for Ireland, as he thought that that would have been unjust and injudicious. Surely when they remembered that for many years the representation of Ireland was disproportionately small for her population, it would be a very ungenerous thing, directly the state of things was altered, to reduce the representation. Liberal Members were not going to allow anything to fritter away or compromise the great principle of the enfranchisement of householders. They could not consent to maintain fantastic distinctions of privilege. They did not think it right to leave any class out of the representation, and they heartily welcomed the artizans, miners, labourers, and other householders whom this Bill would enfranchise. He was glad also to welcome the enfranchisement of the agricultural population, that helpless multitude, according to Mr. Cobden, who had never made their voice heard or their power felt in any social movement. Now, he thought he had said enough to show that he was a sincere friend of the Bill. He was ready also to waive all particular preferences and predilections and to look at the broad scope and purpose of the measure. He was convinced also that the Government were right in postponing redistribution until the new Register was ready. There was one subject of great importance which met them on the very threshold of the question, and to which he must direct attention, although he did so in no obstructive or hostile spirit. He and others were anxious to know, when this great measure was passed, which introduced 2,000,000 of new electors, what security would be given for the expression of political opinions of all sections and classes of society? They were anxious to know what security there was that this great enfranchisement measure would be just as well as generous. They wished to obtain a more explicit declaration on the subject before they took a step which was irrevocable. The Prime Minister had stated that he did not approve of electoral districts. The creation of these would undoubtedly give a great shock to the feelings of the country. They had heard that the number of Members was to be increased in the large towns of England, especially in the North; but he should like to know on what principle the seven, eight, or nine Members of a large town were to be elected? For instance, if in one of these large towns there should happen to be about 31,000 Conservatives and 30,000 Liberals, were the whole body of Members to be elected by the 31,000 Conservatives, while the 30,000 Liberals were entirely unrepresented? But, passing to the case of Ireland, with which he was better acquainted, they were told the electorate was to be increased from 228,000 to between 400,000 and 500,000. It was impossible to ignore the fact that this was making a complete transfer of political power from these who now possessed it to the new electorate. It had been rightly estimated that of the whole population of Ireland about 65 or 70 per cent held extreme views on political questions. If this Bill were passed without any safeguard such as he hoped to indicate, no person who was practically acquainted with Ireland could doubt that the effect of the measure would be that in every constituency throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, except four or five constituencies at the very outside, these of extreme opinions would command a majority, and would sweep the representation. In this way 65 or 70 per cent of the electors would obtain 85 or 90, or perhaps even 95, per cent of the representation. On the other hand, the remaining 30 or 35 per cent of the population would be politically annihilated and effaced. That 30 or 35 per cent held 60 or 70 per cent of the wealth of the country, and included the great majority of the men of enterprize, culture, and education upon whom the prosperity and progress of the country largely depended. He could hardly imagine a proposal more unhappy than a proposal to condemn to apathy and exclusion from political life this minority of the people of Ireland. But he, for one, should not be prepared to avert that calamity by refusing to extend to the people of Ireland equal privileges with the people of England. There was one remedy, and one only, for the state of things to which he had adverted, and that lay in giving to the minority that measure of political power which reason and justice said they were entitled to. He thought there was no fact more remarkable than the progress which had been made during the last few weeks in public opinion in favour of proportional representation, and he ventured to hope that the adoption of that principle would be the crowning glory of this great Bill of the Prime Minister. The principle had suffered a great deal from misapprehension, because it had been confounded with various imperfect expedients, such as three-cornered constituencies and the cumulative vote. The ends for which the promoters of this principle strove were very straightforward, simple, and clear. They desired, first, that each important section of opinion should have the chance of being represented in proportion to its numbers; and, secondly, whilst desiring the supremacy of the majority, they wished also to prevent the silencing and blotting-out of the minority. They did not indulge in Utopian ideas, and they had no wish to reconstruct the electoral system. But they said—"Suppose you take the great English constituencies, to which you propose to give a large number of Members, and suppose you take the four Provinces of Ireland and allow the minority to combine their votes, you will then make effectual provision that no considerable minority shall be silenced." What would be the effect of adopting that just and reasonable plan? It would enable them to find out what was the true majority, and give it its real power and influence, and it would put it out of the power of small minorities in great constituencies to exert an influence on public elections disproportionate to their numbers. It would prevent artificial fluctuations and changes in the balance of political power, and it would add weight and dignity to the House of Commons, because it would make that House more than ever truly representative of public feeling. He had no want of confidence in the people; but on the widest principle of democracy, a majority, however great, had no right to monopolize the representation, and shut out these who differed from them from any voice in public affairs. This Bill was based on the principle of equal and impartial justice between the great geographical divisions of the Kingdom and between the urban and rural populations. He believed it wanted merely the recognition of the great principle of free and equal voting to make it the grandest measure of Reform that was ever submitted to Parliament. It would combine the freest extension of popular privilege with the preservation of the rights and liberties of every section of the community; it would be a safeguard alike against popular passion and oligarchical reaction; and it would secure that the House of Commons, through all the chances and changes of the future, should represent not merely the passion or violence of the hour, but the best thought and intelligence of the whole nation.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, that he was in almost entire agreement with the hon. Member who had just sat down on the question of proportional representation, and he could hardly imagine a Reform Bill so extensive that it would be unsafe to adopt if it were associated with that principle. With regard to that principle, valuable as he thought it would be, and safe as it would make the enlargement of the franchise, it was the only means by which it would be permanently possible to retain Ireland within the Parliamentary system of the country, and therefore he heartily wished it could be incorporated with the present measure. He would, however, point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was impossible to incorporate that measure in a Bill which proposed simply to enlarge the franchise. It must be accompanied by redistribution. And therefore, if they were to have any resort to that principle, which would alone give satisfactory and full representation, it must be by insisting upon redistribution being coupled with the enlargement of the franchise, and the whole question being dealt with in one Act. It was remarkable when the first supporter of the Bill rose to hear the arguments by which he supported it. He referred to that instance upon which the Prime Minister had dwelt, the instance of Glasgow, where the natural development of the industrial concerns of the city had forced large numbers of the working men to live outside its Parliamentary boundaries, and he appealed to them on that side of the House as to whether they would say that these men should be excluded from the franchise. He thought all would say that they ought to have the franchise; but these men were inhabitants of Glasgow, they had their homes there and their votes, and the natural increase in the wealth and industry of Glasgow drove them beyond the limits of the Parliamentary borough. If the distinction between town and country constituencies was to be retained, what was the remedy for the grievance of these men? It was not the extension of the franchise to the counties; it was the inclusion of the place they now lived in in the borough of Glasgow. In his opinion, the first thing which should be done was the appointment of a strong and impartial Boundary Commission to decide the limits which these towns were to have. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said it was an anomaly that the minority of the voters should elect the majority of the Members of that House. But how did this Bill remedy that inequality? It, in fact, created a greater anomaly in giving to the towns 90 more Members than they ought to have, and in taking 90 Members away from the counties. It was remarkable that the Prime Minister, who had great experience with figures, almost entirely ignored them in his speech. He had arrived almost at the end of it when he told them of the number of voters which would be added to England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he gave them no information as to the source from which he made his calculations. [Mr. GLADSTONE signified dissent.] The mere extension of the franchise would not remove anomalies. Under this Bill the counties would have 2,750,000 of electors, and the boroughs 1,750,000. The counties, therefore, should have 277 Members; but, as a matter of fact, they would have 187, or 90 fewer Members than they were entitled to. He hoped they would have some figures before the second reading, which would show them the real effect of the proposals of the Government. He approved of the service franchise, because, in his judgment, it would restore, reinforce, and strengthen the influence of authority, position and property which by the other parts of the Bill they were going to diminish. He thought that the title "service franchise" was curiously infelicitous. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Give us a better.] He should try to meet that. It seemed to him this "service franchise" was a somewhat offensive term. It meant, of course, a servant's franchise. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] What else was it? He was challenged to give the Government a better title. He replied there was no reason for a title at all. It was simply an extension of the household franchise, and the only thing necessary was a provision enacting that henceforth householders should not be disqualified by reason of the terms of the occupation of their houses. He hoped they should hear from the Government what alteration, if any, they proposed to make in this matter. Then with regard to the freehold vote, the proposals of the Government were far from satisfactory. He denied that the Bill could fairly be taken as proposing an equalization of the franchise as between boroughs and counties in that it proposed to retain the 40s. freeholder within certain limitations which were by no means clearly defined, and in cases where an elector had a qualification in a county and also in a borough situate within the county he was not to vote in the borough, where in most cases his largest interest lay, but in the county. The scheme as it stood was, in his view, not only misleading but mischievous, in that it would not only fail to give a full and accurate representation of the opinion of the people of the country, but would make it almost impossible to obtain such a representation. The Prime Minister appealed to his supporters not to imperil the Bill by proposing Amendments in it, on the ground that it was a large Bill; but the simplefact that it was a large Bill would make it more difficult hereafter to amend by readjusting the relations between the counties and boroughs, in that the Bill in its present form would create an overwhelming majority in the borough constituencies in a single class of voters—a fact which would prove a dead weight round the necks of the Government when they came to deal with the redistribution of power. Another defect in the Bill would be that it would give to Ireland an enormous number of the Irreconcilable Party in Parliament, as they had been described by a distinguished Member of the House, who would practically have the redistribution of political power in England and Scotland in their own hands. The Prime Minister had expressed the, to him, curious opinion that the work of redistribution had hitherto been weak and trivial because it had been coupled with the question of the franchise. It seemed to him that the two things were in- separably connected, because there never could have been any redistribution if it had not been connected with the franchise. What would be the state of things if they were discussing redistribution alone? There were now in the House 56 Members who sat for boroughs having less than 10,000 inhabitants, and of these 27 hon. Members sat on the Liberal Benches. The Government could scarcely suppose that these Gentlemen would support a Bill which would have the effect of disfranchising the constituencies for which they sat. The Prime Minister had never concealed his belief that redistribution and the franchise formed part of one essential whole, and the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) on one occasion expressed the opinion that the franchise might be extended in any way and it would be possible to nullify that extension by a Redistribution Bill. In 1867 several Members of Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that a Franchise Bill ought to be coupled with a Redistribution Bill; but what did they say now? They said that they had learnt a good deal since then; but had they learnt wisdom? The Prime Minister had given the House his personal opinions on the subject of redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman could not utter the opinions of his Cabinet because they were divided in opinion on the subject. There must have been wide divergence of opinion in the Cabinet on the subject for the Prime Minister to be compelled to give the House his individual views on this question. But in what position did the House find itself? The Prime Minister had declared that in his view Ireland should be allowed to retain her unfair preponderance of representation, and that the just claims of Scotland and of the North of England should be satisfied at the expense of the South and West of England. In that case the four small boroughs which must go in the West of England would be Liskeard, Tavistock, Bodmin, and Launceston, three of which were represented by staunch Liberals, including the Secretary to the Treasury. But what would the West of England say if they were to be disfranchised in order to enable the Government to buy the support of the Irish Members during the passage of this Bill through the House? It must be recollected that, although the ultimate views of the Prime Minister might be moderate enough, there were among his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench men who were far beyond the right hon. Member for Birmingham in their political views—men who aimed at universal suffrage, and at a complete transference of the political power of the country. In a few years the Prime Minister would be compelled to retire from political life, and then who would regard themselves as bound by his individual opinions? In bringing in their Franchise Bill, the Government ought to have clearly announced their views as to redistribution, and should have been compelled to stand or fall by these views. As matters stood now, if the Government proposals were adopted and the Franchise Bill alone were passed, we should have enormous and unwieldy constituencies returning Members who would deal with redistribution haphazard. It must be recollected that even if the Franchise Bill were passed this year, it would be impossible to pass the Registration Bill in time for the Registers to be corrected before January, 1886, when it would be too late for the present Parliament to enter on the work of redistribution. He was strongly in favour of proportional representation. Moreover, the constituencies were beginning to exercise a direct control over their Members. He believed in the honesty of purpose of all classes of the people. At the same time, in a great country like this, with its complex arrangements, its extended authority, and its intricate relations with other nations, there frequently and suddenly started up questions which demanded the calmest judgment and statesmanship. When such questions first became the subject of public discussion, it was impossible that the constituencies should be well informed with regard to them. Ignorance was always passionate, and passion was always blind, and these who had the firmest belief in the patriotic instincts of the people might be anxious that in some way the public feeling of the country should be guarded and modified so that the opinion of these who did not happen for the moment to be in the majority might find vent in that House. He believed this Bill would be mischievous, and that it would not help us in procuring a fair distribution of political power. It was recommended to the House and the country by expectations which could never be fulfilled, and by promises which could never be kept; it would disfranchise loyalty in Ireland, and it would place the conduct of Public Business almost at the mercy of the irreconcilable or rebel faction in that House. Therefore, he hoped the House would in the first instance demand that a full explanation should be given of the real purpose and scope of the measure, and that it would refuse to deal with it at all unless it were protected by proper safeguards.

