Commons Sitting of 6 May 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 5] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London Eastern Tramways.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) (Saint James, Westminster, &c.) * [195]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) (Colchester, &c.) * [196]; Waterworks Rating (Scotland) * [197].
Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [181]; Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [182].
Committee—Representation of the People [119] [First Night]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE RATE COLLECTOR OF THE BOYLE UNION
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the fact that on the occasion of the election of John M'Williams to the rate-collectorship of the Cragkan Division of the Boyle Union, the rate of poundage was fixed at 8d. on a division by the vote of a majority of the Board before proceeding to the election, notwithstanding that the Board was apprised that one of the candidates offered solvent security for the collection of the rate at 4d.; how many ex-officio guardians and how many elected guardians voted for an eight-penny poundage, and how many ex-officio, as distinguished from elected guardians, voted for the reduced poundage; whether it was stated that the rates are already satisfactorily collected in another Division of the Union at 4d.; whether the persons who voted for the eight penny rate were, with one or two exceptions, those who subsequently elected Mr. M'Williams; whether, in view of these circumstances, the Local Government Board will be requested to reconsider their sanction of the appointment; whether, with regard to the allegation that the Local Government Board had. no information as to the procurement of Mr. Corry's resignation by M'Williams, the Local Government Board have received a communication from Mr. Mahon, stating that Mr. Corry's resignation is in M'Williams' handwriting; whether Mahon's protest was forwarded in the usual course by the Local Government Board to the Board of Guardians for their observations, and was suppressed by the clerk; whether the clerk admitted publicly that he had inserted 8d. as the poundage rate in the advertisement without the authority of the Board; and, whether he is the person whose neglect of duty caused the breakdown of the Labourers' Act in the Boyle Union, and who boasted at a meeting of the Board that he had not read the Act, and did not intend to do so?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the day of the election it was sought to reduce the poundage from 8d. to 4d., and this pro-
  1472
  posal was negatived by a majority of 5, the voting being for, ex officio, I elected 22, total 23; against, ex officio, 21, elected 7, total 28. With respect to the security offered by the candidate who was prepared to collect for the lower rate, the clerk of the Union states that one of the parties named as his surety states that he would not sign a bond for him. It is true that some Guardians stated that in a neighbouring Division the rates were satisfactorily collected at 4d. But the clerk of the Union reports that this is not the case, as there is a very large arrear outstanding in that Division. The Guardians who voted for adhering to the poundage of 8d. were generally those who voted for Mr. M'Williams's appointment. These facts would not justify the Local Government Board in overruling the action of the Board of Guardians in regard to the election. After the Local Government Board had sanctioned the appointment of Mr. M'Williams, they received from Mr. Mahon a communication as stated in the Question, and they have informed Mr. Mahon that if he has any evidence to support his statement that Mr. M'Williams induced the former collector, Mr. Corry, to resign "for a consideration," the question of removing Mr. M'Williams from office will at once be considered. Mr. Mahon's letter was sent by the Local Government Board to the Guardians. It was not suppressed by the clerk, but was laid before the Guardians at their next meeting. The clerk has not replied to the inquiry in the last paragraph but one of the Question, but the poundage of 8d. has been allowed in the district for many years. The clerk of the Union denies that he ever made the statement attributed to him in the last paragraph of the Question; and the Local Government Board inform me that the alleged breakdown of the Labourers' Act in Boyle Union appears to have been caused by the Guardians' omission to make their scheme and give the necessary notices in due time.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—THE CLIMATE OF MANITOBA.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will take means to have a statement furnished to the public regarding the climate of Manitoba?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There is already an abundance of statements, both true and official, available to the public. I would refer the hon. Member to the "Colonization Circular," issued by the Colonial Office, price 6d.; secondly, to the Statistical Abstract for the Colonial Possessions issued by the Board of Trade, where, on page 154 of the last edition, he will find a table for each of the 12 months of the average readings of the thermometer in Manitoba. Thirdly, I would refer the hon. Member to the hand-book of information relating to the Dominion of Canada, which is published by the Canadian Government with the sanction of the Secretary of State. There are a map and photographs bound up with it, and it can be obtained from the High Commissioner of Canada or any of the Canadian agents in this country gratis.

  INTESTATES' ESTATES BILL—CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House what is the total amount of accumulations on the Crown's Nominee Account, which may be claimed, either by right according to Law, or by grace according to precedent, and to which the Statute of Limitations contained in the Intestates' Estates Bill will apply?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, he was not quite sure what the hon. Member meant by his Question. The Bill, if passed, would in due time apply to all estates that had been, however recently, brought within the administration of the Treasury. He supposed, however, the hon. Gentleman wished to know what was the total sum which at present could be claimed either by law or moral obligation, but which claim would be barred if the Bill became law. The total amount of accumulation a week ago was about £250,000, of which only a very small portion would possibly come within the scope of the Bill. He thought he would be safe in putting the maximum sum at £50,000. The object of the Bill was not to bring money into the Exchequer, but to close accounts which had been outstanding for some time, and to prevent the possibility of persons wasting their time and labour in making impossible claims.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the time assigned by Act of Parliament for the periodical publication of the list of dormant funds in Chancery is now long passed; and, if so, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent any further inconvenience arising to the suitors from the disregard of the Law by the Public Department which he represents in the House of Commons?
  MR. COURTNEY: No time is fixed by statute for the publication of these lists; but a Chancery rule directs that they should be published as soon as may be after the 1st of September. As the list has to be made up to that date the work cannot be commenced until after it; and as it has to be compiled by the regular staff of the office from books constantly in use its preparation necessarily takes some time. By the new rules the date prescribed for its publication is March 1. Two causes have prevented this date being attained on the present occasion—first, the large changes in the personnel, duties, and organization of the Pay Office consequent on recent forms and organization; and, secondly, the introduction of a new and greatly improved form of Return, which will give more information to the public in a better form; but which, on its first introduction, entails a great deal of additional labour. The Return will be ready in about four weeks.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE RATE COLLECTOR OF THE BLACKROCK TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Elliott, the rate collector of the Blackrock Township Commissioners, is now rate collector of the Rathmines district of the South Dublin Union and secretary of the Drummond Institute; whether, at a recent sworn inquiry, ordered by the Local Government Board, it was proved that there were 121 persons on the Parliamentary register for the county of Dublin for the Rathmines polling district alone, as rated occupiers, whose names did not

  1475
  appear upon the rate books, and who were not objected to by the Union authorities at the last County Dublin Parliamentary Revision Courts; whether, at such sworn inquiry, Mr. Elliott, on cross-examination, stated on oath that in his district the larger portion of the rates for the year were collected before the 1st day of June 1883, and that he considered that his duty to make inquiries as to rated occupiers with a view to making objections on the Parliamentary Voters' Register ended when he received payment of the rates, and that in many instances landlords in the Rathmines district, owning a large number of houses, paid the rates thereon, and in such instances he had made no inquiries, and relied solely on such notifications of alterations in tenancies as these landlords had given him; whether Mr. Elliott has collected and misappropriated more than £2,000 of the Blackrock township rates, and has assigned substantially all his property as security therefor; whether a Committee of the Blackrock Commissioners make a daily audit of Mr. Elliott's collecting accounts; and, whether the Local Government Board intend taking any steps in reference to Mr. Elliott's conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Elliott holds the appointments stated. The evidence given by the Clerk of the Union and Mr. Elliott at the sworn inquiry bear out the statements in the second and third paragraphs of the Question, and these officers have been censured by the Local Government Board. The Board have at present no information, beyond that contained in newspaper reports, as to the alleged misappropriation of the township rates; but the subject is engaging their careful attention. I am informed by the Secretary to the Township Commissioners that the entire matter is under the consideration of a Special Committee of the Board, who have all but closed their proceedings; but have not yet brought in their final Report.

  BANKRUPTCY COURT (IRELAND)—UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS—FUND ACCOUNT.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, on the 1st of November in each year, a list of unpaid dividends is prepared and made out by the official assignee of the Irish Bankruptcy Court, showing the names of the different
  1476
  parties entitled to those dividends; and, if so, what valid objection there is to publishing that list in the Dublin papers, so that creditors may be made aware of the dividends due to them?
  MR. COURTNEY: A list is annually prepared, showing the items transferred to the unclaimed dividend account in the previous year. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be duly considered when we are in a position to decide upon this Question.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked what became of the interest that accumulated upon this fund?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am not in a position to answer that Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY—USE OF FIREARMS IN A PROCLAIMED DISTRICT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, seeing that young Waller had firearms in his possession on the occasion of the riots in Derry in November last, he will make inquiry as to whether Waller had an excise licence to carry arms, and, if not, why has he not been prosecuted for a violation of 33 and 34 Vic. c. 57; whether he had special licence to carry arms in a proclaimed district, and, if not, why he has not been prosecuted under the Crimes Act; and, to ask same questions regarding Taylor and Mr. Candlers, who were charged with firing revolvers at female factory hands?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to this Question, there are several persons concerned about whom Questions have been asked on both sides of this affair; and I would be rather glad if the hon. Member postponed his Question till next Monday, when I will give a complete answer.

  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a number of appointments, temporary or otherwise, have been made, within the past five years, upon the Staff of the Board of Public Works in Ireland; whether any public notification of such appointments being about to be made was previously given; or whether any such appointments were subject to competitive examination; whether it is a fact that persons of little or no pre-

  1477
  vious training or qualifications have been so appointed to act in matters of engineering, surveying, land improvement, drainage, buildings, loans, reporting, &c.; whether it is a fact that, while persons with little or no previous training, professional skill, or qualifications, have been so appointed, qualified men, some of whom had taken out their degrees and diploma of civil engineering in Trinity College, Dublin, and in the Queen's University, have been unable to obtain such employment under the said Board; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of all such persons appointed or employed on the Board of Works Staff within the past five years; showing whether temporary or permanent, the dates of appointment, and age then, their pay and allowances, the nature of their employment, and a description of their previously ascertained qualifications?
  MR. COURTNEY: I understand the hon. Member to refer to the Engineers' and Surveyors' Department of the Board of Works. A considerable number of persons have in recent years been appointed to temporary offices in these branches of the Department without advertisement or examination, which are not required for such posts. The selection has been very carefully made by the Board out of a large number of applicants, and they see no reason to doubt that the best men were selected; certainly, none were appointed who were not qualified by training and experience. It is obviously impossible to answer specifically such general charges as those made by the hon. Member; but if he will bring any particular case before me privately I will make inquiries about it. There is no objection to lay the Return asked for on the Table; but at present I see no justification for incurring the expense of doing so.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, When he intends to take the Second Reading of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): My hon. Friend will have observed that this Bill has been placed on the Paper on Government nights for the second reading; and we had hoped that
  1478
  the second reading might have been obtained. The Bill, however, has been blocked; but if the hon. Member who has blocked it will remove his block, I have no doubt the Bill might be read a second time after a short discussion. Our proposal is to ask that the Bill should be referred to a large Select Committee, and I do not think the clauses will occupy much time.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— CAPTAIN BECKETT, R.M.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Captain Beckett, resident magistrate at Athlone, is a member of the military mess, and spends the greater part of his time at the military barracks, where persons having business with him, in his magisterial capacity, are continually obliged to wait upon him; whether, recently, after midnight, a party composed of Captain Beckett and three military officers sought admission into the house of a lady in Athlone, and, being refused admission, one of the party threw an empty champagne bottle through the fanlight over the hall door, and another threw a large paving stone through one of the drawing-room windows, inflicting damage also in the interior, and, when the servants appeared, the party ran away, one of the fugitives leaving an officer's laced cap behind him; if some members of the local police force witnessed part of the occurrence, and whether any police report has been made; and, what steps will be taken to elicit the truth, and to vindicate the Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Through the kindness of the officers of the Royal Artillery at Athlone, Captain Beckett, R.M., is an honorary member of their mess. It is not the case that he spends the greater part of his time at the barracks, or that persons having business with him are continually obliged to wait upon him there. The statement that Captain Beckett was in any way concerned in the disturbance referred to in he second paragraph of the Question is wholly without foundation. He did not even hear of it until some days later. It is not the case that any of the local police were present. When they heard of the matter it was reported; but, as the owner of the injured property refused to take any action, the divisional magistrate

  1479
  thought it a case rather for the military authorities to deal with than one for further police interference. He accordingly reported it to the Colonel commanding the 45th Regiment, to which the officers concerned belonged, and it is now before him.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that stops were taken to induce the parties concerned from making any statement, and that money was offered to the servants to procure their silence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot say anything about that.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "GARNET"—THE "GRENADA PEOPLE" NEWSPAPER.
  MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether certain statements contained in The Echo of the 2nd May have come to the notice of the Admiralty, these statements being to the effect that a midshipman named Dynley, of the ship Garnet, accompanied by some sailors, went to office of the The Grenada People newspaper, and informed the editor that he and his comrades had obtained the permission of the commanding officer, Captain Montague, to destroy the office and presses of the newspaper, and that they would do so that evening; that threats to the same effect were used by several of the officers and men of the Garnet to some of the people of St. George's; that Captain Montague afterwards wrote a letter to the editor of The People, that he was prepared to horsewhip him for criticising the conduct of the Governor of Barbadoes, Sir AVilliam Robinson, and that, on the night of the 11th February, Mr. Dynley and two of the crew of the Garnet took the sign board of The People office; whether the Admiralty has received any information of the matters stated; and, if the statements are correct, what steps are intended to be taken?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The Admiralty have received a letter from the editor of the newspaper in question complaining of the conduct of certain naval officers; and the letter has been sent to the Commander-in-Chief of the station, who will report upon the facts.
  MR. SMALLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been drawn to a statement contained in
  1480
  The Grenada People and copied into The Echo of the 2nd May, that Captain Montague of the ship Garnet declared that he had at St. Vincent asked permission from Sir William Robinson, Governor of Barbadoes, to let his crew destroy the office of The Grenada People, and that Sir William Robinson had replied that he could not officially order but would be very glad indeed if it could be done; and, whether the Colonial Office will make inquiry into this statement?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: On the 29th of March we received a letter from a Mr. Donovan, who, I gather, is either editor or proprietor of the newspaper in question, making certain statements and inclosing a copy of his letter addressed to the Admiralty. We wrote to him pointing out that, in accordance with well-known Colonial regulations, he should forward his statements through the Governor, in order that the Governor may make any remarks he may think right. Pending any further inquiry, I may say, in justice to Sir William Robinson, that neither of Mr. Donovan's letters make the statement contained in the Question as to Sir William Robinson's reply to the alleged request of Captain Montague.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. STOREYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is proposed to grant any allowance to the families of the captive crew of the Nisero?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I regret that there are no funds at the disposal of the Foreign Office to meet cases of this kind.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether General Gordon's Mission to the Soudan originated in an unsolicited offer of service from himself, or was undertaken, at the special request of Her Majesty's Government; whether any, and what, assistance has been, given to him by either the British or Egyptian authorities to carry out "the effective measures" indicated in the Commission appointing him Governor General of the Soudan; and, whether, in the face of a

  1481
  victorious and rapidly-spreading Revolution, he was expected to effect the withdrawal of the beleaguered garrisons, and—
  "Establish an organized Government in the different provinces of the Soudan, for the maintenance of order, and the cessation of all disasters and incitement to revolt,"
  by his own moral influence alone?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The whole circumstances connected with General Gordon's mission are to be found in the Papers laid before Parliament. I wish to make an explanation in regard to the Paper, Egypt No. 15, distributed yesterday evening. As I stated on the 2nd of May, that Paper contains the telegrams from General Gordon, which are referred to in Sir Evelyn Baring's telegrams, Nos. 19 and 24 in Egypt No. 13. Those telegrams were received at the Foreign Office on April 28, by post, in two covering despatches, which stand Nos. I and 3 in Egypt No. 15. It has been the practice of the Foreign Office, in regard to such despatches, to lay them, with the dates attached to the telegrams which they represent; and hence it is that these two despatches are marked "received by telegraph April 16," and "April 18," instead of April 28, which was the date, as I have stated, of the actual receipt of the despatches by post.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The noble Lord says these telegrams were received only when they came under despatches by post. Were they not received at the dates marked upon them?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member mistakes me. What I said was that the telegrams from Sir Evelyn Baring were received on the 16th and 18th April, but that the despatch transmitting the full text of the telegrams was only received on April 28. It is usual, as the House is aware, in Foreign Office Papers, to mark despatches containing telegrams with the date of the telegrams which they represent, and not with the actual date of the receipt of the telegrams themselves.
  MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that these telegrams, although they were not received in text as printed, were received telegraphically from Sir Evelyn Baring on the 16th and 18th of April?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; that is not quite it. The telegrams
  1482
  from Sir Evelyn Baring contained a summary of the telegrams from General Gordon, and those are already before Parliament. We have presented the full text as soon as we possibly could.
  MR. BOURKE: Substantially the telegraphic messages received on the 16th were the same as those received on the 28th?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not use the word "substantially." I will ask the right hon. Member to form his own opinion.
  MR. M'COAN: In reference to the second paragraph of my Question, I have carefully read the Papers, and have found no mention made that any assistance has been given to General Gordon to carry out the "effective measures" indicated in the communication appointing him Governor General of the Soudan. Am I to understand from the noble Lord that no assistance has been given? Nothing is disclosed in the Papers. I have also failed to discover anything in answer to the third Question, whether he would be expected to carry out those important measures involving a good deal of risk and some military action by the aid of moral influence alone?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member is inviting me to enter into a premature debate on the Papers.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What reply Her Majesty's Government made to the telegram of General Gordon, dated April 11th, in which the following passages occur:—
  "You state your intention of not sending any relief up here or to Berber, and you refuse me Zebehr. I consider myself free to act according to circumstances. I shall hold on here as long as I can, and if I can suppress the rebellion I shall do so. If I cannot I shall retire to the Equator, and leave you indelible disgrace of abandoning the garrisons of Sennaar, Kassala, Berber, and Dongola, with the certainty that you will eventually be forced to smash up the Mahdi under great difficulties if you would retain peace in Europe?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member will find the reply on page 15 of "Egypt No. 13."
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware upon what General Gordon based the statement in his Proclamation of February 27th, that "British troops are now on their way, and in a few days will reach Khartoum?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are not informed on what authority General Gordon made this statement.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any endeavour is being made to inform the Mahdi of the readiness of the Egyptian Government to evacuate the Soudan, and of the decision of Her Majesty's Government to recognize the independence of that country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the noble Lord whether it is contemplated to take any such steps?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have answered the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Question on Thursday.

  BURIALS—NONCONFORMIST BURIAL AT NEWTON, LANCASHIRE—REFUSAL TO ADMIT CORPSE INTO THE CHURCH.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a proceeding reported in The Liverpool Daily Post, of April 28th, which took place on the occasion of the burial of a Nonconformist named Goldsworthy, when the Vicar of St. Peter's, Newton, refused to allow the body to be carried into the Church, but directed it to be taken to the grave, where it was interred with the usual grave-side service; whether he will state if the action of the Vicar in refusing to admit the body of Mr. Goldsworthy into the Church was legal; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  SIRWILLIAM HARCOURT: I must apologize to the hon. Member for not answering the Question. These are ecclesiastical matters of which I am not in charge.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Might I ask to whom I should address this Question? Who is responsible?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Either this transaction was contrary to the law or it was not. If it was according to the law, I do not think that my hon. Friend can apply to anybody; if it was. contrary to the law, he can apply to the Courts of Law.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st May.]
    [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preliminary.
    Clause I (Short title of Act) agreed to.
    Extension of the Household and Lodger Franchise.
    Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSin moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, at beginning, to insert the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained," said, that, whatever might be the opinion of individual Members of the House as to the merits of the Bill, there could not be the slightest doubt as to one question—namely, that it was extremely well drafted. No one could have the slightest doubt as to the meaning of the authors of the Bill. If hon. Members had had the experience he had had of seeing Bills drafted by the hands which he was quite sure had drawn up the present Bill they would know that the whole spirit of the Bill was to be found in the first three or four lines of the 2nd clause. If those three or four lines were practically passed right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the whole scheme of the Bill would be, in reality, confirmed. The object he had in moving to insert at the beginning of the clause the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained," was simply to guard against its being said that if the first few lines of this clause were passed without some such words, when they came later on to the several Amendments that were to be found on the Paper, they might be told they were inconsistent with the first three lines of the Bill they had already passed; and by that means they might be shut out from modifying in any way whatever the principle inserted in the first three lines of the Bill. He looked upon this as a matter of very consider-

    1485
    able importance. He was quite sure the Prime Minister did not wish to pass any part of the measure without its having received a full and fair consideration at the hands of the House; and he had no doubt, if the words he suggested were inserted, they would gain a very great point when they came to the beginning of the third line of the Bill—namely, "that a uniform household and lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom." The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would then have carried the main principle he desired to establish. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could not conceive any objection to the words he now proposed. If those words were not inserted he was afraid this would happen—that they would have to debate the clause at very much greater length than would otherwise be the case. At all events, if the interpretation he put upon the clause was a reliable one, and this Amendment were not inserted, the Committee might be shut out from considering many of the Amendments which were subsequently intended to be moved, and they would have no further opportunity of discussing them. He had no wish to take up the time of the Committee in arguing this point further; and he hoped the Government would at once meet him by stating that they had no objection to the insertion of these words. If the Prime Minister rose to say that he had any serious objection to the Amendment, then he was afraid he should be only more and more confirmed in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman did not desire that the Amendments later on the Paper should be thoroughly discussed. He proposed now, at the commencement of the clause, to insert the words he had placed on the paper—"Subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained." If those words were inserted, they would, no doubt, be able to discuss modifications of the first three lines as they wenton; but if they were not inserted, then he was afraid they would have to discuss those three lines at much greater length than would otherwise be the case.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 9, at beginning, to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    MR. GLADSTONE: As far as I can make out, I am not aware that the adoption of the clause as it stands would exclude subsequent Amendments from the discussion of the Committee; but with respect to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman I must say that it appears to me to be open to serious objection. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the House should enact that a uniform household and lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom it will be virtually establishing what is the principle of the Bill. No doubt that is so, and that is the principle for which we have contended through all the preliminary discussions, and which we have now to deal with in Committee. We do not believe, and we do not admit, that there ought to be any derogation from that principle. To establish a uniform household and lodger franchise at elections in all counties and boroughs is the very object for which the Bill is introduced. If, therefore, I should agree to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained" I should distinctly convey by implication that the Government intend to derogate from the principle of the Bill. If there are to be derogations from the principle of the Bill, let us know what they are. We are totally ignorant of any derogation or departure that ought to be made from that principle. We have never for a moment either concealed or thrown into the shade the main and broad proposition contained in the Bill that it is our intention to establish a uniform household and lodger franchise in the counties and boroughs. That is the head and front of the offending of the Bill in the eyes of many hon. Members opposite; and it is the pith, and virtue, and credit of the Bill as it is understood on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will see that his Amendment is distinctly a departure from the principle of the Bill. If we are expected to make Amendments in the subsequent clauses of the Bill, that will be virtually and tacitly a distinct departure from what we have always professed as the principle of the Bill itself; and, consequently, I am not able to agree to the Amendment.
    SIR. ASSHETON CROSS: In order to save time, I may say that I have not entered fully into the effect of the words

    1487
    of the clause; but the Prime Minister has said frankly what it is. No doubt the clause does propose further Amendments in household and lodger franchise. It goes on to say—
    "After the passing of this Act every man possessed of a household qualification or a lodger qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county; and if the qualifying premises be situate in a county or borough in Ireland be entitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote at an election for such county or borough."
    So that unless there is some modification not simply of the qualification of the voter, but also of the time that qualification is to come into operation, those questions will practically be settled by the first three lines. That is the proposition I lay before the House. Undoubtedly, Amendments as to when the Bill is to come into operation are of vital importance; and I, for one, am very doubtful, indeed, whether they can be introduced into the Act, unless some such words as "subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained" are inserted at the commencement of the clause.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFdesired to say a word or two on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman; and he wished to do so because he had hitherto abstained from discussing the Bill, and he had no desire to be included in the body of hon. Members on the other side of the House, who seemed to be prohibited from discussing it altogether. He wished to state, in regard to the clause and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, that he, as representing a very large constituency, entertained no objection to the equalization of the county and borough franchise. He might say that he himself had no fear of it; and he did not see why hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, and representing county constituencies, should have any fear of it. The principles by which Party tactics were guided permeated all classes; and he could not help thinking that the manner in which the franchise was exercised in the large boroughs proved that to be the case. As a matter of fact, the agricultural labourers were in the main Conservative; and he would venture to illustrate his position. In the last Parliament he represented a borough which was largely composed of agricultural labourers—namely, Christ-
    1488
    church; and although his Successor, as a Conservative candidate, was not successful, and although the borough returned a Liberal, yet the Liberalism of the hon. Member was, in some respects, of a subversive character; and, politics apart, he thought the hon. Member was an ornament and acquisition to the House. He would take three boroughs which were, to a great extent, assimilated to counties; and he thought those three boroughs carried out his proposition—that the county franchise, reduced to the proportions of the borough franchise, contained all the elements of Party that were desirable. The three boroughs to which he referred were the Rape of Bramber, forming the borough of Shoreham, East Retford, and Crick-lade. It would be found that Shoreham sent two strong Conservatives, one of whom was a gentleman belonging to an old family very much associated with Conservatism, and with the representation of that particular constituency. East Retford, on the other hand, was represented by two Liberals; and the other borough—Cricklade—returned one and one, a Conservative and a Liberal. Therefore, it was perfectly plain that these three constituencies were equally divided; and it might be assumed that if the borough franchise were introduced into the counties generally the representation of the country would be divided just as it was at the present moment. He must say, from the experience he had gained of the Parliamentary borough of Christchurch, that the landed interest had much more to fear from the tenant farmers than from the agricultural labourers. Agricultural labourers invariably followed their landlords rather than their masters; and it appeared to him that the agricultural interest would be as equally safe in the hands of the labourers as it was in the hands of the tenant farmers. Another allegation made against the agricultural labourers was that they were not sufficiently educated. He himself thought that education generally followed the franchise, and after the borough franchise was lowered in 1867 the extensive system of education which was now in force was made law. But there was another point, and it constituted the reason why he called on the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to consider with more favour the Amendment of the right hon. Gentle-