MR. WALTER

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), in the course of his able speech, had remarked that the case of Glasgow, to which the Prime Minister had referred, where so many persons had been practically disfranchised, was one which should be settled by a readjustment of boundaries rather than by an extension of the franchise, and he had spoken of the propriety of appointing a Boundary Commission to determine questions of that character. Now, it was in the capacity of Boundary Commissioner—an office which he had the honour to fill 17 years ago, and in which he was with other Gentlemen engaged in putting, as it were, the finishing touch to the Reform Bill of 1867—that he was anxious to say a few words on the general aspect of the question as presented by the Prime Minister. He hoped to be able to impress upon Friends of his who might entertain doubts as to the propriety of extending the franchise to householders in the counties that in doing so they were not incurring any such great danger as possibly they might have been led to apprehend. The propriety of extending household suffrage to the county population did not depend upon the fact that their brethren in the towns had that privilege already extended to them. If he recollected rightly, that was one of the arguments addressed to them in the speech of the Prime Minister. But the argument that had always weighed with him was that as a matter of fact the householders in a number of counties in England had that privilege already, and that in passing that Bill they would be merely extending to the majority of the counties the identical privilege which had been long enjoyed by the minority. The Boundary Commission on which he had served examined very carefully into the condition of every borough in the Kingdom, and the first difficulty they met with was to find out what was a borough. It might surprise many hon. Members to hear—some hon. Members had been surprised when he told them—that there were no fewer than five boroughs in England—namely, East Retford, Cricklade, Shoreham, Salisbury, and Wenlock, which contained in all 600,000 acres, ranging from East Retford, with an acreage of 212,000, to Wenlock, with 51,000 acres. Thus, the average was 120,000 acres. If it was borne in mind that the county of Rutland contained only 94,000 acres, and the Isle of Wight about the same number, it was seen that in point of area there were already five boroughs larger than Rutland and the Isle of Wight in each of which occupying householders had enjoyed the franchise for 17 years. He had never heard of any harm resulting from that enjoyment. Then there were 12 boroughs each with under 50,000 and over 20,000 acres, averaging 25,000 acres each. Each of these boroughs was a large electoral district. The next 22 boroughs contained each under 20,000 and over 10,000 acres, averaging 13,000 acres. Then there were 18 boroughs with less than 10,000 and more than 5,000, averaging 7,000 acres each. Now, an acreage of 2,000 was sufficient for a population of 60,000, and was about the space occupied on the average by a borough of 60,000 inhabitants. It would thus be seen what a large extent of England these agricultural boroughs or counties really covered. Those boroughs, nearly 60 in number, to which he had referred, excluded Sheffield and Leeds, which with a large acreage had also very large populations. But boroughs containing an acreage of over 5,000 occupied no less an area than 1,300,000 acres, or more than the whole diocese of Oxford. With these facts before them, there was not one of his Colleagues on the Boundary Commission who did not, like himself, say that when the question of the extension of the franchise to householders in the counties was brought forward it would be impossible to resist the claim. But another fact that forced itself upon their minds, and which in his mind had never been dissociated from the question, was that the state of the boroughs in England was such that a redistribution of seats ought to be an inseparable part of any great extension of the franchise. No doubt there were Parliamentary difficulties—practical difficulties connected with the subject—which might make such a course impossible. He could not but regret that it was impossible. But, having obtained satisfactory assurances from the Prime Minister that he considered that the two questions were bound together, and that the second ought to follow immediately after the first, he was willing to accept that assurance as a reason for postponing the consideration of a question which, on abstract grounds, he quite agreed ought to be considered at the same time as the franchise question. The Prime Minister had said the other night that no Reform Bill had ever been presented to the House as a complete measure. That depended upon the sense given to the word "complete." The Reform Bill of 1832 was, for instance, not complete, in so far as it had to be followed by the Irish and Scotch measures, but it was complete as to the questions of franchise and redistribution. The Act of 1867, which was incomplete in some other respects, was complete so far as regarded these two essential branches of the subject. With regard to the last class of electors who were to be admitted to the franchise, he could only say, from his own experience, that they were composed mainly of a class in no way inferior—he thought in many way superior—to the class of persons who at present enjoyed it. The Prime Minister had observed that even the agricultural labourer—the lowest scale in the county population—was very often a highly skilled labourer, and a man of good sense, moderation, and good conduct. Then there was the large artizan class, and the other persons who occupied houses under £12 in large towns. They were very intelligent, well conducted, and trustworthy people. He was not sure that it might not be advantageous to commend it to the consideration of the Minister of Education, if he might so call him, to introduce elementary books into the schools on the duties of the British citizen; it might be advisable that the rising generation should be taught to understand that in giving a vote for a candidate they were not conferring an eternal obligation. That, he thought, might be a desirable thing to do; but, taking them as a class, he believed they were in every respect as trustworthy—as far as his personal experience was concerned they were more trustworthy—as any other class in the community in the same position of life. He did not intend to go into the question of the advantage or otherwise of the substitution of the £10 clear yearly value qualification for the £12 rental. There was, however, one addition to the franchise, or rather one condition of the franchise, recommended to the House which he desired to notice. He had heard with very great pleasure the recognition of a class of voters who, as the law now stood, would be disqualified, although they were in many respects better qualified than many other voters. He meant these persons included in the "service" franchise. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth in thinking that no very good reason existed for importing a new name and for changing the occupation into the "service" franchise. He thought that the word "occupation" was wide enough to cover any kind of franchise conferred upon a voter except the lodger. In Henry IV. it was said, "The word 'occupy' was an excellent word till it was ill-sorted." The same might be said of the word "occupation." But he saw no reason why the payment of rent should ever have been a necessary condition of the exercise of the franchise in respect of occupation. It was perfectly notorious that all over England, and on the best managed estates in particular, a great number of persons who occupied houses in the capacity of bailiffs, farm labourers, yardmen, shepherds, carpenters, and other mechanics, lived rent free and occupied lodges or other houses by virtue of their employment, and were placed in that position on account of their good conduct. What an absurd thing it was, therefore, that, in order to carry out this hocus-pocus arrangement of voting, they must give a man a few shillings more of wages. It would be far better to give it him as a simple matter of occupation, and allow him to have a vote so long as his taxes were paid. There was another point in connection with this franchise part of the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and upon which he hoped, in the course of this debate, they would hear something more. He did not wish to dogmatize on this subject, or to form any very positive opinion; but they had been now for many years past assimilating the county and borough franchise—that was to say, they had been lowering the county franchise. They had been making it one more of occupation and much less of property qualification. Why not, he asked, go further while they were about it? In the boroughs, as was well known, the possession of freehold conferred no vote for the Parliamentary borough. If a man occupied his own freehold in a borough he voted for the borough; but if he did not occupy his own freehold he gave a vote for the county. Supposing he and another hon. Gentleman occupied two contiguous houses of exactly the same value in a borough, they being freehold houses. That occupation would give each of them a vote for the borough. So long as they were of opposite politics each gentleman would occupy his own house, and each would have a vote for the borough. But supposing they were of the same politics, one might say to his next-door neighbour—"Why should we not vote for the county too? We have only to change houses—you paying me a pound and I paying you a pound." That was a fact. He did not like arrangements of that hocus-pocus character; and if the arrangement he had mentioned in his illustration were not carried out, all he could say was that he wondered it was not done. He wanted to know why, since they were now going so far in the direction of assimilating the borough and county franchise, they did not make a clean job of it at once? There were hon. Members in that House who were old enough to remember that, when this question was mooted in 1832, the late Sir Robert Peel strongly advocated the method he had suggested, and it was stoutly opposed by the Government of the day. The ground of opposition always was that there was this broad distinction between the borough and the county franchises—that property was represented in the county, and occupation in the borough. But now they were more and more diminishing the importance of the property qualification in the counties, and making the qualification one of occupation. Therefore, he said, why not lay down the principle that, wherever a man's property was there his vote should be? On what ground of common sense or natural arrangement could a man be allowed to vote in one electoral district in virtue of property which lay in another district? It would simplify the whole subject if the franchise were made uniform now that the Government were going so far. He wished to say a few words about the connection between the counties and the question of redistribution. He thought it had been stated by a Member of the Cabinet, during the Recess, that he did not see what connection there was between the two questions. It seemed to him very strange that any hon. Gentleman should not see the connection. The connection was obvious to him. He quite agreed with what had been said by a late eminent man in that House—that "you cannot deal with the distribution of power in this country in a partial manner." They could not import a vast number of electors into the political system without disturbing the existing equilibrium. In that case, undoubtedly, the addition of 1,300,000 electors to the county constituencies of England and Wales would greatly aggravate the injustice under which the counties at present laboured by virtue of the inequality in which they stood as compared with the boroughs. The following figures were, of course, familiar to the minds of most hon. Members. The population of the counties, excluding the Parliamentary boroughs, was about 14,000,000. The population of the Parliamentary boroughs was about 13,000,000, making the counties 1,000,000 over the boroughs as regarded population. The number of inhabited houses was 500,000 more in the counties than in the boroughs, and yet the number of Members was 110 less. Of course, it might be said that this Bill did not disturb the population. No; but it greatly aggravated the inequalities by making so great an addition to the electoral power of that population. He, therefore, thought the counties had a right to complain of being unjustly treated in the matter of the distribution of political power, unless a great addition was made to the number of their Members as soon as possible after the passing of this measure. A great many authorities had been quoted on this subject, and a great many speeches had been made in that House and "elsewhere" distinctly recognizing the impropriety of dealing only with one branch of this question. He did not think the passage he wished to read had been quoted to the House before. Earl Russell, in his "Reminiscences," referred to a remarkable scheme that had been proposed by Oliver Cromwell for reforming the representation of the United Kingdom. Earl Russell said— I confess it appears to me that if the question of Parliamentary reform is again touched, Parliament ought not to content itself with giving to householders in counties the same right, of voting which they have in boroughs, lopping off a few small towns, but that the scheme of Cromwell should be revived in these better times—i.e., greatly enlarging the representation of the counties, giving one Member each to the large towns, and totally omitting the small boroughs. The case of the small boroughs had often been pleaded in that House—he had heard it pleaded by the Prime Minister himself—on the ground that they ought to be retained for the sake of sending rising young statesmen or promising young lawyers to Parliament. Things were much altered since 1867. Even in his own time three out of the four boroughs in Berkshire had very much distinguished themselves by the class of Members they had sent to Parliament. Abingdon had produced a Lord Chancellor, Wallingford a Vice Chancellor, and Reading two Judges. without any disrespect to the excellent Gentlemen who now filled these seats, it could not be said that they were either promising young statesmen or rising lawyers. Taking a survey of the small boroughs, he did not think they had fulfilled the functions for which their existence had been upheld. In his own coutry there were five borough Members and three county Members. There were at present about 8,000 county voters. This Bill would increase the number to 16,000, and would, accordingly, be a great aggravation of the inequality in which the county of Berkshire stood in relation to its boroughs. He had no hesitation in sketching a Redistribution Bill for that county which would disfranchise two of the boroughs and divide the county. It might not be a bad thing if each county Member sent in his own scheme for the consideration of the Government. As to the question of minority representation, he considered himself one of its victims. He now sat for a minority seat. It was far less comfortable than under the old system. The minority Member was not in the same position of independence. There was this vital objection to the system, that in the event of the minority Member wishing or being compelled to retire he was precluded by the fact that his doing so might give the seat to the other side. That fact alone would make him hostile to the system. He was rather sorry to hear the Prime Minister had so soon made up his mind as to the case of Ireland. He did not at that moment wish to make any reflections on the subject. But he thought that the House ought to know on what basis the proportion of Irish Members was fixed at the time of the Union. Perhaps it might not be known that the quota of 100 Members fixed at the time of the Union was suggested to Mr. Pitt by the then Irish Parliament. Mr. Pitt did not himself consider it of very great importance to fix the precise number, but he said— At the same time, when it is necessary that the number should be fixed, it is necessary to have recourse to some principle to guide our determination; and I am not aware of any one that can be more properly adopted than that which was laid down in the discussions upon this part of the subject in the Parliament of Ireland—I mean a reference to the supposed population of the two countries and to the proposed rate of contribution. I do not think that the proportion of the population or the capability of contribution, taken separately, would either of them form so good a criterion as when taken together; but, even when combined, I do not mean to say that they are perfectly accurate. Taking this principle, it will appear that the proportion of contribution proposed to be established is seven and a-half for Great Britain and one for Ireland, and that in the proportion of population Great Britain is to Ireland as two and a-half or three to one; so that the result, upon a combination of these two, will be something more than five to one in favour of Great Britain, which is about the proportion which it is proposed to establish between the Representatives of the two countries. That was the basis on which the quota of Irish Members was fixed by Mr. Pitt at the time of the Union, and unless any better reason could be given for altering the principle, the same basis should be adopted now, with one reservation. He fully recognized the importance of the element of distance or area which the Prime Minister referred to as a factor in the question. He thought that other things being equal, the element of distance ought to be taken into account, and some allowance made for the inconvenience of Members having to cross the Channel to perform their Parliamentary duties. Indeed, he had always regarded St. George's Channel as being at the root of the Irish difficulty. He would allow an addition of, perhaps, 5 per cent in the case of both Scotland and Ireland, in consequence of the distance of these countries from Westminster. That being provided for, he could see no ground for departing from the principle laid down by Mr. Pitt of proceeding on the basis of population and contribution to taxation combined. With regard to the further question, as to the best mode of securing the representation of minorities—as to whether in towns where the population reached 500,000, the voter should be given five, six, or more votes, as to whether these towns should be treated as a whole or should be divided into districts, or what plan should be adopted, which would enable minorities to be represented, he would not dwell upon at that moment. He merely rose to express his hearty concurrence in the scheme of the Franchise Bill, as far as it had been explained by the Prime Minister, and to express his regret that it had been found impossible to enter into the question of redistribution at the same time.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, they should all bear in mind that this was a proposal to add 2,000,000 electors to the Register, on which there were at present 3,000,000. No greater change had ever been proposed to Parliament, for it amounted to a complete transfer of political power from these who had it now to another class who had it not. The Prime Minister had himself remarked, that before they made this change they should be satisfied that the persons to be enfranchised were capable. But what were they to be capable for? Were they to be capable of caring for their own interests, or for public and national interests? An Act was passed last year directed against the tendency, supposed to be inherent in human nature, of a man to take care of himself; and great care should be exercised that the franchise was not given to persons who were careless of all national questions. They desired to strengthen and broaden the foundations on which the Constitution rested. He would welcome any addition of sound materials to the foundation on which the English Constitution rested; but they were bound to examine the materials it was now proposed to build into this foundation. They had been told that it was vital and essential that England, Scotland, and Ireland should be treated with perfect equality. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had given good reasons why the principle of equality to England and Scotland should not be allowed to give a preference to Ireland. But what did equality mean as far as Ireland was concerned? It meant that there was to be an addition of 400,000 or 500,000 new electors to that country. Speaking of the conditions under which the new electors were to exercise the franchise, the Prime Minister said that the whole population whom he proposed to enfranchise had liberty of speech and of writing, liberty of meeting in public, and liberty of private association, privileges upon the existence of which our security depended. He listened to that portion of the Prime Minister's speech with the greatest interest and attention; but he could not see that it was applicable to the condition of Ireland at the present time. It appeared to him that there did not exist there at present liberty of speech, liberty of writing, or of public meeting, or private association; and the restriction of these liberties, in the opinion of the Prime Minister and a great many other Gentlemen, were necessary in order to make the best provision for the security of life and property in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government, in the time of the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, thought they could govern Ireland without these restrictions; but they discovered their mistake, and they found it necessary to restrict the liberty of the Irish people in all these particulars. Yet, in the absence of these necessary conditions, the Prime Minister claimed that by approving this measure the House would strengthen the Constitution and strengthen the fabric upon which public order rested. The proposal was to add some 450,000 persons to the Register, of whom 27,000 held less than 15 acres, 218,000 were rated at or under £4 yearly, and 196,000 were rated at £10 and under. He was one of these who deeply deplored the misery of the farm- ing population in Ireland. They lived with difficulty. It had been asserted, over and over again, that even if they possessed in fee the farms they occupied they would be totally unable to obtain a decent livelihood. Was it, then, a statesmanlike proposal to add to the list of electors a number of persons who lived with extreme difficulty? The Census of Ireland told them that 25 per cent of the whole population were unable to read and write; and it might fairly be assumed that the proportion of persons who would be placed on the list of electors by the Bill would consist largely of illiterate persons. In Leinster that class amounted to 20 per cent. in Munster 28 per cent. in Ulster 20 per cent. and in Connaught 37 per cent. If these people became voters they must come under some influence or other. The Returning Officer who recorded their votes and many other persons would have the opportunity of practising great irregularity. Such electors would be likely to fall under the influence of these who promised them most. The House was very well acquainted with the opinions of Irish Members with respect to Home Rule, opinions which they advocated there with great ability and perfect frankness. But they desired a great deal more than that; their object was, in many cases, to benefit the population at the expense of these who, in their judgment, had oppressed them for a great many years. It had been stated that under the new franchise 90 seats would fall to their lot; and how would Parliament fare against a compact mass of 90 Members bent on the disintegration of the Empire and the confiscation of the property of the landlords of Ireland? The Prime Minister himself had expressed strong opinions on this subject. Speaking at Leeds, on October 17, 1881, he said— Now that the Land Act has passed into law, and now that Mr. Parnell is afraid lest the people of England, by their long-continued efforts, should win the hearts of the whole of the Irish nation, he has a new and enlarged gospel of plunder to proclaim. He described the then condition of things in these words— I will frankly take the case of Mr. Parnell as exhibiting what I mean when I say that the state of things in Ireland is coming to a question of law on one hand and sheer lawlessness on the other. It was upon the men to whom these utterances were addressed that the Prime Minister now proposed to bestow the franchise. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, writing upon the securities against the fallibility of political practice, said— When men whose conduct is not under the influence of reason are invested with political power, these with whom they have to deal and these who are subject to their government are left in a state of utter uncertainty as to what they may expect. Where, again, the great body of any community are guided by violent and irrational counsels, and follow the advice of unwise leaders, it is impossible for a Government to anticipate how any measure, however beneficial in its tendency and however well meant by its authors, may be received. There was very little doubt how the extended franchise would be exercised by voters in Ireland, the majority of whom now were hostile to the British connection; and the minority, who possessed the property, paid the taxes, and bore the burdens of government, would practically be trampled out. Could it be wise and statesmanlike to bring this about? It was surprising that the Government, who were responsible for the peace of the country, should have proposed such a measure. Everyone must know it would enormously increase our Parliamentary difficulties. He was amazed when he heard the Prime Minister say that it was not intended to reduce the number of Irish Members, and that it was a question whether the boroughs in the South of England should not furnish the increase required by Scotland, while it was possible that the total number of Members might have to be increased. It was said that the labours of the House had increased. The number of speeches had increased; and if the Prime Minister had not been in some difficulty he would hardly have proposed that the number of Members should be increased. Unfortunately, there were telegraphs and newspapers, and a silent Member was reminded by notes in a local newspaper that he was not doing justice to the importance of his constituency. If a Reform Bill was absolutely necessary for the despatch of Business, he should have said that it ought to have aimed rather at a reduction than an increase in the number of Members. On the 4th of December there appeared in The Times a statistical comparison of the claims of England, Scotland, and Ireland, based upon population and taxation; and from that it appeared clear that Ireland was not entitled to retain its present proportion of Members. It was said that greater distance from London gave a title to more Members; but did the distance of Ireland from London make Irish Members more capable of discharging the duties of Members of an Imperial Parliament and of taking a wide view of the responsibilities of the Empire? What was to be the effect on English politics, in which the majority of Irish Members did not profess to take an interest? What would be the action of this solid Party in the House of Commons? If they were 90 or 100 strong, would they not hold the scales between one Party and another in the struggle for power? Would it be to the advantage of the country that this Party should be increased, consolidated, and strengthened? That would be a formidable element in the government of this country. Therefore, we should come to this—that the Leader of the majority of the voters in Ireland would practically govern the Empire. It was avowed by hon. Members from Ireland that they intended to hold the scales and to determine the course of policy of the Government of this country. It would be unwise and foolish to give such a power, knowing perfectly well how it would be exercised. There would probably be a chaos of Parliamentary Business, and the Prime Minister of England would have the satisfaction of having done his best at the end of his great and marvellous career to make Parliamentary Government in England practically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared, was not disposed to run the risk of overloading the ship. Well, he had heard of ships foundering from excessive deck-loading; but, as hon. Members knew, there were many more instances of foundering from improperly loading the ship. The right hon. Gentleman declined to put up any bulkheads or any partitions, or to say anything positive about redistribution; but he held out promises and expectations from which he could recede because they were not binding on the Government. But the stowing of the cargo was the very essence of the whole question. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) told the House that his constituency would be enormously increased, and so would the constituencies of South-East and South-West Lan- cashire. Where were they going to stow these 1,300,000 voters?—because if they made a wrong distribution of the weights they would incur serious danger. There were 42 boroughs with a population under 7,000, which returned 42 Members; 30 with a population under 10,000, which returned 30 Members; and 48 with a population under 20,000, which returned 72 Members. All these 144 Members must be affected by the measure which was to be proposed next year, if they should ever reach it. Well, the measure was proposed as regarded Ireland at a most inopportune moment. The question on which the House was embarking was probably the most grave that had ever occupied the attention of Parliament, and it required to be approached with the greatest possible deliberation. Why should Parliament be in a hurry to settle a question which certainly, having regard to the condition of Ireland, had come upon it at a most inopportune moment? They were told it would be madness to exclude Ireland. Then it would be madness to propose a measure which must include Ireland. This was an occasion when the House should rise above Party considerations, and should endeavour to maintain the stability and security of the institutions of the country, and to see that every class and every interest was duly represented, and that there should be no tyranny by any one class. He saw no provision for securing these ends. He saw no provisions whatever in the Bill for the security of peace and good order, or for the protection of the propertied and taxpaying classes, or any recognition of these great institutions which had grown up under the system tinder which we had lived for many years happily and prosperously, and which it should be the desire of every statesman to preserve.