    1489
    man the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross). There was a very justifiable fear on that side of the House that it was the intention of the Government, or, at any rate, of their advanced supporters, to force on a Dissolution upon the Franchise Bill without a scheme of distribution. The desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite was, he was told, to drive away the present county Members sitting on that side of the House; and they hoped to be able to give effect to that desire by a Dissolution on the present Franchise Bill. As he had said, he doubted whether that could be carried out; but a Dissolution on the present Franchise Bill would create such great anomalies that he thought the Government should pause before they declined further to give some assurance that the anticipations of that side of the House, as to the intentions of the Government to dissolve on the Franchise Bill without a Redistribution Bill, were unfounded. Supposing for a moment that the Government were to dissolve on the Franchise Bill alone they would be creating greater anomalies than those which at present existed. [Cries of "Order !"] He thought he was quite in Order. They would be creating in the next Parliament not a Legislative Assembly, but a Constituent Assembly. By establishing a House of Commons elected upon a diminution of household suffrage without redistribution, they would elect a House of Commons that would be unable to undertake any legislative measure until a Redistribution Bill had been passed; and then it would be necessary to have a second Dissolution before the Redistribution Act could be applied to the work of Parliament. Therefore, on the hypothesis of not having a Redistribution Bill they would elect a Constituent Assembly, and not a Legislative Assembly. A Constituent Assembly ought to represent all interests; and, speaking not for the counties alone, but for the urban districts also, they would suffer still more if this Bill were passed without a Redistribution Bill. He would not detain the House long by giving illustrations; but he would point out what great anomalies would exist among the urban constituencies if they passed the present Bill without a Redistribution Bill, and by so doing double the electorate in the counties. At the present moment there
    1490
    were 42 boroughs with a population of less than 7,000 people, 30 with less than 6,000, 48 with less than 2,000, and altogether 230,000 returned 76 Members. On the other hand, there were 178 urban communities which were entirely unrepresented with a population of more than double that which he had mentioned, and which would, under this Bill, have a constituency of more than 500,000. Then would it be wise to pass a measure, without a Redistribution Bill, which would enable 176 Members to sit for comparatively small constituencies, while 178 communities with double the number of electors contained in these small boroughs would be thrown into the counties? How was it possible, under these circumstances, to get a fair Redistribution Bill? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would help them out of the difficulty, and give them some assurance that if this Bill were passed both by the House of Commons and by the other branch of the Legislature it would not be allowed to come into force until some scheme of redistribution was established. It was for this reason that he supported the Amendment, which would delay the practical operation of the Bill until the House had an opportunity of considering the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey). The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was, no doubt, at the head of a very powerful Party; but he was also the head of the Government of the country, and should be bound to take into consideration any reasonable arguments, if they were even brought forward by his opponents. He believed there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who were not opposed to a diminution of the franchise in itself, but who considered that no Reform. Bill should be passed even to carry out the wishes of the Liberal Party unless, at the same time that the franchise was lowered, there was a large redistribution of seats.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to detain the Committee except to answer the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, who asks for an assurance that the present Bill, if passed into law, should not come into operation until a Redistribution Bill has also been passed. Now, it is certainly, in my opinion, a most unreasonable pledge to ask of the Government that the franchise should not come into operation

    1491
    until the enactment of a Redistribution Bill, because if such, a compromise were made it is impossible to say what redistribution might be passed. It might be possible for persons to object to the Redistribution. Bill, and by preventing it from being passed they might wreck the fortunes of the Franchise Bill also. I, therefore, think that this is a demand which ought not to be made upon Her Majesty's Government. Short of that I go entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Government admit that it is desirable, and even in a certain sense urgent, that a Redistribution. Bill should be passed. We have announced our full intention, as far as it depends upon us, that an effort shall be made to pass a proper Redistribution Bill before the Dissolution of the present Parliament shall arrive in the natural course of events. Well it seems to me that that is all that can be fairly asked of the Government. We go a great way to meet the hon Gentleman; but I will not undertake to say that the whole labour of the House upon the Franchise Bill should be lost until there is further legislation in reference to the redistribution of seats, because I hold that the Franchise Bill itself is a good Bill, although perfection may not be obtained, or anything like perfection until a Redistribution Bill is passed. As to the precise moment when this Bill is to come into operation I never said anything that would tend to make that a sine quâ non as to the provisions of the Bill. That is a matter which will naturally arise after the consideration of the first line of the clause.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he supported the Amendment, from which the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) and the Prime Minister, in the observations they had made, had wandered. He would venture respectfully to suggest the great importance of the words proposed to be inserted. He felt fully the force of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—that these words were of the greatest consequence; and he trusted that earnest and persevering efforts would be made to have them inserted in the clause. He wanted the House to start fair in discussing the Bill in Committee. He thought nothing could be more unsatisfactory to the House than for hon. Members to be
    1492
    satisfied with an assurance given by the; Government, and then to find that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the conscientious discharge of his duties, was unable to give effect to that assurance. The way in which the House was treated not only in Committees of this kind, but upon the Estimates, was often productive of disappointment and difficulty. An assurance was given that a full opportunity would be afforded for discussing a particular matter afterwards; and then the Chairman, in the conscientious discharge of his duties, was compelled to take a proper view of an Amendment, and to rule out of Order a great number of points which, strictly speaking, were out of Order, but which the House had been led to believe, by an assurance given by some Minister in the course of the debate, would be discussed. He was not at all satisfied with what the Prime Minister had stated. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he had looked over the Amendments. It was very kind of the right hon. Gentleman if he had done so; but the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression, having looked over them, that they could be discussed, in due course, without the insertion of the prefatory words moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). But was the Prime Minister sure that the Committee would not be called upon to deal with Amendments besides those already on the Paper? If that were so, they might find themselves met, later on, by this argument—"I never foresaw these Amendments at all; I saw those which had been placed upon the Paper, and thought they might be discussed; but these raise entirely fresh matters." The consequence might be that, long before they get the Bill through Committee, one Member of the Government would rise up after another and tell hon. Members that it would not be in Order to discuss the questions they were anxious to raise. He contended that these words wore necessary, because, without desiring to use harsh words, it seemed to him that it almost became an artifice to put in a Bill words that required consideration, and then to tell hon. Members afterwards—" You have passed those words. The whole spirit of the Bill is framed upon them, and all your arguments are inconsistent, and, therefore, out of Order."

    1493
    The chairman would be required to rule conscientiously that the Amendments were inconsistent, and that was the reason why he (Mr. Warton) wished to secure the insertion of these very proper precautionary words. He thought the clause had been drafted, so to speak, in a manner to deceive the House. The very phrase "uniform" was misleading in itself. The very construction of the clause was wrong, and they ought to have had household franchise in a clause separate altogether from any clause relating to lodger franchise. The effect of passing the very first line of the present clause would be that the Committee would be committed to the main principle of the Bill in consequence of passing two or three at the commencement of it without their importance being sufficiently impressed upon the Committee. He said this in a friendly spirit towards the Prime Minister. He confessed that he was not often animated by such a spirit; but he did say in a friendly spirit on this occasion that the right hon. Gentleman would save his own time and the time of the House if he would consent to the insertion of these words. It was his deliberate belief that such a course would very much tend to save the time of the House, and no one could doubt that the course proposed was a prudent one. If it were not assented to, the Committee would be compelled to dwell at very great length on every word of the clause, because every word in the clause would be then of the utmost importance; whereas if they were not to be absolutely binding they would be of less importance. Without they were to be taken as binding, it would be the duty of the Committee to discuss them with great completeness. He hoped the Prime Minister would, at the outset of the proceedings of the Committee, feel that it was always the best policy to treat his opponents with full consideration, and that it was not the best course to make vague promises which he could not keep, and to tell the House that future Amendments might be discussed, when the Chairman would be compelled to say that most of them were altogether irregular. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, in the discharge of his duties, would properly rule that several of the Amendments already upon the Paper were not in regular form, and, therefore, could not be dis-
    1494
    cussed, and that, in point of fact, they were beyond the principles of the Bill. If that were done, hon. Members who had been misled by the Prime Minister could only get up and say that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to discuss them. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee a vague and general assurance that they might be discussed; but it was because he (Mr. Warton) had found from experience that such assurances generally betrayed those who accepted them, that he considered it would be better to insert words in the clause which would set the matter entirely at rest. Such a course would be far better than relying upon any promise whatever; and, therefore, he would say once more in the most friendly spirit that he thought it would be better for the Prime Minister to consent to the Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, so far from thinking the Prime Minister wrong in refusing to extend the power of putting down Amendments, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not limited it still more. It appeared to him, from what had already transpired, that there was an intention on the other side of the House to make second reading speeches in order to obstruct the passing of the Bill. He had simply risen to state why he should vote against the Amendment, and against every Amendment on the Paper, except clerical ones on both sides. He was for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Speaking as an advanced Radical, he was sorry that the Bill had not been made wider in its scope than it had been. He thought that many persons might have been given votes who had not been given them, and that others who were still left with more than one vote might have more than the one vote taken away. But the Prime Minister had never said that the Bill was perfection. The Prime Minister had simply submitted the Bill. At the last General Election the country distinctly endorsed the issue whether there should be an equalization of the county and borough franchise. That was the basis of the present Bill, and it was upon that basis they ought to vote. For his own part, he was ready to declare that he would not look into the merits or demerits of the Bill; but, in regard to the Amendments which had been put upon the

    1495
    Paper, he should vote against every single one of them. As far as the Bill was concerned, he put himself entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, on the understanding, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman did not, either from good nature or any other cause, yield one iota to Gentlemen on the other side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would promise to vote with him against every single Amendment, whether proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or by hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House.
    MR. SCLATER- BOOTHsaid, the hon. Gentleman had promulgated some sentiments which, no doubt, would be approved by the Treasury Bench; but it would be very unfortunate and very unusual if hon. Members were to endorse the principle that no Amendments were to be allowed in any Government Bill, even although it might be a Franchise Bill. The reply he had expected on the part of the Government to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was that they looked upon it simply as a qualifying Amendment, which would render it competent for hon. Members to bring forward subsequent Amendments, and give facilities for putting such Amendments in order, having regard to the context of the Bill. What they had a right to expect, and what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister ought to have informed them, was that the Government would not raise the technical objection that for want of these qualifying words such Amendments could not be put from the Chair. Everyone knew that the words proposed to be introduced by his right hon. Friend were simply the common phrases of the draftsman of a Government Bill. It was seldom that a Bill was drawn without those qualifying words being introduced into it, and which they could not reasonably object to. There were, however, no such qualifying words on this occasion, because, as far as the Bill was drawn, it proposed and anticipated no qualifying paragraph or provision to interfere with the simple construction of the words of the clause. But the question was, whether the absence of these words was to be pleaded in bar of subsequent Amendments? If the Government would tell the House that they did not propose to take that technical objection, and would say that subsequent Amendments might
    1496
    be discussed without these words being inserted—that, in point of fact, hon. Members would not be precluded from urging that all the Amendments which appeared on the Paper, together with others which might be suggested, might with propriety be inserted in the Bill—if the Committee agreed to adopt them then, he thought hon. Members on that side of the House would be satisfied. He did not intend to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) into the discussion which he had initiated, and which, probably, might more fitly be considered a question for second reading. The Prime Minister, however, had taken no objection to it himself, but had followed in the same strain. He would only say this—that his hon. Friend scarcely expressed, with accuracy, the position which many of the county Members took in regard to the Bill. Their point was that they would be voting for the Bill in the dark, unless they know what steps would be taken hereafter to continue that distinction between the county and borough representation which in the most solemn manner the Prime Minister had announced his intention to perpetuate. They did not dispute the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do so; but what they doubted was his power. They said that if the Bill was passed in the shape in which it now stood it might not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to carry out that pledge. That was their fear and their anticipation. They had no fear that the extension of the suffrage in the counties would produce any mischief, provided the relations between the county and borough representation, and the separate existence of the areas now familiar to all of them, could be by some means or other preserved and maintained.
    MR. SEREANT SIMONsaid, that, with all respect to his right hon. Friend, he thought his observations were not well founded, and that the insertion of these words was not necessary in order to admit Amendments into the Bill, although they undoubtedly would prevent the introduction of Amendments which were not within its scope. Reference had been made to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), and the whole of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Ports-

    1497
    mouth had been directed to the question of redistribution. Now, whether the Amendment under consideration was adopted or not, the discussion of an Amendment such as that which stood in the name of the hon. Member for South Northumberland would not be precluded, for it amounted simply to this—that the Act should not come into operation as soon as it received the Royal Assent, but upon a given contingency. It was a very common thing in Acts of Parliament to fix the date when the Act should come into operation; and it was only another form of fixing the date to say, as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland said, that the Bill should not come into operation before a certain event. It did not require the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in order to admit such an Amendment as that; but, of course, it would not be competent to introduce any Amendment which, at the present moment, was beyond the scope of the Bill. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment, because he could see no advantage that could be derived from its insertion.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would excuse him, as one of the county Members whose constituents would be affected by the Bill, if he asked the Attorney General what this uniformity meant as to houses and as to lodgings, seeing that there was no uniformity already existing or established by law in the United Kingdom. Uniformity implied a standard, although there was no rental value attached as descriptive of the house or of the lodging. Was he to understand that the Irish standard of a lodging and of the Irish standard of a house was to be applied as a qualifying test to houses and to lodgings in the Metropolis and in England generally? He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that this was an important question. Until in an evil hour the late Mr. Disraeli, while still a Member of the House of Commons, advised the House to adopt household qualification without any rental standard, which meant the mere possession of a house without specifying what the house was to be in value, there had been an intelligible qualification. The lodging qualification was adopted in haste, in the absence of any adequate
    1498
    discussion upon an Amendment proposed by Mr. Kirkman Hodgson in 1867. The sudden adoption of household suffrage with no definition of the value of the house, together with the sudden adoption of the lodger franchise, with no proper definition of what was to constitute a proper and an adequate lodging, was the "leap in the dark" which was then taken. It gave to the Act a name, which it had never since lost; and when he saw the Committee about to take "another leap in the dark" in respect to uniformity of franchise between the counties and boroughs, he thought he was entitled to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he took the lowest standard of a house and the lowest standard of a lodging, which lowest standard existed in Ireland; and whether he proposed, under cover of the words contained in the clause, to extend the franchise under this lowest standard to the counties of England and Scotland?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he ventured to hope that the Committee would be allowed to adhere to the clause as it stood. The matter stood in this way. The right hon. Gentleman opposite desired to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act hereinafter contained." But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that without those words any Amendment could be moved upon the 1st clause unless it were absolutely to negative a clause which had already been passed. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to have these words inserted because he wished to alter the words "after the passing of this Act." But the right hon. Gentleman had power already to move any Amendment upon those words, or to leave them out altogether if he desired.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that what he had said was that if the clause were passed with those words "after the passing of this Act" in it, it would shut out any Amendment as to the Act coming into operation at any other time; and he had mentioned as an instance the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that no consideration of that kind would arise on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland. The Government

    1499
    could not accept the Amendment; and when the clause was agreed to, the only effect would be that it would prevent the consideration of succeeding Amendments that were contradictory to it. He thought the Government were entitled to know the character of the subsequent Amendments which arose out of this one, because, unless they did so, an Amendment upon the principle of the Bill might be moved such as might cause the measure to be given up. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) virtually asked was that the Government should not adhere to the clause after it was passed if subsequent Amendments were proposed in it. If the Committee did not insert these words the first two lines of the clause would run—
    "A uniform household and lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom."
    He was ready to admit that if they passed those two lines they could not afterwards move anything that would be contradictory to them; but they did not intend to move anything that was to be contradictory to them—namely, that there was to be a uniform household and lodger franchise in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members on the other side of the House did not object to that principle; but, as far as he could see, there was no Amendment on the Paper which could be moved now without the insertion of those words. The right hon. Gentleman, from his point of view, desired that there might be power hereafter to move Amendments that might be contrary to the principle contained in the first two lines of the clause. As he had pointed out, those who had supported the first two lines were entitled to know what Amendments were going to be moved before they gave any implied promise of the kind, because, if the Government assented to these words being placed in front of the clause, they would admit that they were necessary, and they would certainly leave a door open for Amendments of which nothing was at present known. They could not, without knowing what Amendments were intended to be moved, take any course which would imply an approval of subsequent Amendments contrary to the principle of the Bill. That was the
    1500
    whole reason why the Government could not accept these words.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to him to have entirely mistaken the nature of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government did not wish to commit themselves now to the acceptance of any Amendments which would induce the belief that they intended to accept any subsequent Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, almost in the same breath, that the Government would be leaving the door open to the subsequent acceptance of Amendments. Now, those two things were very different. He could perfectly well understand the Government declining to perform any act of any kind that would be held by the Committee to bind them to the subsequent acceptance of any Amendment, specific or otherwise; but the hon. and learned Gentleman went far beyond that when he asked the Committee to support him in practically closing the door against subsequent Amendments, without those Amendments having been fully considered by the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about any Amendment being now in Order which was not inconsistent with the principle of a uniform household and lodger franchise. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had himself an Amendment of the character referred to, which he had not yet put upon the Paper, because he did not wish to anticipate the action of the House prematurely in supposing that they would go as far in regard to the Bill as to reach the Committee stage at all. But, now the House had gone into Committee, he should, of course, in accordance with the understanding he had entered into with the House on the second reading, place on the Paper an Amendment, which he certainly thought was inconsistent with the principle of a uniform household and lodger franchise, in so far as he intended to propose that the representation should be apportioned to the voters in relative proportion to taxation, and that the old Constitutional doctrine, to which he had referred on the second reading—namely, that taxation and representation should proceed pari passu, should receive fair consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put him on one side with great coolness, and told him that he must speak now or for

    1501
    ever after hold his peace. He was perfectly willing, if the Committee wished it, to give them even now some of the reasons for desiring them to adopt the course to which he had referred; but he thought that it would be far more in accordance with the general practice of the House, and also he thought more convenient to the Committee, if he were to defer the making of those observations until he had drafted his Amendment, or proposed a new clause, distinctly raising that issue. The Government apparently wished now to adopt the curious process suggested by the Attorney General of closing the door to any suggestions or Amendments, owing to the fear of the hon. and learned Gentleman that if they left it open they might allow a doubt to remain on any score. He wished to know if the Prime Minister deliberately accepted the statement that had been made, and whether he had finally made up his mind to close the door against any Amendments which did not happen to fit in with preconceived ideas, and which were to take effect in Clause 2? He would certainly accept the Prime Minister's statement in preference to the apparent qualification of it which his own Legal Adviser suggested he intended to make. What was the effect of the decision at which the Government had arrived? It was this. They were told that on Clause 2 they were to debate every conceivable Amendment or suggestion any hon. Member might desire to propound at any subsequent stage of their proceedings. Was that a course calculated to save time? Reference had been made to the important proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey); but they were told in substance by the Attorney General that the discussion upon that proposal must be raised on Clause 2, or not at all. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): I never said so.] He (Mr. J. Lowther) was glad that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he thought it was an error which was generally shared by the Committee. He was glad that he had been mistaken, for the very candid complacency with which the Prime Minister had received his remarks had certainly led him to fear that there was some such idea in his mind. He was glad to find that if there had been it had been given up.
    1502
    What was the objection to the words proposed by his right hon. Friend? His right hon. Friend simply proposed to carry out what it was now evident were the intentions of the Government. The Government apparently, after the disclaimer just interjected, did not desire to tie the hands of the Committee in order to prevent them from considering subsequent Amendments upon their merits. That being the case, he was at a loss to understand what objection there could be to the acceptance of these words. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) deprecated the making of vague speeches or second reading speeches, as he called them. Certainly, the speech of the hon. Member was not vague, although whether it might not more appropriately be delivered on the second reading was a matter he would not now go into. He would only say that he did not wish his own few remarks to be either vague, or to partake of the character of second reading speeches. He wished it to be understood that his point was simply this—that the Committee should be placed in a position by the Government to deal with any subsequent Amendment which might be ruled by the Chair to be legitimately in Order, and which might be put for the acceptance of the Committee. On the other hand, the Government wished to preclude the Committee from going into subjects which they had a perfect right to deal with. He hoped the Government would make it clear what the interpretation was which was placed upon the clause. From what the Prime Minister had stated, it might be inferred that, unless his right hon. Friend's words were accepted, it would be impossible to move Amendments if the clause were agreed to; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given some reason to hope that he (Mr. J. Lowther) was mistaken.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I really did think that the position was perfectly clear to all hon. Members who are acquainted with the character of the proceedings of the House in Committee. The Committee have riot yet been permitted to consider what are to be the enactments of the clause. When the Committee are allowed to come to the words of the clause they will reject them, or will modify them, or will adopt them as they think fit; but what we are now

    1503
    dealing with is a preliminary Motion, which goes to provide that after we have considered them, after we have rejected, modified, or adopted them, there should he no result from our action at all; but that the clause should be still liable to be reversed on subsequent consideration. It is really a question whether u preliminary Motion of this kind is, by anticipation, to nullify—not to stereotype anything that has happend—but to nullify the work we are about to do. The right hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are endeavouring to shut the door. Whenever we adopt any proposal in Committee, we shut out something else; and the right hon. Gentleman asks us now to accompany our conclusion by saying that we may accept something else.
    SIR JOHN HAYwished to put u question to the hon. and learned Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the remarks he had made just now, had omitted the word "lodger." He had spoken of a uniform household suffrage as being necessary; but the word "lodger" had been omitted. The word was in the Bill itself, but there was no provision for a uniform lodger franchise; and he confessed he viewed with some dismay the effect which the proposal might produce in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be aware that the provision for Scotland was different from what it was for Ireland and England; and it appeared to him (Sir John Hay) that to pass the clause as it stood now, and to extend to the Scotch counties a lodger franchise in the Scotch boroughs, would open the door to all the evils which had been so strongly repudiated in regard to fagot votes in Scotland. He would ask every Scotch Member if he did not agree with him that if the present proposal really amounted to the extension of the lodger franchise in the Scotch boroughs to the counties all the evils of fagot voting would be again reestablished in Scotland? He had noticed that the hon. and learned Attorney General had omitted, in the course of his remarks, the word "lodger." He had no doubt that it was by accident, but it was omitted in two or three instances; and instead of quoting the lodger clause the hon. and learned Gentleman only wont as far as the household franchise. He was, therefore, desirous of ascertaining
    1504
    whether there was to be any change in the lodger franchise, or whether it was to be uniform both in regard to counties and boroughs. He awaited the answer with some interest.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if he had omitted the word "lodger" the omission was altogether unintentional. The Prime Minister had mentioned it over and over again, and ample opportunities would be afforded for discussing the lodger question in connection with the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman even if the words of this Amendment were not inserted in the clause.
    MR. SALTsaid, he thought the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire was necessary, having regard to the Bill itself. There was one point upon which he wished to ask for a definition. In Clause 7, upon page 3 of the Bill, a definition, of the household and lodger qualification and other franchises, together with the application relating thereto, was given. Well, the definition of lodger and household qualification was taken from certain Acts relating to England, Scotland, and Ireland, which differed in each case. He did not know whether he was mistaken; but he wished to know whether it would not be necessary to insert some qualifying words in order to explain the word "uniform?" The Amendment of his right hon. Friend was merely a technical one, which would not take five minutes to discuss, seeing that its object was simply to make the Bill intelligible and complete. He certainly thought that the Amendment was necessary, unless the lodger franchise, in all parts of the United Kingdom, was made absolutely identical.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that even from the point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) the insertion of these words was altogether unnecessary.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he had entertained the hope that the Government would have accepted the Amendment; and he could not help feeling a suspicion that there was some reason for refusing to accept it. It was idle for the Prime Minister to say that anything contained in the words of the Amendment would virtually anticipate concessions. The words themselves were nothing but pure matter of formality, and it would be