MR. GOSCHEN

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he introduced this Bill, stated that he would not detain the House at any length with regard to the arguments in favour of the admission of that large class to the franchise whom this Bill is calculated to bring within the pale of the Constitution. I will in all humility follow his example on a corresponding point. I will not attempt to detain this House by any repetition of arguments which I have previously used, as to the capacity or incapacity of any particular class to be enfranchised and to receive the privilege of voting. There are two classes to whom this Bill is to apply—the class of agricultural labourers, and the class of artizans living in the surburban parts of towns, who are, as is continually argued and admitted, precisely similar in character to the artizans who live upon the other side of the street. With regard to the admission of the agricultural labourers, I cannot say that I have changed my opinions; and I regret—I deeply regret—that the hope—I may say the ambition—which I had, that the agricultural labourer should be prepared for political duties by previous admission to civic duties through a system of local government, has not been able to be realized. The views which I held on that subject have never altered. I hold that the same educational process which has been gone through in the case of the voters in boroughs ought to have been brought into operation in the case of the agricultural labourers before they were admitted within the pale of the Constitution. With regard to the artizan class, I will not trouble the House with the arguments I used on an earlier occasion. It may be more interesting if I state very briefly the points on which I have modified my opinions with respect to that class, and make the admissions which I am prepared to make. It was in 1876 or 1877, if I remember rightly, that I made certain declarations of my opinions as to the attitude which the working classes would be likely to adopt towards economical questions, and I founded part of my argument as to the danger of admitting them upon that assumption. Now, I will candidly admit that events have occurred since that time which have made a deep impression upon my mind. Not many years ago there was a serious depression in trade, employment was reduced, wages were lowered, and there were not wanting men who were prepared to dangle as a bait before the working classes the revival of obsolete and exploded doctrines, which might have a plausible appearance, but were none the less thoroughly unsound. But the working man wanting work stood more bravely to his guns than the politician wanting power, and I must say that the attitude which the working classes then took must inspire us with some confi- dence in the attitude they will take in future. The sturdy language of their representatives at the Trades Union Congress, too, was in strong contrast with that of some politicians. While the former denounced these doctrines as obsolete and dangerous, there were not wanting politicians—even politicians in conspicuous positions—who were prepared to do the bidding of the working classes if they desired it, and to revive doctrines for which they had no harsher word than "pious opinions." There is another point which has made some impression upon my mind, and that is the general proceedings at the Trades Union Congresses, and I have been struck by the remarkable moderation of language which has been employed at these assemblies of working men, where they were free from outside influence, and where there was no one to bring pressure, as it were, upon them. I will make another admission. The argument against the enfranchisement of the working class was this—and, no doubt, it is a very strong argument—the power they would have in any election if they combined together on questions of class interest. We are bound not to put that risk out of sight. Well, at the last Election I carefully watched the various contests that were taking place, and I am bound to admit that I saw no tendency on the part of the working classes to combine on any special question where their pecuniary interest might be concerned. On the contrary, they seemed to me to take a genuine political interest in public questions, and I may say a more genuine political interest than the class immediately above them. Many hon. Members may remember that at the last Election the political life of a candidate who had ever dealt at a co-operative store was not worth a day's purchase. The traders took more interest in the withdrawal of Civil Servants from co-operative stores than in the withdrawal of the English garrison from Candahar. Among the masses, on the other hand, there was, I quite admit, a deep interest felt in a great many of the public questions of the day, and the contests were fairly fought out upon political and public grounds. The general course of events has been such that I think we may say that the working classes have given proofs that they are deeply desirous to do what is right, and that they have the sentiment of right and justice deeply implanted in them. They may frequently be in error; they may make mistakes; but, so far as we are able to judge of them, they have been actuated by a desire to do right. I have now stated with frankness the impression made upon my own mind since 1876 by certain political currents which I have watched. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that what one might have expected from a vast accession of one class to the franchise has happened, and that what I may call the powers of resistance to any popular demand has notably decreased both inside and outside the House. Can we expect that it should be otherwise; can we expect that we should almost change the balance of power, and place affairs of State almost at the discretion of an entirely new class, and not find a reflex of such an event in the attitude of Members and of constituencies? Now, we must always remember that the Act of 1867 was the work of a Conservative Government. The policy of Lord Beaconsfield has borne its fruit, and we have discovered that being whose existence was previously denied—namely, the Conservative working man. The Conservative working man has been proved to exist. He has been called into existence by the act of the Conservatives; he votes for Conservative men; but he coerces Conservative Members in a democratic direction. The whole attitude of the Conservative Party has been entirely changed, as it was certain to be, by the Act of 1867. I think hon. Members will, when they look around them and see the Members who sit among them from Lancashire, and others who represent large constituencies in boroughs, admit that they are totally different Conservatives from these whom we knew before the Act of 1867. ["No, no!"] I am looking simply at the question as a whole, and what I wish to prove is that there has been a change—a change for good or for evil; but let me hope it is for good—in the attitude of all Parties since 1867. You could not have wished to enfranchise all these classes without intending to be influenced by the wishes of these classes, and you have been influenced by them. It appears to me that it has come to this—that, feeling much more the contact of democracy, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have lost the power of resistance to principles, though they are perfectly prepared to resist the application of these principles in the case of particular measures. They rather present the attitude of a body of rival practitioners, who are prepared to carry out the will of the people in competition with politicians on this side who advocate precisely the same principles. Since the Reform Bill of 1867 democracy has been making tremendous strides on both, sides of the House—a triumph which hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House joyfully admit, and which Conservatives cannot deny. Now, I am afraid my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say that I am at present upon the hill-tops of speculation, and that I ought to descend to practical points. I will, therefore, abandon my abstract reasoning, and give the House the concrete expression of what I mean when I refer to the anxiety which hon. Members here have felt since 1867 as to how they might stand in the opinion of the working classes. There are some Members in this House who were not here in the last Parliament; therefore they are not aware of the incident I am about to put before them. During the last Parliament there was introduced a Friendly Societies Bill, and an Amendment was moved upon that Bill by a Conservative Member for a large constituency. An hon. Member opposite—a Conservative Friend of mine—came to me and said—" Have you seen a very Socialistic Amendment put upon the Paper to the Friendly Societies Bill?" I replied that I had not seen it. He said the Amendment ought to be discussed. "Then," I asked, "why not block the Bill?" to which he replied—" I block the Bill? I dare not." I suggested that he should get some one of his Friends to block it. "No, I cannot find anyone," he said; and I then ventured to block the Bill myself. Never did I draw down a fiercer storm on my devoted head. We were then in Opposition, and I was told that I had blocked a Friendly Societies Bill in which 500,000 working men took the deepest interest, and that I was compromising the Party by the action I had taken. I pointed out that the Bill was against orthodox principles, but the reply was—" Never mind, the working classes take more interest in this Bill than in the Eastern Question." That is a fair illustration of the influence which the apprehension of the action of the working classes has upon the minds of hon. Members in this House. If that was the case upon a small question, what would be the result if the working classes were really to put forward some demand of great importance upon which they wished to insist, but which a majority of this House considered ought to be resisted? And, now that I have given that concrete instance, I ask the House whether what I have described is not the very result which was to be expected from the Bill of 1867, which so displaced the whole centre of gravity of the Constitution? And now let me recall the attention of the House for a moment to a very few figures. How many Members are there in this House who remember the introduction of the Bill of 1866—a Bill introduced by the present Prime Minister? In that Bill the proposal was to make an addition to the borough electors in England and Wales of about 202,000 by a £7 franchise, and my right hon. Friend made an apology to the House, and contrasted these figures with the numbers that would have been introduced by a £6 franchise, which would have introduced 304,000 electors—a number considered unsafe at that time. My right hon. Friend explained to the House that there were already in the town constituencies 26 per cent of working men, or a number of working men who then enjoyed the franchise of about 126,000, and that a £6 franchise would raise that number to about 428,000 persons. My right hon. Friend said— I should thus arrive at a gross total of 428,000 persons, which would, in fact, probably place the working classes in a clear majority upon the constituency. Well, that has never been the intention of any Bill proposed in this House. I do not think it is a proposal that Parliament would ever adopt. Well, two Parliaments separate us from that declaration, when an addition of 302,000 electors was considered out of the question, because it would have given a clear majority to the working class in almost every constituency. My right hon. Friend went on to say— I cannot say I think it would be attended with great danger, but I am sure it is not according to the present view or expectation of Parliament. And although, for my own part, I do not think that much apprehension need be entertained with respect to the working classes, even if admitted in larger numbers than we propose; yet I admit that, upon general grounds of political prudence, it is not well to make sudden and extensive changes in the depositories of political power. Now, contrast with these figures—200,000 and 300,000—the figures to which we are now becoming accustomed. 900,000 electors were added in 1867 as the result of the competition of rival practitioners; and now, after having added 900,000 to the previous electorate, we are asked to add 1,300,000 electors in England and Wales to these who were there before. I have explained to the House the auspices under which I was first taught my duties as a reformer, and I must apologize to my right hon. Friend if I have retained some of the doctrine which was inculcated by his speeches at that time. To me it still seems doubtful, "on general grounds of political prudence," whether it is wise to make, without proper precautions, these great changes in the depositories of political power. I ask hon. Members to fix these figures and these dates plainly in the almanack of their minds. In 1866, rejection of the proposal to admit 300,000; adoption of the proposal to admit 200,000. In 1867, the proposal which admitted 900,000; and in 1884 a proposal to admit 1,300,000 more. If you put the addition of 1867 and the proposed new addition together, the new constituency emancipated by these two Bills will be larger than the whole constituency which existed before 1866—that is to say, that since 1866, by these two Bills, we shall have taken the power from the classes that previously enjoyed it, and placed it in the hands of an absolute majority who were not in the enjoyment of it before. What I maintain is that the number of voters inhabiting houses below £10 admitted in 1867, and proposed to be admitted now, will be a clear majority of all the voters, and that to their hands will be committed the future destinies of this country. While admitting the capacity of a great number of these who are to be enfranchised to exercise the vote, I cannot forget that in giving power to this new class you are taking the power almost entirely away from the other classes; and, while I admit that the Government are entitled to say that minorities should not always be able to render nugatory the will of the majorities, I hope that there are Members on both sides of the House who still hold that arrangements must be made by which the rights of minorities shall be secured and guaranteed. I do not propose to oppose the extension of the franchise, but I do hope that the Government will convince themselves that arrangements must be made by which these classes from whom power has been taken shall, nevertheless, be represented at the polling booth. These questions are not the questions of crotcheteers; they are not idle speculations; they are questions which must be faced with the utmost determination, for upon them the true representation of this country in the future must depend. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the representative system is the strength of the modern State; but the system must be a truly representative system. It must represent all classes, and there may be fear that a liberal enfranchisement of one class without any precautions will mean the taking away of representation from other classes. I can fancy that these 1,300,000 electors in England and Wales might be enfranchised, and that then, to use the significant words of the President of the Board of Trade, this newly-enfranchised class might be found "useful auxiliaries to determine the value of a man's vote afterwards." It appears to me that before these auxiliaries are given to my right hon. Friend all these questions ought to be considered. I feel confident that I am not running counter to the opinions of most hon. Members when I speak of the desire that minorities should be represented. In England it is said that the minority in one place represents the majority in another, and vice versâ. Can that same argument be applied to Ireland? Are we to hope that in Ireland the majority in one place will represent the minority in another, when we shall have added 400,000 electors to the 200,000 voters who at present elect Members in that country? If it is important in the case of England that minorities should be represented, I put it to the House in all earnestness whether it is not a still more important matter that under the new arrangements the loyal minority in Ireland should have a chance of making them selves heard? I believe that there will be a wish upon this side of the House as well as upon the opposite side that this consideration should not be put out of sight. I regret that by no single word in the speech of my right hon. Friend when he introduced this Bill were we led to the belief that that consideration had even entered into his mind. He did not seem to think that it would be necessary to take any precautions in the direction which I have indicated, and I saw no inclination or tendency on the part of my right hon. Friend to face the question which I have submitted. Ireland is going to gain by this Bill more than any other part of the United Kingdom. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members will admit that on this Reform. Question it is an Arrears Bill as well as a Bill of enfranchisement for Ireland. We reduce the borough franchise from a £4 rating franchise; and what Ireland gains is not only the same extension as is gained in England, but the previous arrears, if I may use that expression, are made up. Well, there is a determination, it appears to me, on this side of the House, and one that is shared also to a certain extent by hon. Members opposite, that Ireland in this matter shall be treated in the same way as England, and that the boon of an extended franchise shall not be denied to her. I think it ought to be admitted that that is an act of tremendous courage. While we have Coercion Acts in Ireland, while we are occupying that country with a large number of troops, at the same time we are content to treble the number of the constituency. I will say nothing in opposition to that course; but when it comes to this point—that, besides that, Ireland is to have exceptionally favourable treatment in the redistribution of seats—then I can have no other language for such a proposal than that which was used by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I confess that I am astounded. The Government is going to steer an even keel as to the franchise; but that Ireland, under these circumstances, should be secured in a number of seats to which it is proved that she will not be entitled, and that that should be proposed now, is a matter which I am utterly unable to explain. And let me put to the House the embarrassing situation in which we are going to place ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated this as his personal view. He says he would not have submitted the programme of redistribution to which he alluded if he thought he would he in vital conflict with the Cabinet if he proposed it. Still, it was put forward as the personal view of my right hon. Friend. Now, I can quite believe that, after the declaration of my right hon. Friend, the Party which follows the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) will give a steady support to the Bill which is now before them. Relying on the pledge or the opinion of the Prime Minister, they will support the Bill. But when next year comes, supposing it should be the view of the Cabinet that Ireland ought not to receive exceptionally good treatment in this respect, in what position will the House and my right hon. Friend himself be placed? He is the Prime Minister. After value has been given in the shape of support, could my right hon. Friend then say that he could not carry out the promise? What would he have to say to his Cabinet? Might he not feel himself compelled to say—"I have given that pledge, and I, at least, must stand by it; and unless you support me I must retire." But I want to know more. I want to know, will the Liberal Party be prepared to back the Prime Minister? [" Hear, hear!"] I hear a few cheers from below the Gangway, but not a single cheer from above, nor from the Colleagues of my right hon. Friend who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Now, Sir, the position will be an exceedingly difficult one. But supposing that another event, and not an impossible event, should happen—supposing there should be a Dissolution before the promise has been carried out? Are we, then—are the Liberal Party—to go to the country with that pledge which has been given, or a hint which has been thrown out, to the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that English boroughs are to be disfranchised in order to maintain intact the phalanx that follows that hon. Member? I desire to be straightforward about this. I say that I should oppose such a proposal. But are the Liberal Party, as a whole, going to accept the support of the Irish Party on this Bill with the pledge, or with the hint thrown out by their Leader, that the number of seats now possessed by Ireland is to be maintained? The Liberal Party, I say, ought to protest now if they do not mean to give that sup- port, because otherwise they might do what I would not do to any antagonist or opponent—they might lead hon. Members opposite from Ireland into a position in which I should not like to see any Members of this House placed—that is to say, of believing that they had been deceived. I can anticipate the language which hon. Members opposite coming from Ireland would use if, after they had voted for the Bill, hon. Members who had meanwhile sat silently by were to repudiate this promise that the present number of Irish seats is to be maintained intact, and de clared that it was not to be kept. They would naturally tax the Liberal Party, and tax it not unjustly, with a breach of faith. I shall not now argue the question of this exceptionally favour able treatment of Ireland, further than to say that it appears to me the injustice to England will be an injustice in creasing from year to year, because the population of England is increasing continually, while the population of Ire land is stationary, if not diminishing. Therefore the injustice, if it is an injustice now, will be an injustice growing from year to year. As for the argument of my right hon. Friend, that it was not so necessary to increase the number of Members from Scotland, because the Scotch constituencies send up such shrewd Members to Parliament——

MR. GLADSTONE

Pardon me; that was not my argument. I said no such thing. If my right hon. Friend chooses to quote me he might quote me correctly. I distinctly and strongly laid down elsewhere, as well as here, that the doctrine of distance is to be taken, into account as well.

MR. GOSCHEN

My right hon. Friend will forgive me; but I remember distinctly that he spoke of the shrewdness of the Scotch Members also. It struck me at the time that the Members from Ireland were equally shrewd; and as to the argument of distance, it appears to me that an argument might be made out on the same principle that Scotland should receive even more Members in proportion to her population. In any case, the argument of distance will not hold. But I would ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House whether they have the feeling in their minds that, after all, it may have been wise on the part of my right hon. Friend to make the suggestion which I have condemned?—because otherwise there might have been an opposition to this Bill, which hon. Members have so much at heart—an opposition which might have compromised it, and the Irish Party would have seen their way, as they so often do on other occasions, to make it impossible to carry this Bill, unless they had received such a declaration as I suggest. Well, if that is in the minds of hon. Members of this House, I would ask—Is it, then, already come to this—that the Irish Party in this House is so strong that on an Imperial question not affecting Ireland alone, but affecting the United Kingdom, we cannot proceed upon the principle of equal treatment and doing justice all round without taking into account the opposition that might be made by the Irish Members? Is it already necessary, in order to conciliate them, that such exceptional treatment, such a promise to maintain their rights, should be made at so inconvenient a moment? And, I ask, if this is their power now, on an Imperial Bill, what will be their power when they come back to this House, not only reinforced by the numbers which they will gain from the extension of the franchise, but through the very numbers that my right hon. Friend proposes to take from England in order to maintain the number of Irish Members intact? I must render my humble tribute as an antagonist to the daring strategy of hon. Members opposite. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Ireland and the distribution of seats, and I would now wish very briefly to touch some points with regard to the further questions connected with redistribution and the argument of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend wished that no question of redistribution should be tacked on to this Bill; and he has used an argument which is, no doubt, a plausible argument, that in 1866 it was more necessary than now to tie the two Bills together. At all events, he says, there was then a reason for such a course which does not exist now, because the disfranchisement of a borough then meant the disfranchisement of individual electors; whereas now the electors will have a vote for the county even if they lose it for the borough. I do not remember that the argument was used in 1866. This argument rests upon that apparently fundamental principle of my right hon. Friend which is that what we have to consider in these debates is the right of the individual rather than the result to the State. It is this right of the individual which would have suffered in 1866. I remember that Lord Derby at the time made what was always called "an unanswerable speech," proving that the two Bills ought to be treated together. I have read his speech through, and I do not find that he alluded in a single sentence to any argument such as that which has been put before us. The objection at that time was a tactical objection. The defence of the Government for separating the Bills—and I know that I had to take part in the defence myself—was that there were tactical objections to bringing the two Bills forward together; but they were not questions of principle. The argument of Lord Derby related mainly to the redistribution of seats, and the kind of Party manœuvres that might be expected if the two Bills were not treated together. I am prepared now to contend that much greater interests are at stake than simply the question whether one town or another is to be disfranchised. My right hon. Friend treated the representation of minorities as being tacked on, more or less, as a sort of excrescence to the subject of the franchise. It does not belong to the franchise question, but it is rather a part of the question of redistribution of seats. It belongs to that process which is to ascertain what is to be the value of a man's vote when you have given him that vote. And upon that the whole result of the redistribution of political power in the future may depend. Therefore, it is on this question, and not on the mere redistribution of seats—it is on the decision as to what vote you will give to the newly-enfranchised electors that the really important question of the future depends. We all admit—Conservatives and Liberals—that it is necessary boldly to disfranchise a large number of the small boroughs. But the greater and graver issue comes, when you have to assign these Members to large constituencies. Are you going to give three, or more than three, Members to large towns; and if you are going to do so, upon what principle will you allow the voters to vote? Because upon the answer to this problem will depend whether minorities in the future are to be represented, and that is a point upon which it is far more important to have a declaration from Her Majesty's Government than about any of the questions upon which my right hon. Friend submitted his personal opinion. Before these discussions close I hope that other Members of the Government will also submit to us their personal views upon these subjects, which will have such momentous effects in the future. For my own part, what I feel is this—I do not, as a humble Member of the House, call upon the Government to tie the two Bills together, a proceeding which my right hon. Friend says would destroy the Franchise Bill. I do not wish to obstruct the Franchise Bill. As I have said, I do not wish Her Majesty's Government to tie the two Bills together; but I do wish, in the course of these debates, to know what is in the mind of the Cabinet—what is the tendency of the Cabinet with regard to such vital questions as to how minorities are in future to be heard, and how they propose to prevent the total disfranchisement of the loyal classes in Ireland? I should wish to hear from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War to what extent he endorses the views which have been put forward with regard to the sacrifice of English seats for the purpose of keeping up the number of Irish Representatives? If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had been the last word, if there were no other hope to be given to us that Her Majesty's Government would face the problems which I have endeavoured imperfectly to put before the House, I confess that I should feel it my duty to oppose this Bill at every stage. If, on the other hand, I can see in the declarations to be made in the course of these debates by my right hon. Friend himself and his Colleagues that they intend to grapple with these difficulties, and that if there is a Dissolution—a contingency which we cannot put out of sight—before they can carry their Redistribution Bill, they will place before the country a moderate programme in accordance with that which has been sketched out by the Prime Minister, then I can conceive that one might support this Bill. I do not know if I explain myself clearly. I say that I want to have securities from Her Majesty's Government that they will accompany their Bill with precautions that will insure safety as to the points on which I have insisted. I look to them to secure that safety; and having no doubt as to their sincerity, I believe that if they declare their intention to do so they will take such precautions. I think it is well that the question of the franchise should be settled, and, if possible, that both the franchise and redistribution should be settled by the present Parliament. My right hon. Friend spoke of the deck cargo which might lead to the foundering of the ship. Another right hon. Member took up the simile, and spoke of the stowing of the cargo. Let me continue the simile. When I was at the Admiralty one of the first lessons I learnt was that when there was a fresh distribution of weights in a ship which was being rebuilt it was the paramount duty of these who were responsible for her safety, when sent to sea, to calculate afresh the centre of gravity and the angle of vanishing stability. Gigantic new engines are being put into the old hull of the British Constitution. I believe the hull is strong enough to bear them; for of stouter or more seasoned stuff has never craft been built; but these who will be responsible for the seaworthiness of the reconstructed ship would, it appears to me, be reckless to a crime if before they sent her to face the perils of the sea they had not made themselves absolutely sure that no change in the weights had shifted dangerously the centre of gravity, and that she would still preserve a sufficient reserve of stability to prevent her heeling over to the angle of danger under any pressure of wind or waves.