    1505
    perfectly easy to insert them and leave the franchise as it was. There could be no reason why this simple and harmless Amendment should not be accepted by the Government in order, at any rate, to prevent hereafter any doubt arising as to whether any particular Amendment would be in Order or not. Surely, the Prime Minister had got at his back sufficient strength and numbers to enable him to feel sure as to what he could do in regard to the Bill; and the least that could be expected of him was a generous action in order to prevent the possibility of any doubt arising whether an Amendment could be moved or not. The Amendment itself consisted of plain and simple words which were usually put in in the drafting of a Bill. If the Committee were to discuss the Bill with temper and in a spirit of conciliation, it was highly desirable that an Amendment so simple and harmless as this should be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he also supported the Amendment, and wished to point out that, as the Bill was at present drawn, the provisions of one clause were contradictory to those of another, and unless full opportunity were afforded for the insertion of subsequent Amendments there would be great doubt as to the position in which the counties would be placed.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, a statement had been made that the Bill, as far it went, made no provision for giving effect to a uniform lodger franchise. The Committee certainly expected an answer to that statement; and when they came to the words "lodger franchise" it would be a proper time for inserting any qualifying words to meet the case which had been mentioned by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay). Inconveniences would immediately arise, because they would have passed words declaring that a uniform household and lodger franchise should be established, without establishing any machinery for enabling lodgers to come upon the Register. As he understood the Attorney General, some words might be inserted qualifying the uniformity of the lodger franchise. But, surely, that would be a most inconvenient and most indecorous course, because the clause would have to run somewhat in this way—"A uniform household and
    1506
    a quasi-uniform lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom." Surely, it would be a far better course to adopt the words of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, which were not unusual in Acts of Parliament. The present discussion would then cease, and the Committee would proceed to the consideration of the rest of the clause.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONwished to put a Question to the Chairman upon a point of Order. His hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had pointed out that the wording of Clause 6 was inconsistent with that of the present clause. The words of the present clause were—
    "A uniform household and lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties throughout the United Kingdom."
    Clause 6 modified that provision, and specified that the definition of household and lodger franchise should be in accordance with enactments upon those questions concerning the Three Kingdoms. He wished to ask the Chairman whether the 6th clause would be in Order, seeing that it materially modified the words and meaning of the clause now under discussion? Certainly, if Clause 6 were not out of Order, it would be competent for hon. Members to move Amendments modifying the provisions of Clause 2.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)wished to say, on the point of Order, that Clause 6 had no reference whatever to uniformity of franchise, but simply enacted that—
    "A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough."
    As there was nothing in a county which enabled a man to vote for a borough, so, also, it was provided that no voter should vote for a county in respect of occupation of property in a borough.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had intended to refer to Clause 7, and not to Clause 6.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked the Chairman if he adopted the definition of uniformity implied by the Attorney General, because the whole discussion would turn upon what was uniform within the meaning of the clause?
    THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the hypothetical ease put to me by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), I can only say that the question would be one for the Committee to decide, and not for the Chair.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had only put it in reference to the power of moving Amendments.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of Order, but a matter for the Committee itself to decide. It is not a point of Order at all.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was anxious to know what the Committee were really doing? The insertion of the words moved by the right hon. Gentleman was a matter of the highest importance. The Bill had been drafted in a clumsy manner, and the Government were now pursuing a course which could only result in the packing together of ideas that ought to be kept perfectly distinct. In his opinion, there ought to be a separate clause for household franchise and another for lodger franchise. It could not be imagined that both household and lodger franchise were uniform. There seemed to him to be an anxiety to draft the Bill so that it would upset the real meaning of the English language and make things absolutely unintelligible. Every hon. Member knew that household and lodger franchise were not uniform, but were based on different considerations and different qualifications. There appeared to be a wish on the part of the Government to deceive the Committee as to their object, and to introduce words into the clause without any proper consideration of their meaning, using their mechanical majority to enforce anything and everything. It was very clumsy drafting indeed to introduce the word "uniform" into the clause at all, because there was no such thing in existence as uniform household and lodger franchise. The household and lodger franchise were not uniform, and were not intended to be uniform. What was intended was that there should be some uniformity between household franchise in boroughs and counties and between lodger franchise in boroughs and counties; but to speak of a uniform household and lodger franchise was perfectly ridiculous, and the Judges hereafter would be very much puzzled to know what was meant by the expression "uni-
    1508
    form household and lodger franchise." The difficulty resulted entirely from a bad habit of bringing proposals together in concentrated language, and in comparing things that ought to be kept perfectly distinct. It was very easy to see that the Committee were starting on this long and protracted inquiry with a disposition on the part of the Government to drive the Bill through, by means of their mechanical majority, at a pace which Members on that side of the House would not stand. He was glad to see the Lord Advocate in his place, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be prepared to answer the Question which had been put by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay).
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that there was any great danger of the Bill being driven through the House at an improper speed, seeing that they had already been engaged for an hour in discussing an Amendment which the Attorney General told them was of no practical importance or necessity whatever. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport would be aware that they had been discussing an Amendment which was not yet before them, and which he had no doubt they would discuss when the proper time arrived. He quite agreed with and endorsed the opinion which had been given by the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) that the Amendment was of no practical importance or necessity. The clauses of an Act of Parliament were always to be read with reference to one another, and whatever was passed subsequently would be taken into consideration by the Judges, who would interpret the Act by reading the whole of its provisions together. If the Committee were satisfied that these words were not necessary, was it worth while to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon them? If, however, there was a desire to take the sense of the Committee upon these words, why not go to a Division at once, and then, when they had decided the not very important question now before them, they would be able with greater advantage to enter upon the more important subjects which were involved in subsequent Amend-

    1509
    ments? That would be a more businesslike mode of proceeding. He desired that the Bill should be properly considered, but in a business-like fashion. They had now discussed the present Amendment for a long time, and he wished them to settle it at once.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he had not intended to address the Committee on this Amendment; indeed, he thought they were about to divide when his noble Friend rose to put a Question to the Chair. But he could not allow the remark, that the matter was confessedly of little importance, to pass without contradiction. It was not confessedly of little importance. But the question was, whether, by allowing the language of the Bill to remain as it then stood, discussion upon some points might not afterwards be burked? It might be that some hon. Members thought that the only principle affirmed by the Bill was that there should be an extension of the franchise. If the clause were drawn in the ordinary form, and not, as it appeared to him, with settled care to prevent discussion hereafter, it would not have been necessary to raise this question; but it was because it had not been so drawn that an attempt was made to obtain a ruling from the Chair. There appeared reason to apprehend that Amendments might be ruled out of Order, not because they were inconsistent with the principle of the Bill—the Prime Minister knew that—but because they were inconsistent with the word "uniform," whatever it might mean. Some hon. Members, while willing that the lodger franchise should be extended to the counties, believed that it would be necessary to adopt machinery proper to that particular franchise; but they feared that the moment the word "uniform." became part of the clause it would render any modification impossible. But for the ruling of the Chair, it might have been argued that, inasmuch as the word "uniform" had been passed, no Amendment that interfered with the supposed uniformity was admissable. Had it been clear from the first that the Committee would be allowed to discuss Amendments interfering with the uniformity of the subject, then he agreed that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend might have been unnecessary; but it was because they thought it was otherwise that the Amendment had been proposed.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 263: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 85.)
    MR. CUBITTsaid, he inferred, from the remarks made just now by the Prime Minister to his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to the effect that the lodger franchise was the very essence of the Bill, that he could not hope for the right hon. Gentleman's support to the Amendment he was about to move, which was to leave out from the first line of Clause 2 the word "uniform." But, whatever the Government might consider to be the essence of the Bill, he believed the Prime Minister would concede that the House, in consenting to its second reading, did not go any further than this—that they agreed to establish a household franchise in counties similar to that existing in boroughs. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, would deem it a fair subject for consideration whether that household franchise in counties and boroughs should be necessarily absolutely uniform. Before the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 there was an absolute and positive separation between the county and the borough franchises; the county franchise being simply an owner's franchise, and the borough franchise being simply an occupation franchise, the qualification in both cases having been originally very low. But the Act of 1832, with regard to boroughs, established a £10 occupation franchise; but with regard to the county franchise a much more serious step was taken. The Government included in it another qualification, which he might call a sort of hybrid modification between the freeholder and occupier; they proposed to include copyholders and leaseholders in the county franchise. The Chandos Clause provided that tenants at £50 a-year should be included in the county franchise. From the moment the occupation franchise was extended to counties—from that day there had been constant proposals to lower the franchise. From £50, which was the franchise of the Act of 1832, they had gone to the present franchise fixed by the Act of 1867 at a £12 rating, and now it seemed they had arrived at household franchise. It was interesting to think how fast they went in matters of this kind. A great

    1511
    change had taken, place since his Friend and former Colleague (Mr. Briscoe) was returned to that House. That Gentleman had described to him the manner in which his first election was conducted. He said that all the freeholders of the county of Surrey went down to vote at Guildford; that they went there in postchaises; that two only could travel in a chaise, and that they drank only port. The cost of all that came out of his hon. Friend's pocket; and the story of his election would show how rapidly they had since travelled, and though they had levelled many mountains and filled up many chasms, he feared they might now reach an arid plain on which there was neither water nor shade. If the Bill passed in its present form, the question must soon arise whether they had not reached such a degree of uniformity between the county and the borough franchise as would make it impossible to maintain the distinction that was left? It seemed to him that the lodger and service franchise had been unnecessarily introduced into the counties for the purpose of keeping up this uniformity. The experiment of the lodger franchise had, as he believed he could show, been from one point of view a complete failure. Was it, then, necessary to take these two franchises into the counties? And if they were introduced, could they put a stop to freeholders in boroughs voting for the county? But these questions imported a difficulty already alluded to. They must not look at this Bill alone as about to pass into law; they must remember that there was a larger Bill behind it. However, he asked, what was to be the position of freeholders in boroughs under the Bill? As the Committee would know, certain places in the Kingdom were called counties of cities, in some of which—not in all—freeholders had the right of voting for the county. They were Lichfield, Bristol, Exeter, Norwich, Nottingham, Haverfordwest, and Berwick-on-Tweed. East Stafford, with a population of 138,439, and an electorate of 11,728, included four boroughs—Lichfield, Tamworth, Walsall, and Wednesbury—in respect of which, and putting aside for one moment how many of these would be disfranchised by the Redistribution Bill, there would be this anomaly, that the freemen of three of the boroughs would continue to
    1512
    vote for the county, while the freeholders of Lichfield would vote for the city. Again, under the Bill, Bristol and West Gloucester would have an identical franchise, the only difference between the constituencies being that a certain number of freemen would continue to vote for the city and none for the county. He believed the Committee would see that the distinction between the county and borough franchises could not be maintained if the Bill became law. Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister had just told them was the essence of the Bill, some would say this was a step towards the establishment of electoral districts. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway cheered that statement; but he could assure him that this was not the opinion of the Prime Minister nor of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, as would appear from what they had stated in that House. The right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, said—
    "I am not personally at all favourable to what is called the system of electoral districts, or to the adoption of any pure population scale. I cannot pretend to have the fear and horror which some people have with regard to the consequences of electoral districts. My objection is a very simple and would be a practical one. In the first place, electoral districts would involve a great deal of unnecessary displacement and disturbance of traditions, which, I think, you ought to respect. But my second objection is—and I regard it as a very important one—that I do not believe that public opinion at all requires it, and I doubt whether it would warrant it. Next, I should say that in a sound measure of redistribution the distinction between town and country, known to electoral law as borough and shire, ought to be maintained. Although our franchise is nearly identical, that is not the question. The question is, whether there is not in pursuits and associations, and in social circumstances, a difference between town and country, between borough and shire, which it is expedient, becoming, and useful to maintain? "—(3 Hansard, [285] 129.)
    Such was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced the Bill; and it likewise received the assent of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, who, on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, expressed himself thus—
    "Speaking for myself, I may say that if I believed this Franchise Bill was introduced morely to prepare the way for a reconstruction which would involve the destruction of the separate political existence of all but the largest cities and counties, and the division of

    1513
    political power between the inhabitants of the great cities and the rural populations scattered over areas of great extent—if I believed this, and that an attempt was to be made to introduce some uniform system, such as that of equal electoral districts, then I should not be prepared to support this Bill,"
    Now, comparing these statements of the Prime Minister and the noble Marquess with what he had endeavoured to show—namely, the almost complete identity of franchise contained in the Bill—it seemed to him that they were coming to electoral districts of wide area and sparse population in counties, and of small area and dense population in boroughs. Then they had this, that the amount of representation would vary as the distance from the seat of Government. He thought this was a fair description of the proposal of the Bill, and that the distinction between the county and borough in future would have no other existence than in their old historic names. He came now to the question as to whether it was necessary to include a lodger franchise in the Bill in order to get uniformity. He believed he should be able to show that the lodger franchise, as he had already stated, would be a failure. But, first of all, a word or two as to the Party bearing of the matter. As far as he knew, nothing had been proved definitely as to the Party character of the lodger franchise; but, wherever it had been exercised, it had probably gone to increase the majority rather than to alter the opinion of the constituency.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYrose to Order. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in the observations he was then making with respect to the lodger franchise?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was not prepared to rule that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order.
    MR. CUBITT: The lodger franchise came before the House originally as one of those fancy franchises, many of which, the Prime Minister in his speech said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had killed with a phrase; but it had been so favoured, that the right hon. Gentleman included it as an occupation franchise under the new borough franchise. It was proposed, in 1859, by Mr. Disraeli, and it had been proposed in various Reform Bills brought before the House and generally received with
    1514
    favour; the discussions which took place upon it were not as to whether the lodger franchise should be allowed, but as to the restrictions to be placed upon it, and as to how the claims under it were to be made. Mr. Disraeli, on the second reading of Lord John Russell's Reform Bill of 1860, spoke with favour of the lodger franchise, which was not included in it. In the same year, Sir George Lewis said—
    "The persons in lodging-houses who would obtain the franchise would belong mostly to the working classes—persons flitting about from one place to another, and less fitted, in many respects, for the exercise of the franchise than householders subject to residence and paying rates."—[3 Hansard, [157] 2180.]
    So the question of the lodger franchise went on, until Mr. Disraeli introduced it, in 1867, with the words—"There is no doubt a wish on both sides to establish this franchise." In that year, the lodger franchise was established without any debate as to principle, but simply upon debated Amendments. He (Mr. Cubitt) asked the Committee to consider what the result of that franchise had been, and he thought it would rather startle some hon. Members to hear that in the whole of the borough constituencies of England, which contained more than 1,500,000 electors, there were only 29,918 lodgers on the Register. In Scotland, according to the Return of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), there were 323 lodgers; 173 in Glasgow, out of 63,716 electors; and 50 in Edinburgh, where there was an electorate of 28,931. In Ireland, there were 1,213 lodgers, 1,082 of whom were in Dublin, where there were 13,580 electors. Returning to the lodger franchise in England, he found what he believed would create surprise—that was to say, that of the 21,918 lodgers on the Register, nearly 16,000, or three-fourths of the entire number, were in the Metropolitan districts; and in looking through the Returns relating to the other great towns he found that the number of lodgers on the Register was almost ridiculous, as would be seen by the following table:—

    Liverpool

    379

    Lodgers,

    63,436

    Electors.