MR. PARNELL

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), in enumerating the advantages likely to arise if Ireland were included in the present Bill, spoke of the unfortunate habit belonging to Governments of being desirous to remain in Office; but he forgot to include also the unfortunate habit which belongs to the Opposition of being desirous to come into Office. When I was listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I thought I was listening to a speech delivered in opposition to a proposition for repealing the Union—for establish- ing an Irish Parliament—or one delivered in support of a proposition for disfranchising Ireland entirely. I can understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that Ireland ought not to be represented in this House at all; and I should consider that, having regard to his antecedents, and the antecedents of his Party, and their declarations from time to time, he and his Party would take up a consistent position if they took advantage of the present Franchise Bill to ask Parliament to exclude Ireland entirely from Parliamentary representation, and to govern her as a Crown Colony. But I cannot understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), who has frequently asked this House to look upon Ireland as if it were just as much a part of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire is, when he says that while not opposing—or, at all events, not strongly opposing—the extension of household suffrage to the counties of England, he, at the same time, vehemently declines, above all things, to include Ireland in the same measure which he is willing to give to England and Scotland. One would think that, as the result of the inclusion of Ireland in the present Bill, the laws to be made in future for Ireland would be entirely made by the Members from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of life and property being placed at the mercy of the majority of the people of Ireland if this Bill be passed; but he assuredly forgets that, at the outside, the quota from Ireland only consists of 103 Members, and that there would still be more than 500 English and Scotch Members, a majority of whom it would be necessary to bring over to our view of the question before we could pass a single measure in reference to the franchise; and after that the right hon. Gentleman has an additional guarantee in the existence of the House of Lords to act as a still further check and safeguard against the revolutionary designs which he has been pleased, on this occasion, to attribute to us. Now, what is the real extent of this terrible innovation and change which is so much deprecated in the two able speeches we have just listened to? According to the most careful calculations which have been made by these best acquainted with the probabilities of the next General Election, it is esti- mated that without any extension of the present franchise, and with the limited suffrage which at present exists in Ireland, we shall be able to return Members who agree with us in opinion about 70 strong. According to the estimate which has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), we should be able to return, if the present Bill passes, 90 Members. I am not inclined to think that we should carry as many seats as that; but, assuming the calculation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be correct, and taking his own figures as the substantiation of his own case, the addition to the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) promises the Party of revolution in this House would be 15 all told; and I scarcely think that such a small result as that, even admitting the contentions of these who oppose the Bill so far as it relates to Ireland, will induce the Liberal Party or the people of England to do a deliberate act of injustice, and to add another deliberate injustice to Ireland, by refusing these Constitutional rights to the Irish people of which they are at present deprived. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) spoke of the question of redistribution; and I think he almost entirely assumed, as the basis on which he stood the rest of his case, that if the course indicated by the Prime Minister, when the question of redistribution comes to be dealt with, were adopted, England would be placed at a very strong disadvantage; and Ireland, as compared with England, on the basis of relationship and on the basis of the possible number of electors, would have a much larger number of electors than she is entitled to. I have read the letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) to one of the London newspapers, in which he calculates—and I do not doubt that upon this calculation the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) bases his argument—that Ireland, according to the number she would have as an electorate under this Bill, is only entitled to 81 Members. Now, I do not think that that would be found to be the case, and I will take the figures. Of course, any statement with, regard to the probable number of constituents under the action of this Bill, either in Ireland or England, can only be approximate. The Prime Minister put it at 400,000; the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) put it at 600,000. [Mr. Gibson: No; 500,000.] To be strictly accurate, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman said 550,000, and by a simple rule-of-three sum—taking the figures of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as these which are most likely to be correct, and I am inclined to think they are more correct than these of the Prime Minister—if you will calculate the proportion of Members who ought to belong to an electorate of 550,000, and the proportion which ought to belong to the electorate which this Bill proposes to give in England, you will find that, as regards Ireland, a very small reduction, probably no more than six or seven, would have to be made; and if you calculate on the basis of the present population, you can only claim a similar reduction of about six or seven—a reduction which even the most ardent supporters of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Goschen) would consider to be altogether inadequate for the House to trouble their heads about. I doubt very much, when the time comes for estimating the number of Members to be given to the three countries respectively, whether it will be found, either on the basis of population or on the numbers to be added to the constituencies of the three countries, that you will be entitled to deprive Ireland of more than six or seven of her Members. I would put it to the House whether it would be worth while to violate the Act of Union, which was a Treaty entered into by the Representatives of the English and Irish nations, as far as the two countries can be said at that time to have had any Representatives at all, for the mere purpose of showing your spite against Ireland by taking away from her the paltry number of six or seven Members. Now, Sir, it is admitted on all hands that the Irish system of registration and the Irish franchise is an utter sham, and that it cannot be said to represent at all the great mass of the people. In fact, the Members for Ireland returned here are returned by an exceedingly select constituency; such a constituency as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) might be supposed, from the nature of his speech, to consider a sort of ideal constituency for England. To show the difference between the number of persons entitled to exercise the franchise in England and Ireland respectively—of course, there is a very great discrepancy in the borough franchise, which is the lowest franchise in England, the county franchise being much higher—let me take the case of five English towns approaching in population five of the Irish towns. Sheffield has a population of 284,000, and there are over 43,000 electors; while Dublin, with a population of 273,000, or within 10,000 of Sheffield, has only 13,000 electors, or less than one-third that of Sheffield. Blackburn, with a population of over 100,000, has 14,000 electors; Cork, with a population of 104,000, has only 4,700 electors. Chatham, with a population of 46,000, has 5,826 electors; Limerick, with a population of 48,000, has only 1,900 electors. Newcastle-on-Tyne, with a population of 145,000, has 24,000 electors; Belfast, with a population of 208,000, has only 21,000. And while Aylesbury, with a population of 28,000, has over 4,000 electors, Londonderry, with a population of 29,000, has only 2,000 electors. The same disproportion is evident all through; and if hon. Members will, for themselves, occupy their time by going a little into the question, they will find that the general result of the proportion of Parliamentary electors to the population in all the English boroughs is one in 7½, or 13¼ per cent; whereas in the Irish boroughs it is one in 15½, or less than 6½ per cent. If you take the whole of the population of the two countries, including boroughs and counties, into the calculation, it will be found that in England the proportion of electors to population is 10 per cent. whereas in Ireland it is only 4⅓ percent. In fact, with your present franchise in England, if you were to stand still, and if you were to bring in a separate Bill for the purpose of enlarging the franchise in Ireland, so as to make it equal to that which at present exists in England, you would only be doing the merest act of justice to Ireland—an act which the Liberal Party has frequently pledged itself to do in this, and the last, Parliament. But in the course of this debate it seems that Parliament has been asked to pursue its road of injustice towards Ireland still further by enlarging the franchise in England beyond what it is at present, and thus increasing the inequality which exists between England and Ireland. But, perhaps, unforeseen results might flow from the passing of this Franchise Bill. I have said that the Irish Members are not really the Representatives of the people of Ireland, but that they are the Representatives of a very select constituency indeed, being, practically speaking, the Representatives of the middle classes. May it not happen, by the creation of fresh political interests in that country, and by the bringing in of the masses of the people within the pale of the Constitution, that you may create differences of opinions, and divisions in the Party lines which do not at present exist. In any case, it is admitted that one of the great evils regarding the political state of Ireland is, that there are only two interests—the interest of a very small minority of the people who live here, as opposed to the agricultural interests of the majority of the middle classes of that country. It may happen, as it has happened in England by the creation of fresh interests, and by the admission of new classes, that you may create a counterpoise to the very excessive, as some people consider it, tension, which the Irish farmers have been demanding of late years from the Legislature. I do not say what my own opinion is; but if you are to govern Ireland constitutionally—if you are to govern her under a representative system—if you are going still to permit her Members to come here and represent the Irish constituencies in this House—you cannot, with the slightest show of consistency, and with the slightest scrap of self-respect, deny her the same franchise as that which you claim for this country. For my own part, I believe that the interests with which we who sit upon these Benches have been prominently identified within the last few years will survive even such injustice as that I have shown, and that our forces will be very slightly increased by this very important measure. I believe that the real reason why hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are opposing this measure is not because they fear that it will lead to a disproportion and to too great an increase of political power among the Irish Nationalists, but because they fear it will strengthen the Radical and the Liberal Party to such an extent as to render their own exclusion from political power permanent; and they, therefore, make such appeals to passion and to prejudice in this country as they think may be effectual for their purpose. They are, in reality, fighting under the Irish problem—the extension of political privileges to the mass of the English people of this country. It is really their power in the counties which they believe to be threatened, and not the disintegration of the Empire, or the dissolution of all things in Ireland into their original elements. I believe we shall find, as the discussion of this Bill proceeds, that that design will become more and more evident, and that the great attack will, after a time, be developed—the feint of the present proceeding having been abandoned as useless and absurd. In support of my contention, while I say that we do not own that this measure, as regards our own position and prospects, will lead to such an increase in our forces as may be necessary for our purposes, in the next General Election, even under the present most imperfect system of registration, I wish to point out that in every contest which has taken place since the General Election, for any seats which we won at the General Election, we have been uniformly victorious by considerable and increased majorities. We have carried four seats, in addition, from the Liberal Party. Fourteen contests have resulted in the return of 14 professed Home Rule Members; four contests for four seats carried by followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at the General Election have resulted also in the return of Members of our Party; and we have only been beaten in four constituencies, where we never had at any time a footing; and in each case we have been beaten by the Conservative Party. In reality, it is not so much the Irish Conservatives who have to fear the loss of their power or the loss of their seats by this Bill, as the followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, the proposer of this Bill; because I believe it would leave the power of the Conservatives in the North and other portions of Ireland, where they hold seats, very much as it is; but it would enable the seats held by the followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to be successfully attacked. I think this fortifies my contention that the opposition now being made against this Bill is really a feint, and is intended to conceal the real objects of these who oppose the measure, and who hope, by trading on ignorant prejudices and passions, to prevent the enfranchisement of the mass of the English people. For ourselves, we are confident of the result. We accept our inclusion in the Bill as a measure of equity to which we are entitled. We should have been very much surprised if the Prime Minister, with his record, and if his Party had tolerated any other course than that which has been adopted; but whether we are to be included in this Bill, or whether we are not to be included in it, we feel confident in the justice of our cause, and in the devotion of our people, who will unable us to carry to a triumphant conclusion the principles which we stand here to maintain. As regards the rest, I have every confidence that this House will refuse to be made a party to the perpetration of what would be neither more nor less than an outrage on the unenfranchised people of Ireland, if they are to go back upon the declaration of the Prime Minister, and to shut the door of the Constitution in the face of the people of our country.

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, the House may be sure that I do not rise to supplement the statement of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend's exposition of the Bill was made with great fulness; and I think, whether hon. Gentlemen approve or disapprove of the measure, none of them can mistake what is in it. But I rise simply to reply, on behalf of the Government, to certain remarks made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen during this debate, and to these remarks I shall strictly confine myself. On the first day of the debate one thought appeared to run through all the speeches which were made from the Benches opposite—namely, that the affairs of this country were in such a serious condition that the present was no time for introducing changes into the Constitution. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), first of all, gave a list of our foreign undertakings. The hon. Member told us that something was going on on the Congo, and something at Madagascar, and that there was a hitch in the Commercial Treaty with Turkey; and he asked whether this is the time to make organic changes at home? Why, Sir, the hon. Member's argument—and it was an argument which was used largely on the first day of the debate—simply amounts to this—that the people who have business abroad should not attend to business at home. Would there ever be a time when this country is not likely to have some business abroad; and till such time arrives, are we to be content with the exclusion from the rights of citizenship of a part of our population?—an exclusion in favour of which no hon. Gentleman opposite on either of the two days' debate has offered one direct reason, unless it is that they have cheered some of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), in a very powerful speech, told us that we ought not to meddle with Reform, because we have on hand a Bill for the protection of our herds and flocks from disease; and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—with an unusual superabundance of that imaginative faculty which does so much to light up our debates—added that our oxen are dying by thousands and tens of thousands. Sir, all the incidents of the Reform Campaign of 1866–7 are imprinted on my mind as deeply as they are likely to be imprinted on the mind of one who had the privilege of entering Parliament during that campaign; and I cannot forget that there then was a cattle plague to which the remarks of the noble Lord might be applied without any exaggeration. That was, indeed, one of the reasons that were given for delaying, and eventually destroying, Lord Russell's Bill of 1866; but I doubt very much whether the events of the succeeding Session went to show that the English people were willing to be baulked of a great extension of their civil rights because they happened to be engaged in staving off the cattle plague. But everybody who spoke from the Benches opposite on the first day of this debate alleged that the events at Suakin and in the Soudan were of such gravity that we could not attend to the reform of our Constitution. They told us that we had sent out an expedition in great force, and that a great number of troops had been sent to the vicinity of the Red Sea. Now, this is not the first expedition which has been sent to the vicinity of the Red Sea. Early in the Session of 1867 it began to be evident that we were going to have a great difficulty with Abyssinia; and, in fact, an expedition was sent out, which was about three times as large as that which had just gained the triumph upon the details of which we were all dwelling this morning—an expedition of enormous force; and an expedition which we were told was to cost £4,000,000, and which did actually cost £9,000,000. While the former expedition was in certain prospect; while it was on the seas and on the march; while it was in battle; and while it was returning, no less than four Reform Bills of extreme importance were being carried through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Minister who introduced these Bills was the late Earl of Beaconsfield, who, I venture to assert, would have said that the fact of our having such a military expedition on hand was no reason why a Bill for effecting internal reform should not be introduced. He would have said at once that that was not a sort of argument that ought to be accepted by an English statesman. But every hon. Member who has spoken in this House on both days of the debate has referred to another country with which I am much more concerned than with Egypt—I mean Ireland. The Government are asked whether Ireland is in a state in which we could wish to bring about a change in the representation? Early in the debate we were asked why we did not occupy ourselves in bringing Ireland to the same state of quiet and freedom from crime and outrage as that in which it was during the late Administration? Now, this question shows pretty clearly that hon. Members do not often carefully study facts and figures, when these facts and figures do not serve their purpose. If hon. Members would carefully study the statistics of Irish crime—and they made great use of them when the story was a great deal blacker—they would find results which would make them stare. During the last six months of the late Government there were 688 outrages; during the six months terminating at the end of February last there were only 354. Exclusive of threatening letters, during the last six months of the late Government, there were 357 very serious outrages; during the last six months there have been only 183, or about one-half. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) imposes on us the condition that crime and outrage should be reduced to the point at which it stood under the late Government, I think that the present Government have fulfilled that preliminary condition, and that we may deal with the Irish franchise on the ground of its own merits. The powerful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was founded upon an idea which was put into a definite shape in a letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The pith of that letter was that, according to the facts he had examined, the 103 Irish Members ought to be reduced to 81. Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) is looked up to by the country as a great authority upon political questions. The Irish people have a very keen sense of justice and injustice in their own affairs, and they are an extremely quick and clever people in the discussion of political questions, as I have only too good reason every day to know; and any statement by a leading English statesman which is fraught with injustice to Ireland goes through the country like lightning, and makes a very deep impression. It is necessary for me, therefore, to say that the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely and utterly erroneous; and I will give my own idea of what the facts are which have misled the right hon. Gentleman. The population of the United Kingdom, at the last Census, was 34,880,000, excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The right hon. Gentleman gave the number of Members at 652; consequently, the number of Members in proportion to population would be one to 53,500. In Ireland, at the last Census, the population was 5,170,000; consequently, the proportion of Members, at the last Census, would be not 81, but 97, a very different figure. [Mr. GIBSON: There are fewer now; less than 5,000,000.] I admit that the population has decreased slightly; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) thinks that Ireland would be satisfied with fewer Members than she was entitled to at the last Census, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience of the Irish Office differs very much from my own. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) took in his calculation not the population, but the electors. It appears that the Prime Minister said that the Returns for Ireland showed over 400,000.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I did not use that expression. It was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen).

MR. TREVELYAN

That is what I say; and the right hon. Gentleman quoted this expression "over" in the earlier part of his letter; but in making his calculation he left it out.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The word "over" was applicable to all three Kingdoms.

MR. TREVELYAN

I am quite aware of that fact. I am putting that reservation in order to save the accuracy of the Prime Minister in making a somewhat rhetorical sentence; but I am myself going to give the exact figures. The Prime Minister is a master of oratory, and I never understood that a master of oratory used in his peroration any other than round numbers. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) to-day told us that MR. Pitt, when allotting Members at the time of the Union, said that England had three or two and a-half times the population of Ireland. Now, that was a generation which was easily satisfied with Parliamentary figures. But we have to be more correct, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that by leaving out the word "over" in his calculation he has made a misstatement of the case as serious as we all know it must have been entirely unintentional. Now, the method of calculating the numbers of householders to be admitted to the franchise is as follows:—the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) asked for figures and statistics. With regard to a great and large measure of this sort, we can only give large and general figures. The Earl of Beaconsfield brought in a very largo measure indeed, and the Earl of Beaconsfield gave no figure, but made his calculations on the Returns of inhabited houses as compared with the Returns of voters, and the Earl of Beaconsfield was quite right. This calculation is founded by deducting one-quarter from the number of inhabited houses in the country districts, and in this manner the proper number of voters who would be on the Register under the household franchise can be got at. From these deduct the number of voters who are at present on the Registration List as occupiers, and what remains is the result which you wish to arrive at. In Scotland the inhabited houses are 409,000; deducting a quarter the result is 306,000 as the number of voters on the Register; and deducting, again, 56,000 as the number of voters on the Register as occupiers, the result will be 250,000, or "over 200,000," as the Prime Minister said in that sentence which has been referred to. Take four of the boroughs which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) referred to—East Retford, New Shoreham, Crick-lade, and Aylesbury—which most resemble counties of all the borough districts now enjoying the household franchise. In the aggregate they contain 45,700 inhabited houses and 26,600 voters, so that the deduction of one-fourth in that case is singularly accurate. In Ireland, exclusive of the boroughs, there are 784,000 inhabited houses; deducting 196,000, we have 588,000, and if we deduct 154,000 now enjoying the occupation franchise we have 434,000 left, or over 400,000. According to the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, there would be one Member for 8,000 electors; and, as I have already sdown, Ireland, instead of 81 Members, would have 85. But Ireland has not yet got household suffrage in the boroughs, although this Bill would give it. After this Bill has passed there would be, according to the proportion of houses, 99,000 voters in the Irish boroughs. There are now 51,000 rated occupiers, and, consequently, about 48,000 voters in the boroughs; and, according to the right hon. Gentleman's calculation, six more Members on that account, which, added to 85, would give Ireland 91, instead of 81. If we base our calculations on the number of electors, we are still short by six of the number which Ireland has in proportion to her population. I may explain the difference between 91 and 97 in this manner, and I think that what I am now going to say is quite unanswerable. In England, Wales, and Scotland there are 584,000 persons in the counties who enjoy the franchise on account of property, and not on account of occupation. In Ireland the number is just over 10,000. These people, under this Bill, would suffer a remarkable change, With scarcely an exception they would all become plural voters. They would have a vote on account of property, almost all of them being householders, and they would have a vote for occupation on the Register; but they would only vote as one. Now, while it may be quite right and just that these people should have a double vote, it is, in the highest degree, unjust that Ireland should have fewer Members allotted to her, because there must be on the Register not a larger number of voters, but a larger number of persons having two votes. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, did not consider it in this light. Till I hear from his own lips, I shall feel satisfied that he still thinks that counties should have Members either in proportion to then-population, or in proportion to their resident householders.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I merely took the Prime Minister's figures, and supposed he was really adding the number of electors in the constituencies.

MR. TREVELYAN

I accept the explanation, and I will endeavour to explain this important matter in such a way as to show that my right hon. Friend made his calculation on a basis which he thought was perfectly correct, and I have endeavoured to reply to him entirely without any sort of animus. I sincerely trust that I have said nothing that can possibly be supposed to alter the feelings I have always borne towards him. On the main question of extending the franchise to Ireland, much has been said to-day of a very strong character, and much has been said in reference to the future. As a matter of fact, you can only take two courses in this matter. You can refuse the extension of the franchise in England and Scotland, because you will not extend it to Ireland. Will you seriously contend that England and Scotland should wait for what is their right, and for what no one denies to be their right, until hon. Members opposite assent? I have dealt with this question in this House for 10 years, and no body has ever denied it to be their right. Until hon. Gentlemen opposite are willing to persuade themselves that Ireland is fit for the franchise, are England and Scotland to wait? I cannot conceive a more insufficient answer to the householders of the English counties than this proposal to defer their claim to the franchise, because we cannot give it to Ireland. The other course is to give the franchise to England and Scotland, and to refuse it to Ireland. We have been asked in many speeches whether Ireland is contented under a Coercion Bill? If Ireland is not contented now, is she likely to be more contented when debarred from the exercise of a right which has been extended to England and Scotland? It is the opinion of the Government that such a distinction between the two Islands would stimulate and justify Irish discontent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) spoke of a divided Party. Now, I cannot speak for the Cabinet; but I have the same right as hundreds of other men to speak for the Party, and I never knew a more spontaneous or more unanimous feeling upon our Benches as to the justice of the policy that this Bill should be extended to Ireland. My own personal experience of Ireland, and the much longer experience of Lord Spencer, has led us to believe that the difficulties of that country would not be increased by the extension of the franchise, but that they would be slowly and surely diminished. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the increase in the number of Nationalists who would be returned under the new franchise, and the terrible numbers he gave caused a perfect panic among a few hon. Gentlemen opposite. Has he ever considered how many Members would be returned under the existing franchise if we had a Dissolution tomorrow? The English people should remember that they must compare what Ireland should be under the new franchise, not with what it is now, but what it would have been if the Vote of Censure had been carried the other day. In my opinion, the difference between the new and the old franchise would make very little difference, indeed, in the numbers of this Party or of that; but it will make this difference—that they will come to this House as the Representatives of the nation, and not of a class. I can understand you refusing to Ireland Representative Government; but how can you think it possible to rule Ireland by docking her representation in the way that has been suggested? Amidst all the difficulties and dangers of Ireland there is only one course by which success could even be remotely gained; and that is, while steadily preserving the public peace of the country, to import into Ireland all the privileges and rights which you enjoy in this part of the United Kingdom. That is the view of the Irish Government; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite can persuade Parliament and the country that it is the wrong view they can come in and try another course. So long as we are allowed to remain at the head of affairs, we are certainly not going to throw that view overboard in regard to the most important measure which has been introduced into this Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) complained that redistribution was not dealt with in this Bill, and he added that he thought the course adopted by the Government most inconvenient and mischievous. But it is not at all inconvenient, except for these hon. Gentlemen who do not wish to see the Bill passed. It is a most convenient course for these who do want to see it passed. At present it is the object of the Government to bring within the full pale of citizenship the great number of people who have had hopes held out to them for a long time—who appreciate these hopes; and the only way to do this is to bring this Bill before Parliament, and call upon Parliament to pass it. If the Government succeed in passing it, they would be bound to bring in a measure of redistribution. If the Government fail with this Bill, then, as a Government, they would not bring in any further measure at all. The Prime Minister, the other night, was, as everyone who heard him must confess, very frank and candid in this matter. He put the Bill upon motives of high public expediency. He said he did not bring in a Bill dealing with redistribution together with the franchise, because if he did both would fail; and I feel pretty sure that there are few people who want to extend the suffrage to the county householder who will quarrel with the Prime Minister's procedure. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) stated the other night that this would only be a settlement that would last for five years at the outside. Now, the Bill of 1832 was a most limited measure, which set up a privileged electorate, yet it settled matters for about 35 years. The Bill of 1867, which was a half-and-half measure if ever there was one, because it gave a very extensive franchise to half of the country, and refused it to the other, nevertheless has settled matters for 18 years. This Bill is neither a limited nor a half-and-half measure, and if it is passed I expect that no man living will be troubled with the question of the franchise again. This Bill takes in all the householders of the country, and, leaving aside the question of sex, it settles everything else on a solid and permanent basis. This Bill admits everybody who should be admitted. I think the House must have been pleased to hear the generous terms in which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) spoke of the service franchise, describing it as it appeared to a country gentleman living on his property, and thinking of what a very respectable class of voters to the service franchise would admit. But it must not be forgotten that it will admit, likewise, miners, and the great body of the North country and Scotch shepherds and hinds, men who in respectability, thrift, ability, and solid interest in public affairs, are inferior to no part of the population of the United Kingdom. It admits these who should be admitted, and it excludes all who should be excluded. We have very long been bandying to and fro between the two great political Parties charges about the manufacturing of faggot votes. Well, Sir, that manufacture will, to a very great extent—perhaps as much as can be secured by legislation—cease in the future. I remember, when the Reform Bill of 1867 was introduced, that this question of faggot voting was brought before the House; and on that occasion MR. Ward Hunt, who was First Lord of the Admiralty, said that the Liberals in this respect were no better than the Conservatives. His words were—" What hypocrites we all are." This Bill, then, will enable both Liberals and Conservatives to show that they are not hypocrites in intention, by confining the franchise to the real owners of property and the real occupiers in a district. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman complains that this Bill does not even claim to rest on a principle. He asks whether it rests on the principle that taxation should be united to representation; he asks whether it rests on the principle that the franchise is a right? Now, Sir, I am not going to take up the fiscal question, and I am not going to enter into the question as to whether or not the franchise is a right. I prefer to take up solid ground, every inch of which we have fought over and over again, and to say that this Bill is founded on the principle of what the Prime Minister calls the admission of capable citizens. Last year I put forward the same theory in other words, saying that the vote should be given to every intelligent and independent man. And what is our test of intelligence and independence? It is the same test which hon. Gentlemen opposite have adopted in the towns, and which we wish now to extend to the whole country—the test of resident occupancy of a house; and I must say I think that a Bill, the main provision of which is founded on that solid basis, may truly be said to rest upon a principle. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House and the country were indifferent to this measure. Sir, the House is able to speak for itself; but I must say that when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was speaking the other clay I did not notice that indifference which some hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have discerned. I do not think that the House was indifferent; on the contrary, I think it listened with very close and oven rapt attention to the details of the measure. All hon. Members were then anxious to know what alterations were proposed, and what were the benefits to be conferred on the country by this Bill, for which they were asked to labour and to watch, and to be asked to make a great sacrifice of time and patience; and this sacrifice I have no doubt will not be called for in vain. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the country is indifferent, I freely accept the omen. That is exactly what used to be said in 1866, and it was upon that the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman relied. Relying upon this supposed indifference, they delayed and threw out the Bill of 1860; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers what was the consequence? It was the old story of the Sibylline Books—the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman had to buy very dear next year a settlement, which they might have bought very cheap in the year before; and I believe you will find that the indifference of 1884 is quite as effective a quality as was the indifference which brought about such wonders in 1867. An hon. Gentleman says—"Try the country." We shall try it by pushing this Bill as far as we can. But, Sir, the great multitude of people whom we are desirous to admit are certainly not indifferent to the boon which we propose to confer upon them. As long ago as the year 1877 there was a great meeting in London—a meeting of 2,500 delegates, men who had been sent up at the expense of their rural neighbours, who wished to be represented by them—a meeting which the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) described as the most important meeting he had ever been present at; and I say that the interest of these persons in this question has been increased and strengthened since that day. These people take quite as much interest as any other class in public affairs, and they show it in the way they have voted on all occasions when they had the opportunity of voting in respect of School Boards, Boards of Guardians, and such matters. They know their own special affairs, and they can give us very good advice about them. There are many things which touch their interests and feelings, upon nearly all of which they are very well qualified to influence for good our deliberations. You may tax them with indifference; but I am quite certain that, however much you may taunt them, they will never do anything that will deserve that reproach; and it is because we know them to be peaceful and loyal citizens that we are determined to stand by them in good fortune and in bad. Sir, there is one process in this country which insures ultimate success, and that is when one of the two great Parties in the State identifies itself with a great and just undertaking. There never was an undertaking more just and more important than the admission of the county householders to the franchise; and it is for this reason, and for this only, that the Government has bound up its fortune, its faith, and it cause with theirs.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