    Manchester

    115

    Lodgers,

    52,831

    Electors.

    Leeds

    120

    Lodgers,

    50,675

    Electors.

    Birmingham

    72

    Lodgers,

    63,221

    Electors.

    In the other towns, with the exception of Devonport, where there were 430

    1515
    lodgers and an electorate of 5,421, the number of lodgers did not reach 200. The largest number of lodgers on the Register in the Metropolitan area were in Westminster, and he thought he could give a good reason why the franchise had been chiefly exercised there. In 1865 there took place a great Party conflict in the City of Westminster, and it was the duty of the political associations to put as many lodgers on the Register as possible. The lodger franchise was, in short, an agent's franchise, and it was almost impossible for a lodger to get on the Register without the assistance of a political agent. The Prime Minister, on the 12th of March, 1866, in introducing his Reform Bill, said—
    "Now, I can give no information, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give any in 1859, as to the number of persons who would, perhaps, be enfranchised under the title of lodgers; but this I may say, that, in the first place, my firm belief is that it will be a small one; and, in the second place, my firm belief likewise is that this what I now speak of is a middle class rather than a lower class enfranchisement. The operation of claiming, and of claiming too, year by year, is one that must be very burdensome to working men; whereas young men, such as clerks and men of business, familiar with the use of pen and ink, if educated and intelligent persons, and desirous of obtaining the franchise, will estimate the trouble far more lightly. We calculate, there fore, on a certain amount of middle class enfranchisement by the provision I have de scribed; but I should be misleading the House were I to pretend to entertain the opinion that any large number of the working class, or any very large number even of the middle class, will come upon the Register by virtue of that which we term a lodger franchise."—(3 Hansard, [182] 47–8.)
    That was the opinion of the Prime Minister in 1866, and an examination of the Return of the hon. Member for Salford would show that, to a certain extent, it was a correct opinion. He repeated that the lodger franchise was an agent's franchise. It had been fenced round with many restrictions, which made the exercise of it exceedingly difficult. There were extant no less than five forms of claim in connection with it—namely, a new lodger form of claim and declaration; an old lodger form of claim and declaration; a form for new and old lodger as joint tenants; and a form for successive occupation. Those forms required the signature of the claimant and the signature of a witness, which in itself had been a great incentive to forgery, and a good deal
    1516
    had gone on in connection with the lodger franchise, which had at last been the cause of Parliamentary interference. The Committee would remember the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act of 1870 which was brought in by Mr. Martin, the then Member for Cambridge, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman the present Head of the Local Government Board. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee; and hence arose the difficulty that very little record remained of what was said at the time—the debates on the clauses of the Bill were not reported. However, the Act dealt with the lodger franchise, and it contained a penal clause with regard to lodgers which it was important the Committee should bear in mind, as throwing considerable light on the working of this franchise. The clause inflicted fine and imprisonment for not exceeding one year for making false claims. Now, Parliament had always been unwilling to enact franchise penalties without grave consideration; and therefore it would be clear to the Committee, from this clause having found its way into the Statute Book, that the lodger franchise was open to some grave drawbacks. Were it not so, the provision in the Act he was quoting would not have been passed; although he might add that since that event took place the evils in connection with lodger franchise claims had not been cured. The registration, as a matter of fact, came on at a time of the year when nearly all the Members of that House were taking their holidays, and thus the reports of what occurred in the Registration Courts did not come before them. If they did, hon. Members would see that the time of the Revising Barristers was taken up with the settlement of fraudulent lodger claims. One or two cases had also been before the Police Courts, and a conviction had taken place at the Central Criminal Court. And yet such a point had been reached that they were asked to look upon the lodger franchise as a model franchise. Again, they had heard a great deal of the redistribution of seats which was to follow the passing of this Bill; but they had not heard much about the third Bill which the Prime Minister announced, and it was that Bill to which he now desired to direct the attention of the Committee. In his introduction of the present measure the

    1517
    Prime Minister made a statement to the House, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would read—
    "Sir," said the right hon. Gentleman, "as to registration, all I will say is this—that our Bill is framed with the intention of preparing a state of things in which the whole occupation franchise, which, I believe, will be about five-sixths of the franchise, shall be a self-acting franchise, and the labour, anxiety, and expense connected with proof of title, which is, after all, according to our view, an affair of the public and the State rather than of the individual, will, I trust, be got rid of. But, at the same time, our Bill is not a complete Bill in that vital respect, and we look to the introduction of another Bill for the purpose; with this we shall be prepared immediately when the House has supplied us with the basis on which it wishes us to proceed."—(3 Hansard, [285] 124.)
    Now, he would ask the Prime Minister, or the Attorney General, how it was proposed to make the lodger and service franchise a self-acting franchise? If no answer could be returned to that question, he thought they were entitled to ask why the Bill in its present form had been placed on the Table? He had consulted many agents and Gentlemen in that House upon the subject, and they had failed to tell him how this franchise could be made self-acting. He would refer to Clause 9 of the Bill, to which attention had been called on the second reading, and which, in his opinion, was of importance inasmuch as it showed, so to speak, which way the wind was blowing. The clause was, in part, as follows:—
    "In Scotland, Section fifteen of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall apply to counties as well as burghs, and in the application thereof the word tenant shall include any inhabitant occupier within the meaning of this Act, and it shall he the duty of every person rated in respect of any lands and heritages which comprise any dwelling-house when applied to by the assessor to give an accurate written list of the names and designations of all men other than himself, being inhabitant occupiers of any dwelling-house forming part of such lands and heritages, and if he fail to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and the proviso in Section two of the Act for the Valuations of Lands and Heritages in Scotland, passed in the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, Chapter ninety-one, shall be repealed."
    And the clause subsequently provided, with regard to England and Ireland, that—
    "If any overseer makes default in giving such notice as last aforesaid, or any person rated
    1518
    or rateable as aforesaid, makes default in furnishing the list so required to be furnished by him, such overseer or person shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
    Now, if it were necessary to introduce the new penalties provided in that clause, he thought it not unfair to say that under the so-called self-acting Registration Bill there would be many summonses before the Police Magistrates, and that, instead of subscriptions to Registration Societies, there would be penalties for misdemeanours. He would make no apology for having detained the Committee at length upon this important question, because he considered it necessary that it should be discussed fully before the Bill passed into law. In conclusion, he would ask Her Majesty's Government how they could arrive at uniformity of franchise in boroughs and counties without making absolute the identity between them, and whether they did not propose to introduce the lodger and service franchises into counties for the simple purpose of enabling them to establish electoral districts?
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, leave out "uniform."—(Mr. Cubitt.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that this question is one of considerable importance, and that I have described it as the essence of the Bill. I appreciate, then, the importance of the Amendment, the adoption of which would alter the Bill in its very essence. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that because the Amendment is important it was necessary to handle it at very considerable length. ["Oh!"] That is what he himself said. But I do believe, although the Amendment is important, that the considerations connected with it are of a simple character. I decline to go into the question of the 9th clause of the Bill, for it is a most inconvenient method of dealing with a Bill to discuss any clause other than that with which the Amendment may deal. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated his case very fairly, and he has not at all disguised the feeling in his mind that an error was committed when the occupa-

    1519
    tion franchise was introduced in 1832, and which was found to work in such a way that a large extension of that franchise was made in 1867. Having done so much, we have a large number of persons who are not included in the occupation franchise of the counties. Yet we have included them in the boroughs, and have had experience of their capacity to exercise the franchise with benefit to the country. The question now is, whether, having admitted the principle of the occupation franchise, having subsequently extended it, having reached a point at which a gross anomaly exists, and there being no suspicion of unfitness attaching to the parties, we can stop there? We think not. There is, I think, a great mistake pervading the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him in desiring to maintain the distinction between shire and borough in our representative system; but I think he is wrong in supposing that that distinction rests mainly upon distinctions of franchise. He puts this question at the close of his speech—"Will you, after establishing a uniform occupation franchise in boroughs and towns, be able to maintain any distinction between the franchise in counties and the franchise in boroughs? "In the first place, I see no reason why that distinction should not be maintained. Looking at the spirit of this country and of this Parliament, it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman is scarcely justified in his remarks as to the rapidity with which changes of this kind go forward. I regard the period of 20 years that has passed as one of probation, and I say, on the contrary, that these changes were adopted very deliberately and after full experience. But I do not see any reason to believe that a uniform occupation franchise would destroy the distinction between counties and boroughs, which rests upon the property qualification in counties. But, even if you did so, still, I say, you would not destroy of necessity the distinction between borough and shire, because it does not rest so much on what disqualifies a man as on the man himself. It is in the difference of pursuits and habits of life, the different conditions on which property is held, the differences between class and class, upon which, in my opinion, the distinction rests, more than upon any artificial con-
    1520
    ditions created by the Legislature, and I know not why these should not be for a long time, or permanently, maintained as the distinction between counties and boroughs in our representative system. We are dealing with two classes of people whom we are going to enfranchise. We are dealing with the artizans now scattered over the counties who form the bulk of our borough constituencies, and with whose exercise of their power yon are satisfied. We have also, as has been observed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth to-day, had quite sufficient test and specimen of the action of the peasantry under the present Parliamentary franchise to know that we are perfectly safe in their emancipation. And I must say there are questions connected with the condition of the rural labouring population, such as have recently been discussed by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), with regard to which I may say that if it be not a blot, yet it is a defect, in our representative system that those persons have not a larger influence than they have in this House for the representation of their peculiar interests. The lodgers in the Metropolis and in other great towns are mainly of the labouring class. In the counties they will consist in a much larger proportion of persons not belonging to the labouring class, but to a class whose feelings are much more associated with the Party opposite in political principles than they are with the feelings of those who sit on these Benches; and, therefore, it is rather hard that objection to the extension of the lodger franchise should come from Gentlemen opposite. This matter lies really at the root of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had shown there was some modification of uniformity which it is desirable to introduce there would have been something to argue about. But he has not attempted to do anything of the kind. He has met us with objections of the most vague and general kind—objections which go against the occupation franchise in counties root and branch. His speech, if he will allow me to say so, was a speech against the fundamental provisions of the Bill; and, certainly, I do not think that any of those who have voted for the Bill in its previous stages will be inclined to admit the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to point out that the lodger franchise was of great importance in Ireland, where the artizans chiefly resided in lodgings. It was desirable, if the lodger franchise were extended over the whole of Ireland, that the provisions with regard to it should be the same as in England. In England the lodger franchise could be obtained by written application; whereas, in Ireland, personal application was required, which had prevented many persons desirous of exercising the franchise being placed on the Register. There would be considerable disappointment in Ireland unless that assimilation took place, and he trusted that the Prime Minister would see that the obstruction he had mentioned was removed.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, appeared to suppose that under this Bill there would be instituted uniformity of franchise, and it was with some regret that he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) heard the same term used by the Attorney General. He thought that some error might be avoided if during those discussions they did not speak of uniformity of franchise, because the Bill proposed nothing of the sort. When this Bill passed there would be four different franchises in the boroughs and seven in the counties, and he thought that state of things ought to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. Although he was strongly in favour of uniformity of franchise, after the appeal of the Prime Minister he did not intend to propose any Amendment of that character. The reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the lodger franchise, taken in connection with his remarks on registration, pointed out that the remedy for the failure of the lodger franchise was to be found in an alteration in the Law of Registration. He hoped these words would be retained by the Committee.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the present consideration of this measure showed how completely the Committee were inconvenienced by the absence of any statement by the Government as to the mode in which they intended to proceed in regard to redistribution. His right hon. Friend objected to this uniformity in counties, and regarded that as a necessary step to electoral districts; but the Prime Minister differed from that altogether, and the right hon. Gentleman made an essential distinction between
    1522
    shire and borough. But that essential difference existed, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in the very nature of the men who dwelt in shire and borough. In the counties there were men brought up under different conditions, and who constituted a separate body from the borough electors. That might be true if they could find a county which was essentially rural; but the right hon. Gentleman had said that a great number of places would under the operation of this Bill become virtually urban districts, and they knew it would be so. It, therefore, came to this—that the right hon. Gentlemen said he wished to maintain this distinction between county and borough, and that the only mode of preserving that distinction was by preserving a distinction between the character of the constituencies of the counties and boroughs. With respect to the question of the lodger franchise, the Prime Minister had assured them that it would noble the working classes who would come in, in the counties, under the lodger franchise. But the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said he sincerely trusted that the lodger franchise would be extended to the counties in Ireland, because that would bring upon the Register a great number of artizans and labourers in Ireland. Then they had an hon. Gentleman opposite, one of the foremost supporters of the extension of this measure to Ireland, assigning opposite reasons to arrive at the same conclusion. The Prime Minister took no note of the important point submitted by his right hon. Friend, who asked how were the lodgers under this Bill to be brought on the Register? To that question the right hon. Gentleman gave no answer, or, at best, it was a negative answer—namely, that the point was to be considered under Clause 9. Clause 9 was a clause of penalties, and it was material that the Committee should not in a hasty manner assent to something in Clause 2 which might result in the imposition of serious penalties under Clause 9. Therefore, from that point of view alone, he thought his right hon. Friend had done well to call attention now to the very important question of how the lodgers were to be brought upon the Register in the counties; and he was sorry he had not received any explanation on the part of the Government.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the answer was that that question, did not properly arise under this clause, and the Government would be perfectly ready to deal with it when it arose. But he might state now that the county lodgers would be put on the Register in the same way as in boroughs. The number of lodgers in counties was very small.
    MR. DAWSONasked whether lodgers in Ireland would come on the Register in the same way as lodgers in England?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied, that that would be arranged afterwards.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it appeared from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that very few lodgers would come in for the franchise, because they would come on the Register in the same way in counties as in boroughs; but his right hon. Friend had shown that in respect to the generality of boroughs very few lodgers had hitherto come on the Register.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the Government had not at all explained the necessity of the word "uniform." According to the Prime Minister it was not part of the scheme that the franchise in the county and borough should be uniform. There were different classes of franchise existing; but why was it necessary that the Committee should pledge themselves, before they had considered how the lodger franchise and the other franchises were to work in the counties to which they had not yet been applied, by the word "uniform" to identity between county and borough? That seemed to him to be taking an unnecessary stop in the direction of electoral districts, which it was said the Government did not propose to advocate, and with respect to which they felt great difficulty, because they hoard such different views from different Gentlemen, and because the Bill before them did not disclose the whole scheme. They wanted to know why this word "uniform" was put in, in order that they might feel sure that it meant something?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that in respect to the household franchise and the lodger franchise, the Government did intend to make the Bill uniform. Therefore, it was a question of enactment, and as they proceeded they should enact what they meant.
    MR. SALTsaid, there was a point which he wished to raise distinctly now, and which he should be sorry to leave unnoticed. This word "uniform" was to a very great extent the essence of the Bill itself, and no doubt it was extremely captivating to many hon. Members. It was an idea put forward with much plausibility, and not without reason, that as a householder in one constituency had a vote, a householder in another constituency should also have a vote; and that was the simple meaning of the Bill as it stood. With regard to what the Committee wore now discussing, the words under consideration were not uniform franchise in a general sense, but uniform household franchise. The point he wished to raise, and which had not been raised in the present discussion, was this—and it was a point of principle which he thought should not be lost sight of—this Bill was brought forward as a very complete Bill to do one thing—namely to establish uniform household franchise, and that had frequently been said to be the cause of the popularity and the strong support which the Bill had received; but, if that was so, why during the last 50 years in which Reforms Bills had been discussed, had there never been a uniform lodger franchise proposed? He thought there was a reason for this. He asked himself the reason why all the statesmen who had brought forward Bills on the responsibility of the Government on former occasions, had for years maintained a marked difference between the household franchise in the boroughs and in the counties? For this reason. It was because they wanted to create a variety of constituencies and a variety of representation. The effect of this Bill was not merely to create a uniform franchise throughout the country, but to create a uniform household franchise without bringing forward any means by which the variety of constituencies and of representation might be maintained. He believed that to be a matter of the greatest importance. To illustrate what he meant he would take some other franchise than the household or the lodger franchise. They might have taken a uniform household franchise of £25; but everybody would have said, very truly, that would be absurd and monstrous; but it was just as absurd and monstrous to create a uniform