Sir, I am anxious, with the permission of the House, to make a few remarks upon a subject of great importance—namely, the mode in which the great extension of the suffrage conferred by the present Bill will be carried out, and the method under which the votes will be recorded. The present system of mere majority voting is even, under existing circumstances, uncertain and defective in its operation. I believe its supporters are generally under the impression that, though rudely, still surely, it secures to a majority of the electors a majority of the Representatives. This is, however, by no means the case; and I shall hope conclusively to show that while it by no means obtains for minorities that representation in the Legislature to which their numbers justly entitle them, it altogether fails to secure to majorities that preponderance which is their due. Even, therefore, under existing circumstances, the present system is very imperfect; but these drawbacks will be intensified under the present Bill, which, if mere majority voting be generally adopted, will also tend to extinguish that variety in the representation which has hitherto been considered essential to the constitution of the House of Commons. I cannot, indeed, on that account hesitate to support this Bill, which, in my humble judgment, is just and right in itself, and calculated to strengthen and improve the Government of the country; my faith in Her Majesty's Government in this House, and in the justice of the principle we advocate, satisfying me that when the time arrives we shall secure some system of proportional representation. The introduction of the Bill, however, does justify—nay, necessitate—the careful consideration of the subject. It is, of course, clear that additional Members will be given to our large cities—Liverpool, for instance, would be entitled to, say, eight Members. Now, I understood the Prime Minister to condemn electoral districts. But if Liverpool is to remain an undivided constituency, returning eight Members, it is of great importance that we should know how the votes are to be given. If every elector is to have a number of votes equal to the number of Members, with no form of proportional representation, then it is obvious that the slightest majority on either side would return the whole eight Members. We know that in Liverpool the two great Parties are very evenly balanced, and the result would be that a majority of a few hundreds, perhaps of only a few units, would return the whole eight Members, counting 16 votes on a Division in this House. And, Sir, the Journal published by the Electoral Reform Association of Belgium gives a striking illustration of such a case. In the 1882 Elections, the Liberals carried their election in the City of Ghent by a majority of 40 only. Now, Ghent returns eight Members to the Chamber out of 138. If, therefore, 21 electors had gone over to the other side, Ghent would have returned eight Roman Catholics, counting 16 on a Division; and there would have been a Roman Catholic instead of a Liberal majority in the Chamber, which would have led to a complete change of Government. Even under the franchise as it stands, the system is very unsatisfactory and imperfect. In my own county of Kent we polled, in the three Divisions, 13,000 votes against 16,000 given to our opponents, and yet they have all the six seats. Taking the county as a whole, we polled 32,000 votes against 39,000, yet they have carried 16 Members and we two. If we draw a line down England from Lincolnshire to Devonshire, there are on the South side 99 county seats. In many of these the Conservatives had no contest; but the majority of the seats were fought, and the Liberals polled 96,000 votes against 116,000 given to the Tories. On this basis, therefore, we ought to have had, say, 40 seats, and hon. Gentlemen opposite 59. As a matter of fact, however, we only secured 15 against 84. Moreover, of our 15, five were minority seats; so that, but for the introduction of the principle of minority representation, limited though it was, we should have only had 10 seats out of 99 in the whole district, while we were fairly entitled to 40. The Roman Catholics are a very large and respectable portion of the nation; yet in the whole of England and Scotland they have never, I believe, for years past secured more than a single seat at any one time. The ease of Ireland is the most serious of all. Certainly one-third of its population is moderate, loyal, and desirous of maintaining the integrity of the Empire; but we are told, on high authority, that under this Bill, unless some system of proportional representation be adopted, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) will secure 95 seats out of 100, leaving only five to the Liberals and Conservatives together; whereas it is clear that under any just system of representation they ought to have over 30; and the result of such a system would be that Ireland would be entirely misrepresented, and that we shall gratuitously create terrible difficulties for ourselves. Sir, it is often said that inequalities in one district are neutralized by compensating inequalities in another. We are told that the Liberals of Kent and Surrey are represented by the Liberal Members for Scotch and Welsh counties; but this is just the old and exploded argument which used to maintain that the people of Birmingham and Manchester were really represented by the Liberal Members of some other boroughs. We are glad, no doubt, that Scotland and Wales send us such admirable Colleagues; it is a consolation; but it is not the same thing. Perhaps the one question about which our farmers in Kent care most is the subject of extraordinary tithes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will sympathize with us, because he has so powerfully advocated the cultivation of vegetables and the growth of fruit; he has raised the question of jam to a dignity which it never before attained. But while the extraordinary tithe question remains in its present position, I fear it will still be with us a case of jam every other day—jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow, but not jam to-day. But, Sir, the farmers of West Kent cannot expect the Liberal Members from Scotland to help them as regards extraordinary tithes. It is conceivable that they do not even know what extraordinary tithes are. It would not, then, be satisfactory, even if it were true, that inequalities in one district are made up for them by another. But it is not true. Let us look, for instance, at the Elections of 1874 and 1880. In the former the Conservatives had a majority of 60 over the Liberals and Home Rulers put together; while in 1880 the Liberals had a majority over the Conservatives and Home Rulers of more than 50. Of course, if this change were due to a correspond- ing alteration in public opinion, then, however much each side of the House might regret its defect in the one case and rejoice over its victory in the other, there would be nothing to be said as regards the system. But what are the facts? In 1874, against 1,436,000 votes given to the Liberals and Home Rulers the Conservatives polled 1,222,000 votes; so that, although they were in a majority of 50 in this House, they actually polled 200,000 votes in the country less than their opponents. Perhaps I shall be told that this was due to the small boroughs. But the experience of 1880 proven that this was not so, or only to a certain extent. In 1880 the Liberals and Home Rulers together polled 1,880,000 votes, against 1,418,000 given to the Conservative candidates. The proportions ought, then, to have been 370 Liberal and Home Rule, to 280 Conservative Members; whereas they really were 414 to 236. In 1874, therefore, the Liberals and Home Rulers had 56 Members too few in relation to their total poll; while, on the contrary, in 1880 they secured 43 too many. The difference between the two Elections was, therefore, enormous—namely, 99 on of a total of 650. The present system, then, renders the result of a General Election uncertain, and, to a large extent, a matter of chance; it leads to violent fluctuations in the balance of political power, and, consequently, in the policy of the country. The present system, then, may be good, or may be bad, but it is not representation; and the question is, whether we wish for representation in fact, or in name only. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I believe, once characterized proportional representation as a pernicious restriction on free voting, while, in fact, the very reverse is the case. What do we see now when there is a contest in any of our great Northern cities? The Irish electors, instructed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, withhold their votes. They do not consider the prosperity of the Empire, but what they regard as the advantage of Ireland. I do not blame them. It does not seem to me wise; yet I can sympathize with their devotion, mistaken though I think it is, to their own Island. Then, some deputy in the confidence of the Home Rule Party has more or less clandestine and secret interviews with the candidates or their leading supporters. We have the most opposite accounts of what has occurred. Each side accuses the other of truckling to the Home Rule Party, and selfishly imperilling the integrity of the Empire. It must be very unsatisfactory to all concerned; and it would be far better if Liverpool has eight votes and the Home Rulers there are sufficiently strong to return a Home Rule Member, rather than that they should extract doubtful pledges from reluctant candidates. Moreover, the geographical differentiation of political views tends to become more and more accentuated, and might, I think, constitute a real danger. It is but a small consolation to the unrepresented Liberals of Kent to be told that the Conservatives of Scotland share the same grievance, and are as badly off as they are. At present Scotland is overpoweringly Liberal; while the South-Eastern counties of England, with scarcely an exception, are represented by hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. But, further than this, it will be a great misfortune to the country if one part becomes, and continues, overwhelmingly Liberal, and another Conservative—if their distinctive differences become questions of geography and locality rather than of opinion. The different portions of our Empire are not yet so closely fused that we can afford to despise this danger. In my own county we look on the shires as distinctly lower and less civilized than we are. America might have been spared a terrible civil war if the principle of proportional representation had been recognized in the composition of the House of Representatives. This was forcibly pointed out in the Report of the Committee of the United States Senate in favour of proportional representation, which would, they said, have introduced into Congress a large number of Northern Democrats and Southern Republicans, occupying a middle ground, and holding the balance of power—men out of favour at home, but strong enough, both in numbers and position, to check the violence that led at last to civil war. But the aggressive Pro-Slavery Party having finally, under the majority rule, outvoted and silenced all opposition in the South, and their Northern allies, who might have held them in check, being also outvoted and silenced, no middle- men were left, and civil war arose. But, then, it is often said that the minority system, as adopted, say in Liverpool, reduces that great city to the level of a town returning a single Member. Well, that is only because Parties are evenly balanced there. If one-third of the voters are Conservatives, why should they not have one-third of the Members? Why should two-thirds of the constituency monopolize the whole of the Representatives? Birmingham and Glasgow, where the Liberals are strong enough to do so, return, we know, three Liberal Members. You will give Liverpool, say, eight Members, because it has 63,000 electors, of whom, perhaps, 30,000 are Liberals, 30,000 Conservatives, and 3,000 without distinctive political opinions; and I do not understand how anyone can really wish that these 3,000 should practically return all the Members. We know that, generally, they join the Conservatives, and the result would be that 30,000 Liberals would be unrepresented. But, if it were not for the 30,000 Liberals, Liverpool would have had only four Members. It comes, therefore, to this—that because there are 30,000 Liberals in Liverpool, you give the Conservatives twice as many Members as they would otherwise have had. If we are told that any proportional system is objectionable because it might reduce Liverpool to a single vote, then, I ask, how far are you going to carry this principle? In Lancashire, at the last General Election, the Conservatives polled 38,000 votes, the Liberals 36,000, and the Members are four to four. Well, this seems as it should be. The votes were nearly equal, and the Members are equal. But shall we be told that Lancashire is unrepresented? Would anyone propose that the 36,000 Conservative electors should have returned the whole eight Members, and the 34,000 Liberals none at all? Yet this is what we are told is the just system in great cities, such as Liverpool and Glasgow. I do not deny that the three-cornered constituencies are somewhat awkward and cumbersome. The system there adopted is, I think, not the most convenient application of the principle. But it must be admitted that they have given a fair and just result, though, perhaps, in an awkward way. But shall we abandon the principle of just representation because it gives us a little inconvenience? Is it not worth a little trouble? For my part, I cannot abandon the substance of justice to the shadow of simplicity; to do so would be to sacrifice the end to the means. Those who take the opposite view do not seem to realize the difference between an Executive Government and a Representative Assembly. A Government, of course, must be, as far as possible, homogeneous, and of one mind; but a Representative Assembly should be a mirror of the nation. The exclusion of the minority, which is a necessity in the one case, would be intolerable tyranny and injustice in the other. There are, I know, some who, while admitting the justice of our principle, think there is no simple method by which it can be brought into practical operation. But this is not so; on the contrary, there are several. I will only refer to one—namely, the single transferable vote. So far from not being simple, it is even simpler than the mere majority plan of voting would be in large constituencies. I regret that this question has been so often argued as if the just, or even the main reason for it was to admit Representatives of small minorities. Indeed, it is often said that any such system would merely admit Members who are in favour of crotchets. It is, no doubt, difficult to say what is really a crotchet. When MR. Grote brought in the Ballot, was that a crotchet? When Mr. Villiers brought forward Free Trade, was that a crotchet? Many and many other opinions now generally entertained were regarded as crotchets when they first made their appearance. Everything must have a beginning, and almost everything, even proportional representation itself, has been at first regarded as a crotchet. But, in my humble judgment, the representation of small sections is a very small part of the question. Whether small minorities are representing the temporary delusion of the moment, or a great, although as yet unrecognized truth, this House is, I think, scarcely the proper sphere for their exertions. What I am much more anxious about is that the great Parties in the State should be adequately represented in the different districts of the Empire. We are told by these who have not studied the question that we wish to give to minorities the power which rightly belongs to majorities. The very reverse is the case. An untrammeled system of proportional representation is, as MR. Mill has truly said— Not only the most complete application of the Democratic principle that has yet been made, but its greatest safeguard. I trust, Sir, that we may secure that the new voter, as well as these already on the Register, shall have the right, not merely of recording a vote, but of doing so in such a manner as may give it all just and reasonable effect. If this be done, the Parliament of 1880 will have given effect to a great principle; and we shall have, for the first time, a real Representative Assembly. I venture to recommend the system of proportional representation to the House and to the country, because it would give its just political weight to the vote of every elector. It would insure the return of leading and trusted statesmen, as well as of these who are most favourably known in their own districts. It would elevate and purify the whole tone of electoral contests; would obtain for the minority a fair hearing; and last, not least, it is the only mode of securing for the majority that preponderance to which, of course, they are justly entitled.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