    1525
    franchise in one way as in another. That seemed to him to be the fault of the Bill, not that it did not do what it professed to do, but that it did it without replacing a system which had always been supported by statesmen who had dealt with the question of the franchise. Then they were told that the variety of constituents would be retained by the variety of inhabitants living in the country and in the towns; but as the Bill at present stood a large number of the inhabitants in the counties would be swamped by town constituencies. As soon as they came to mere household franchise they not only created uniformity, but they also destroyed one of the main things upon which it was now said they were to depend for a variety of representation. His main difficulty about this Bill was that it did not replace that essential diversity between the household franchise in the counties and in the boroughs. Then they were also told, with considerable truth, that the individual in the county had as legal a claim to the franchise as the individual in the town. What they had to consider was how they could get a better representation returned to the House of Commons.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment was, no doubt, one of great importance; but he wished if possible to elicit a little more information with regard to it. The Prime Minister had said truly that this word "uniform" was necessary, because uniformity was the essence of the Bill. It was perfectly clear that the Government proposed a uniform franchise in counties and in boroughs. Uniformity applied to the household and the lodger claim, only it did not touch any other franchise. The Government proposed, then, that the household and lodger franchise should be uniform in counties and boroughs—that was, that all the incidents of the household franchise in the counties should apply to the boroughs, and all the incidents of the franchise in the boroughs should apply to the counties. He quite understood that; but then the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have some alternative scheme which at present he did not understand. The right hon. Gentleman and those who supported him appeared to dissent from the idea of uniformity in the county and the borough; but then they did not state what the alter-
    1526
    native scheme was which they would propose. He had listened carefully to the speeches in support of the Amendment; but he had not been able to arrive at an understanding of what was proposed by it. Until he heard some clearer definition of what the Amendment was to lead to, he should be inclined to prefer the more simple plan of the Government. This Amendment went to the vitality of the Bill, and those who were not prepared to accept the simple scheme of the Government ought at least to state what they meant to do.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not know what the proposal of his hon. Friends might be; but his pro position was to get rid of the Bill altogether, for a more objectionable Bill it had never been his misfortune to see. This was the first time he had addressed the House upon this Bill; but he had addressed the House on several other Reform Bills, which were all as unpopular as this was. The Prime Minister had told them that this Amendment went to the root and principle of the measure, and he supported the Bill upon the idea that it was necessary to extend the operation of the existing franchise. He should like to ask the Prime Minister how long that had been his idea, and how it was that it was only now that he had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to bring in such a Bill, and how it was that he allowed the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to come down last year with a proposal——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Member that the question before the Committee is the retention of the word "uniform."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, last year the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford was for uniformity of suffrage; but the House was counted out, as there were not 40 Members present. He thought it was quite germane to the subject to ask the Prime Minister why he was so indifferent last year, and yet this year he made this Bill the principal measure of the Session? At a meeting held not long ago, the Attorney General said there was such a thing as a policy of incidence, and that led to this Bill being made the principal measure of the Session; and he would adopt the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to this question of unifor-

    1527
    mity, having had some experience in this House, he would venture to say that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War were the last men in this House who should propose any such policy, because, during past years, they had been entirely opposed to such a policy. The Prime Minister had stated the other day that when he was a Member of the Peelite Party, that Party was a pure and high-minded Party. He was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have left that Party——
    MR. DAWSONrose to Order, and asked whether uniformity of franchise, or uniformity of conduct on the part of the Prime Minister, was the question before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is wandering from the question.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman thought that those who supported uniformity were not pure and high-minded, he was entitled to hold that opinion; but his point was, that when the Prime Minister was a Member of the Peelite Party he was opposed to uniformity of franchise. He had a seat in this House in 1859, and then a Bill was brought in by the Conservative Party proposing uniformity of franchise; but the present Prime Minister opposed it, and he not only spoke against it, but he turned the Government out upon it. So did all the Members of the old Whig Party and the Members of the Peelite Party. Lord Cardwell, who represented the Peelite Party on that occasion, said the proposal would lead to electoral districts. So it was held by Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston. The present Prime Minister voted against the Bill; and now, without giving any reasons whatever, he had leapt from one side to the other, and introduced this measure. Passing from that point, his principal desire was to state his objections to the introduction of the word "uniform" in this clause. His first point was that it must necessarily lead to electoral districts. The moment there was uniformity of franchise on one side, how could they say they would not give electoral districts? He had higher authority than the Government for that view. In a speech delivered in this House upon a Bill for establishing uniformity of suffrage, Lord Russell, that celebrated Member of the Liberal Party, said—
    1528
    "The principle of the Bill is only an argument and a step to further change. It will clearly lead to electoral districts, for you have taken away that which is the greatest impediment to the country in regard to electoral districts—the difference between county and borough. I believe the principle of the Bill will lead to such discontent that the only remedy for the evil you have inflicted and the mischief you have done will be to resort to electoral districts, which I consider a total suppression of the existing representative system."
    The proposal of Lord John Russell, when Leader of the House, was not one of uniformity, but diversity, of suffrage. Nor was that the principle proposed in the unfortunate Bill known as the "leap in the dark," which was carried in 1867, and which he had opposed as strongly as any measure he had ever opposed. On the contrary, it was kept back as a species of reserve to be sprung upon the House in a time of political exigency. In regard to equal electoral districts, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in a speech he had delivered some years ago, stated to his present constituents the reasons why he refused to give his vote to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Attorney General said if this franchise were conceded—that was, uniformity of suffrage—numerical representation was the certain consequence. The distinction between county and borough must be removed, and equal electoral districts must follow. He would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he still adhered to that opinion, and if he believed that uniformity of suffrage must lead to equal electoral districts, why did he not go below the Gangway and endeavour to induce the Government to adopt that view? The hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that he was quite willing to surrender the representation of the borough of Taunton whenever he was called upon to do so by the necessities of the case and for the sake of patriotism. It would appear that he had already done so, because it would be seen from the newspapers that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate for another constituency. His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) objection to the Bill was that it must lead to universal suffrage. He recollected a speech delivered some years ago by an authority, whom the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would respect, on this very question of uniformity of suffrage—namely, the late

    1529
    Mr. Sidney Herbert. In opposing the principle of that measure very strongly, Mr. Sidney Herbert said that it was only the question of the turn of the screw. Whenever they got one point of the screw turned on they found they had to go to a lower point. The Prime Minister founded the principle of uniformity, not only in his opening speech, but in the speech which he had made a short time ago, on the question of the fitness of the capable citizen to exercise the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the capable citizen was fit to exercise the franchise in one district he was fit to exercise it in another. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman where the definition of capable citizenship was to begin and where it was to end? Was it to be what was called a householder?—for many of them knew that many of these voters were not householders at all, but merely occupants of a single room, which, under certain conditions, gave them a vote. Why were such persons to be entitled to a vote, and other persons who were far more entitled to be excluded? Why were domestic servants disallowed a vote? They were going to bring in a service franchise in regard to the occupation of tenements in a certain way. Why were domestic servants to be excluded? Were they not flesh and blood, and quite as capable of exercising the franchise as the agricultural labourer, who, they were told, was in such a deplorable condition? Then, again, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, why exclude the soldiers in our Army, who served the country well; or our gallant sailors? It came at once to this—the question of capability founded itself on such a state of absurdity that it was impossible to arrive at any logical principle in regard to it. In his opinion, electoral districts must follow universal suffrage, a state of things which was no doubt desired by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, because he saw that on a recent occasion, when haranguing a Radical Club at Chelsea, the right hon. Gentleman said that he not only advocated universal suffrage, but equal electoral districts. They all knew that those opinions were supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and by a large number of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Northampton
    1530
    (Mr. Labouchere), who had said as much that day, and by a considerable number of Members who sat below the Gangway on that side of the House. There was no finality and no standpoint whatever. By adopting this measure they would at once be landed, as Lord John Russell told them, in a sea of troubles, and it would be impossible to bring them into a safe harbour. It was upon logical grounds that he supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and he trusted that it would receive such support from hon. Members as would fully justify him in having it brought forward.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, it did not seem to him to be an expedient course to take a Division on this question, because it really was the whole Bill over again. Now, nobody was more opposed than he was to household suffrage either in counties or boroughs. He thought the Bill of 1867 was about as mischievous a Bill as was ever passed in that House; but, at the same time, it had become the law of the land, and he did not wonder that an attempt was now made to extend its provisions to the counties. The present measure was to follow out the real bonâ fide intention of that Bill, which was to make a raid upon the seats of the county Members, and, to use slang phraseology, was intended to "square" the borough Members who sat on the other side of the House in order to enable them to go back to their constituents unchanged. It was a sort of Kilmainham Compact, that would leave the seats of hon. Members opposite untouched at least for another Parliament, if they would help the Government in carrying death and destruction into the ranks of the county Members. He was not surprised that that should be the principle of the Bill, because the strength of the Liberal Party had always been with the Members who represented the boroughs; and if there was one thing that hon. Members shrank from more than another it was political annihilation. They knew very well that there were many Members sitting in that House, who, if their own special seats were taken away from them, would never sit again for any other constituency as long as they lived. Therefore, if the Government proceeded on the principle they were adopting in regard to this Bill, and promised a uniformity of representation without a redistribution of seats