At this hour of the night I will not detain the House by going into figures; indeed, the observations I wish to make will be very few; but I desire to call attention to the very peculiar character of the debate that has now been going on for two nights, and to point out how very much more of it has turned upon what is not in the Bill than what is in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan), in his very sanguine speech, just now referred to some observations of the Prime Minister with regard to the number of voters that would be added to the Irish constituencies by this Bill; and, in explaining what appeared to have been not a perfectly accurate statement of the Prime Minister's, he said that it was "a somewhat rhetorical sentence." It appeared to me that not only was that a rhetorical sentence, but that the whole speech of the Prime Minister was constructed with very considerable rhetorical skill. Of course, it was a powerful rhetorical speech—that we were sure of; but there was a great deal of rhetorical skill in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman kept us more or less in "half light" as to what were really important considerations, and some of the most important factors of this great question, and the example he has set has been followed throughout. Everyone feels by instinct, every body knows, that no question of this kind can be settled by a measure dealing merely with the extension of the franchise, and not touching the question of the allocation of seats, especially when it is so very large and important an addition that is made. I take the right hon. Gentleman's own simile of the deck load, and say it is quite true the ship can carry a much larger number of passengers than it has on beard now; but if you throw the passengers in suddenly, without any arrangements as to how they are to dispose themselves, you run the risk of bringing about a great misfortune. You say you are going to increase the number of your electors in the United Kingdom from something like 3,000,000 to something like 5,000,000. With such an extraordinary addition as that, great changes must be brought about in your electoral system; and it is but natural, and, I think, necessary, that we should take into consideration the circumstances and concomitants of that change. What may be safe and right and good in one respect—under one expansion—may be very unsafe and very unwise in another. Now, Sir, I called the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a sanguine speech, and I used that expression because of one sentence, in which he told us that if we would pass this Bill he thought nobody in this House, nor anybody living, would be troubled with the franchise question again. Well, I must say that that was a very enticing and alluring prospect; but, at the same time, it was one that seemed to me to show that the right hon. Gentleman had in no degree mastered the conditions of the question, or the views of these amongst whom he sits. I have no doubt that if the matter were to be left entirely to the discretion and the management of the Prime Minister he would desire to keep things quiet, and not go beyond the point to which he carries us in this Bill; but we have had a warning and fair notice from the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), at all events, that he, for his part, looks on any measure of this kind as the merest in- stalment. There was a sentence of his—not a spoken, but a written sentence—which struck me very much. The words were addressed to the Liberal Association of Battersea, I think, in September last; and what did the right hon Gentleman say? He wrote— I have always assumed that the first step in the direction of Reform would be the assimilation of the borough and county franchise. Public opinion must ripen considerably before it would be possible for any Government to go further; and the final settlement of the franchise question must, of necessity, be postponed until there is sufficient evidence of general agreement on the subject. Now, what can be a fairer warning than that, coupled with a good many other speeches and statements by the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that he, for his part, looks to manhood suffrage and to electoral districts? He is not afraid of expressing his opinion; he does not attempt to conceal it. We ought, he thinks, to go much further in the direction of the extension of the franchise, and the extension of electoral districts, than anything which is contemplated in this measure. But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister conies forward with a measure dealing only with that which his Colleague recommends as merely the first step; and he does not confine himself to arguing and discussing that, leaving all the other questions alone and on one side; but he does touch on other questions, for the purpose, in the first place, of putting them aside, and saying they cannot be dealt with at the present time; and, secondly, for the further purpose of giving a slight sketch, in the form of personal suggestions or personal opinions, of the view he himself would be disposed to take on some of the important and leading questions. But we cannot legislate on such a statement as that. When we are told that it is one the right hon. Gentleman makes on his own individual authority and opinion, and when we see that his individual opinions are very much at variance with the opinions that we know have been expressed by some of his Colleagues, what possible confidence can we place in it? What are some of the opinions the right hon. Gentleman enunciates? He told us, in the first place, that when we came to redistribution it must be on a very large scale. Well, if it is to be on a very large scale, it is of very great importance that we should see the whole of the measure that is proposed, because this measure that is ultimately to be the governing principle of our Constitution is to be governed by the two factors—a large addition to the franchise, and a large redistribution of seats. We are told what we are to do in one case, and we are not told what we are to do in the other, except that the change is to be a very large one. That, I think, is a consideration which the House will not fail to take notice of. The right hon. Gentleman told us, amongst other of his experiences, that, according to his recollection of Reform Bills, it was always on the Redistribution Clauses that the difficulties and contests arose. Well, that is perfectly true; but what is the inference? It is that it is upon the redistribution of seats that power, and the characteristics of our legislation, are to be founded. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is shirking the difficult and serious part, and endeavouring to deal with the easy and simple part, in the measure he is asking us to pass. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, referred to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), which I remember very distinctly myself, delivered many years ago, in which he said— I will undertake, if you give me the distribution of seats, to produce whatever results are required. And that, no doubt, is the case. If you give the franchise to one class or the other, the whole working of the system must necessarily turn upon the distribution of seats. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us some of his views with regard to the principle of redistribution. He told us he was against electoral districts—his Colleague the President of the Board of Trade is in favour of electoral districts when he can get them. How are we to know what we are likely to have? We have the high authority of the Prime Minister against electoral districts; but we have the very suggestive words of the President of the Board of Trade, who says—" We can afford to wait in this matter." He is not in a hurry; the principles of the Radicals are such as lead them to be always ready, and to wait until the time comes for the fulfilment of all that they expect; and I think we may have confidence in the right hon. Gentleman that he will not let the matter sleep much longer than he can help. The Prime Minister says the distinction between county and borough is to be maintained; but he goes a great way towards destroying that distinction in the measure he is introducing, and he does not insure us against its entire destruction by redistribution, which may effect it with the greatest ease—anyone can see that. If he speaks in support of the Constitution under which we have lived and thriven, and if it is right that we should maintain a distinction between borough and county, in Heaven's name, why does he not come forward now, when he has the power, and endeavour to stamp our legislation on this important matter with the character he thinks it ought to bear? The right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to the House in not giving us the advantage of his great experience on this question. He might leave the franchise to be settled afterwards if he cannot take the two things together. I do not say that he should. The two are so far together that we should know in definite terms the proposals of the Government as much on one branch of the question as on the other. If the two cannot be taken together, it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) pointed out, speaking with the authority of an old Boundary Commissioner, that more can be done by a redistribution of seats to meet your difficulty than can be done by an extension of the franchise. The same principle applies to some of the other points stated by the Prime Minister. He says he would respect the individuality of towns. Well, I do not know how far that will meet the views of some of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman says, also, that scattered populations are to have more Members than concentrated populations. Now, Sir, that is one of these principles which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of striking out. But when he wants to come to a conclusion he is always ready to strike out the principle which would support the conclusion. Whether that is or is not a sound principle is a matter to be very seriously considered. It is quite uncertain how far it may carry you; but if the right hon. Gentleman means that the distribution of our seats amongst our centres of political power ought to be made with some reference to the different characteristics, the different circumstances, the different histories and connections of the various constituencies, I entirely agree with him. I think that is a principle which we ought to maintain as against the levelling principle of equal electoral districts. Sir, I regret very much that we are not allowed an opportunity of discussing these things—that is to say, we have discussed them; but we have done so under the greatest possible disadvantage. We are discussing a shadow, or the shade of a shadow. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us these things as being the opinions of his Colleagues, though they are not in the Bill, we should then have said we were discussing a shadow; but when he tells us they are his own personal opinions, it is only the shade of a shadow we are discussing. It is not my intention to trouble the House further now. The hour is late, and we shall have full opportunities for the discussion of this measure upon its future stages. I only hope that all that has been said in the course of these two nights' discussion will be appreciated and understood by the country, and that the people will see it is not for nothing that this discussion has taken place; that it is not for nothing that discussion has taken place upon points which have not been included in the Bill. A great deal has been said—and very naturally said—with regard to the Irish part of the case. I think there is one point which has been somewhat overlooked; it is not merely a question how many seats Ireland might be entitled to in the whole, but it is a question of the arrangement and distribution of these seats within Ireland herself. I have no doubt that the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and others who have spoken on the subject, to any increase of the Irish electorate, would be considerably mitigated and modified, if we knew that we were to have a good redistribution of seats within Ireland itself—a redistribution upon such a principle as would secure the loyal minority in that country from being altogether silenced and overwhelmed. That is a matter which could be arranged, and ought to be arranged; but, owing to the way this question has been brought before us, we have no opportunity of dealing with it. It is that which has caused so much difficulty in the discussion we have had. I hope we shall have ample time for the consideration of this measure—ample time for the discussion which must necessarily take place in a more serious and formal manner upon the second reading and future stages of the Bill. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) has raised the question of fairness to Scotland in the matter of her representation; and the Prime Minister has, no doubt, intimated that that will be provided for. That, again, is one of these things which remain in the dark. At all events, I think my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) has done good service by raising the question; but I hope he will not think it necessary to come to a Division on the subject, because that might give cause to some misunderstanding. It is one of the points which will have to be carefully considered as the discussion on the second reading proceeds. I hope the Government will give us sufficient time, and tell us when they will bring forward the second reading of the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes; indeed, I would not have risen at all to-night, were it not for one or two remarks which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) made in his exceedingly able speech. I think that the Government have done right in separating the redistribution question from the franchise question. The Prime Minister thought it his duty—and I am not surprised he should do so—to sketch out some ideas with regard to redistribution; but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not feel I am wanting in any respect for him, when I say I think that as the two questions are kept separate, the Party, or any Member of the Party, must not be supposed to be in any way bound by the views which he urged in regard to redistribution. As to the apportionment of seats between the Three Kingdoms, it may turn out that the proportion which Ireland ought to have, according to its number of electors, would be larger than I suppose. But what I wish to guard myself against is that, supposing there be a difference, it must be allowed to us to protest against it being supplied from England. Again, several of us cannot accept the principle that a concentrated population like London, which seems to me, from its very concentration, to have less power of expressing public opinion, should lose its proper proportion of Members. There is only one other remark—a personal remark—which I wish to make. Wishing to avoid introducing the redistribution question into the franchise debate, I wrote a letter in order to avoid making a speech; but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has remarked upon the figures which I quoted in this letter. The figures, however, were the Prime Minister's, and not mine. I am not at all clear that the Register of electors would be the best basis to go upon. It would, for instance, give Scotland less Members than, I think, it ought to have. But there is one mode by which we can estimate the relation between the Three Kingdoms—namely, by taking into account the number of families. It seems to me that what we aim at in household franchise is family franchise. I will not trouble the House further than to say that if they look at the last Census they will find that, by a calculation based upon the number of families, England would gain five additional Members, Scotland would gain 11, and Ireland would lose 16. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) made a very able speech in favour of proportional representation. Now, that is a most important matter; but it certainly belongs to the redistribution rather than to the franchise question. Speaking very briefly myself, I may say that as the Prime Minister did acquaint us with some of his views, I wish he had told us whether he intends to give any large number of Members to the large towns, which I do not think can be avoided; and whether he would then be prepared to do so on the proportional principle, or on the system of scrutin de liste, which was proposed in France for adoption, and which is now the Belgian principle of simple majorities; or by dividing the country into districts. I can only, speaking for myself, say that if the number of Members for any particular town be more than two there will be the strongest possible argument in favour of proportional representation, or some representation of the minority. I rose particularly to say, however, that, anxious as I am to obtain this additional franchise—indeed, of all political measures it is the one I have all through my life most cared for—I hope it will be kept separate from the redistribution question. The extension of the franchise is a matter which ought to be dealt with by itself; and we must not be supposed to be committed to any statements, or to any plans, with regard to the measures which must follow the Franchise Bill.

MR. WARTON

I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

MR. GLADSTONE

Nothing can be more fair than the tone of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). I presume that the main object with which he rose was to reserve, if necessary—and it would be most reasonable that he should if there were grounds for it—his opinion with regard to any point I mentioned in my speech in introducing the Bill, as being more fit to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with our future scheme of redistribution.

MR. WARTON

I rise to Order. I move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am perfectly aware—

MR. WARTON

I rise to Order. Before the Prime Minister rose I moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER

having intimated that the right hon. Gentleman was quite in Order,

MR. GLADSTONE

continued: I am perfectly aware that in entering on the subject of redistribution at all I am venturing upon very dangerous ground—incedo per ignes suppositos cinera doloso—and I may say now that what I stated upon that subject was intended exclusively for these who were already disposed to place some confidence in the Government, and who were earnestly friendly to the Bill. I never expected to mitigate the wrath of hon. Gentlemen opposite by entering into the particulars of redistribution, and I am afraid I have failed in mitigating the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). I should have wished very much to have entered upon the grave and serious part of the speech of my right hon. Friend—that part in which he appeared to suppose that I had taken a very extraordinary course in doing for Ireland that which I did for Scotland—namely, in giving my general opinion as to the position in which it would stand under a Redistribution Bill. However, I will reserve that subject for a more fitting opportunity in the course of these debates. I can only say now that it was understood on the first night of the debate that the debate would be brought to a close to-night, and the state of the House evidently shows that that is the general desire. Joining, as I do, in that desire, I will not trouble the House by giving a detailed reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). I think that when the proper time comes I shall be able to satisfy my right hon. Friend in some degree, I will not say as to the accuracy of my opinion, but as to the propriety of giving an indication of my opinion in respect to the relative position of the Three Kingdoms under a scheme of redistribution I may have to propose.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that, in consequence of the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote), he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division. But perhaps he might be allowed to say a word or two in explanation. He should be very greatly astonished if Scotland was satisfied with the proposal made that an addition to its Members was to be found by an increase of the Members of the House of Commons.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the Opposition was committed, by the Reform Bill brought in in 1867, to the Democratic principle; and he regarded the present Bill as a mere complement of the measure carried in 1867. The eon-sequence was that all the arrangements to be made for carrying out this measure must be based upon different principles from these which had hitherto prevailed in this country. He was not surprised at the anxiety expressed as to the redistribution of seats, because it appeared to him that in redistribution only could they look for any legislative security for the rights of real property. There was nothing in this Bill which afforded the slightest security for property, except it be the service franchise; and the service franchise was based upon a principle which had hitherto been considered by Parliament as corrupt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by MR. GLADSTONE, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. TREVELYAN, and The LORD ADVOCATE.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 119.]