    1531
    the hon. Members to whom he referred might be able to go down to their constituents for a year, or two years, on exactly the same constituency as now, and it was a boon for which they were ready to sacrifice everything else. That was the whole object of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to make an attack upon the seats of the county Members who sat on the Conservative side of the House. It virtually said—"You have already got two seats out of three;" and if there was another General Election this year, as he hoped there would be, instead of having two out of three, they would have three out of four. They would virtually keep the borough seats as they were, and prevent the winning back of a great many seats which were lost by the Conservatives in 1880. That being the object of the Bill, how could they carry it out except by retaining the word "uniform?" The whole Bill would be destroyed if that word were left out. After the Division which had taken place upon the second reading, and the important Division which had taken place as to the reconstruction and distribution of the suffrage, he thought it would be an unwise proceeding to waste the time of the House by dividing upon this particular word. They all knew the object of the Bill, which was to secure the borough Members in their seats and to get rid of the county Gentlemen who sat on the Conservative side of the House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think there is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) as to the real object of the Bill. There can be no doubt that there is great force in those observations, and also in the remarks which have been made by other hon. Members, that a uniform household and lodger franchise is the point which has been pressed upon us by the Government, and which may be regarded as the principle of the Bill. Therefore, to discuss that point now would be to invite a repetition of the decision which the House has already pronounced. But, for all that, I think the discussion raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) has been a very desirable discussion in drawing attention to certain important points relating to the question. I wish to ask, however, why it is necessary for the Government
    1532
    to commit themselves to this word "uniform" at the very outset? Why do you not leave any possibility of making different arrangements, if they should be necessary, for those classes of voters who would require somewhat different terms in the case of counties and in the case of boroughs? My right hon. Friend has pointed out with great force that the question arises in a great measure upon the lodger franchise. If you are going to enfranchise all the lodgers in the country, you will find that the difficulties which already beset you in connection with the voting of the lodger in the towns will be extensively multiplied and increased. I wish to know if we are to hold ourselves precluded by the introduction of the word "uniform" in the fore-front of the Bill from considering and discussing modifications which may be necessary with a view to the introduction of the lodger franchise in the counties? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) asks what can be proposed against it? What my right hon. Friend says is that we are promised a self-acting register, and it would be very desirable that there should be a self-acting register if we can see the plans of the Government beforehand; but, in the absense of those plans, it would be difficult to come to a decision in regard to the position of the lodger in the county. That is one of the points in regard to the Government scheme which makes it difficult for us to decide upon it. We do not wish to commit ourselves upon one or two matters of an important character, which hereafter we may find to be governed by other considerations. I would not advise my right hon. Friend to go to a Division. What seems to me to be the feeling generally entertained is that he should reserve what he has to suggest in regard to the lodger franchise until a later period—that he should rest satisfied with the good service he has done in entering his protest and in raising this discussion, and that we should accept these words with the understanding that the question may be fairly raised again in regard to household and lodger franchise, notwithstanding that we may have committed ourselves by assenting to the word "uniform." It seems that the word "uniform" has been put in in order to do away with the semblance of a distinction between the counties and boroughs

    1533
    —perhaps unnecessarily put in—and, therefore, leading to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend has done good service by the course he has taken in calling attention to the matter; but, as I have already said, I would not advise him to go to a Division.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding. The Government intend by the Bill that as far as household and lodger franchise are concerned to establish uniformity in reference to both the boroughs and counties; but they have not the slighest desire to shut out any fair Amendment which can be moved in accordance with the Rules of the House. I hope there will be no misunderstanding as to the intention of the Government not to deviate in the slighest degree from the meaning which they attach to these words.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would excuse him, as one of the county Members who were to be affected by the Bill, if he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General what his uniformity meant? Was it houses, or was it lodgings, with regard to which uniformity was to extend according to law throughout the United Kingdom? At the present moment uniformity implied a standard, although there was no rental value attached either to the house or to the lodging. Was it intended that, in future, the standard should be taken at the lowest—for instance, the Irish standard of lodgings and the Irish standard of houses? Was that standard to be applied as the qualifying test to houses and lodgings in the Metropolis and in every other part of England? Until, in a fatal hour, Mr. Disraeli, when he was a Member of the House of Commons, advised the extension of the household standard, which merely meant the possession of a house without specifying what the house was to be, matters were well understood. The lodger standard seemed to have been adopted in haste, and there was no adequate discussion upon it. It was adopted upon an Amendment proposed by Mr. Hodgkinson, in 1867; and the sudden adoption of household suffrage with no definition of the value of the house, together with the
    1534
    sudden adoption of the lodger franchise with no definition of what properly constituted adequate lodgings, constituted the "leap in the dark" which was taken in 1867. It gave the Act of 1867 a name which it had never lost. And now, when he saw the Committee about to take another leap in the dark in respect to the counties in which the majority of the people lived who would be affected by the present Bill, he thought he was entitled to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether he took the lowest standard of a house and the lowest standard of a lodging, which lowest standard existed in Ireland, and whether he proposed, under the cover of the words which appeared in the clause, to extend that lowest franchise to the counties of England and Scotland?
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not know whether he would be in Order in referring to a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board in answer to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson). It would be in the recollection, of the Committee that the hon. Member asked the right hon. Gentleman a question as to registration—Whether it was not the case, that while the voter in Great Britain would not exercise his vote until he was registered, in Ireland the voter would do so as soon as he was entitled to be registered? From the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman he did not think he could have read the clause they were now considering, because it certainly made a curious distinction between the votes to be obtained under the clause and now. It seemed to him to be one of the numerous traps which were provided for hon. Members in the clause, because they were told that whereas in Great Britain the right to vote was to be obtained, the vote was not to be exercised until the voter was registered. The words were "when registered to vote at an election for such county;" whereas, in regard to Ireland, the words "when registered" were not used; but, instead of them there were the words "shall be entitled to be registered as a voter." He presumed that it was, in point of fact, a certain price paid to hon. Members below the Gangway, that the Irish voters should be able to exercise their Votes before the rest of the electors could exercise theirs. Under the clause a

    1535
    voter in Ireland would exercise the vote when he was entitled to exercise it; whereas, in England, he could only exercise it when registered.
    SIR. CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member had been discussing words which came later on in the clause.
    MR. WARTON: Quite true.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would be quite ready to explain the meaning of the words when the Committee reached them; but he would only say now that the hon. Member had misunderstood their purport. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had also misinterpreted the meaning of the clause, because he assumed that the franchise in Ireland would be of a different description, from that in England, which was not the fact.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had assumed that it was the same franchise, but applied to a different class of tenements.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the Lord Advocate had not answered his question with reference to the Scotch lodger franchise, and he wished to point out that the words in the 2nd clause were different from the expression which had been used by the Attorney General. The 2nd clause established a uniform household and lodger franchise throughout the United Kingdom, and provided that it should be identical in character in the counties and boroughs of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. If that was clearly the meaning of the Government he was prepared to accept it; but it was scarcely the meaning of the words inserted in the first line of the clause, from which it appeared quite evident that there was a difference at present existing between the lodger franchise of Scotland, England, and Wales. There were, in fact, three kinds of lodger franchise and one of household franchise in the Three Kingdoms, and, as there was a difference now, they could not be uniform, unless they were going to be made uniform in all the Three Kingdoms, in accordance with the words set forth in the clause. He should like to have an explanation from the Attorney General, if it was intended to make the franchise uniform throughout the United Kingdom? He was prepared to assent to the proposal, but he did not
    1536
    understand the first part of the clause to establish that condition.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not quite understand what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to suggest in regard to the Scotch franchise.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked if there was not a difference between the franchise established by the Act of 1868 and that established by the Act of 1867?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Act of 1867 was very similar to that of 1868. In the case of lodgers there was the rental provision of £10; and he did not know in what respect it was suggested that there was any difference.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the lodger franchise was settled on a fixed money value, and in Ireland the franchise was based upon a £10 rent in regard to lodgers, and a £4 rent in regard to householders. With regard to the charge of want of uniformity raised by hon. Members, they might put their minds at rest. There was only one kind of uniformity he had discovered in these debates, and that was the uniformity of raising endless discussions and taking no Division upon them. The suffrage was not uniform at the present moment, but, under this Bill, it would be made uniform.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had no intention, of continuing the discussion, which had apparently satisfied the Committee as to the decision it ought to arrive at, or rather as to the prevailing disposition of forces in respect of the I franchise. He wished, however, to draw attention to another point of more importance, which he thought the Government, would admit was fully deserving of the consideration of the Committee. He asked the Committee to bear with him for a few moments while he laid it before them. As he gathered from a statement made a short time ago by the Prime Minister, that was the last opportunity he would have of bringing it before the Committee. The point to which he desired to draw the attention of the Committee was how far the adoption of the words "uniform franchise" would preclude the subsequent adoption by the Committee of Amendments which had for their object the giving of greater electoral weight to the various voters in accordance with the stake which they had in the country. One point he wished

    1537
    to dwell upon briefly was how far it would be practicable, without going outside the scope and intentions of this Bill, to incorporate, for the purposes of this section, a portion of the statute commonly known as Sturges Bourne's Act. That Act was the 58 Geo. III., c. 69, and it clearly laid down the manner in which the votes could be apportioned to the stake the voter might have in the community. He had been told before—and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made himself responsible for the assertion—that this was an old musty, fusty statute, that it was passed in the year 1818, and the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to consider that that fact alone pointed it out for the condemnation of Parliament. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, although the statute had been the law of the land for a considerable number of years, no serious attempt had ever been made to repeal it, or to infringe upon its principle. Of course, he was not refer ring at that moment to those provisions of the statute which enabled votes to be given by proxy, and by other machinery, which he might have asked the Committee to incorporate in the present Bill; but he was referring rather to Section 3 of the Act of 58 George III., c. 69, which enabled every voter, or rather, to use the words of the Act—
    "Every person who shall be rated for the relief of the poor shall be entitled to give one vote for every £50 valuation."
    Without troubling the Committee in any detail with the merits of the clause, he would point out that, although a plurality of votes might be accorded to every voter, yet it was provided that no person should have more than six votes. Some people might say that that was a very reactionary provision, and that it ran counter to the modern doctrine of the equality of every voter in the eye of the law, and that it was a provision which could hardly seriously be made to Parliament. He asked the Committee for a moment to consider what their object was in dealing with the question of the franchise. He knew there were those who were of opinion that the great object was that one political Party should have a preponderance of the votes of the electors. He would not weary the Committee by arguing with any such persons. He would rather
    1538
    assume that the object of Parliament was to secure some just and equitable method of arriving at the real wishes of the population of the country, due regard being had to the stake in the community which each voter possessed. He knew that some of his Friends on that side of the House said—"We entirely agree with you. It is quite right; but we do not believe that such a provision could ever be passed." Now, he contended that that was timid language, which he personally could not endorse. He thought if any Member of the House entertained a strong conviction on any particular point it was his duty to bring that point before the Committee, and not to scamp his task. He was aware that there were those who said that votes should not be accorded to property at all—that every man had an inherent right to a vote, and that the amount of property he possessed had nothing to do with the matter. But he would remind the Committee that that was not the language used by Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, laid stress on his own opinion that regard should be had to property vested in the inhabitants of a constituency as well as to the numerical strength of the constituency. Throughout all the discussions which had taken place upon the various Reform Bills it had always been contended that representation should be accorded to a constituency not solely on the ground of a certain number of houses being situate in it, or on the number of persons entitled to record their votes, but that property should also be included as a consideration. He desired to know on what principle the Government proposed to consider the allocation of electoral weight with respect to property? Did they intend to adopt the principle held in the Southern States of America in former days, when a certain number of votes was accorded to each State in respect of its local population, but the local population were not allowed to record their votes? He understood the Prime Minister to contend that it was quite right that regard should be had to the property situate in a constituency, but that the owners of that property should have no share in the disposal of the votes. The right hon. Gentleman was establishing a doctrine that one set of persons was to pay the piper while

    1539
    another set were to call the tune. That in plain language, was the object of the Bill. He did not now wish to enter into the question which was generally known as the representation of minorities. He held strong views which he had not hesitated to utter in that House during the last 17 years. He hoped that subject would come before the House under abler hands than his own, and that the Committee would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He would say this in passing—that he could not see any more equitable manner of representing the interests of property, and it might be of minorities, than by the adoption of salutary provisions, which were not novel or crotchety inventions of his own, but which, for a number of years, had formed part of the law of the land, and had been found to work with justice to all persons concerned. He had constantly expressed his opinion against the various Reform Bills which had been introduced. He had not hesitated to denounce what had been termed the "leap in the dark" in 1867; and one of the grounds on which he denounced it was that it failed to make adequate provision for the fair balance of power, which he contended ought to be preserved between the conflicting claims and interests of all classes and sections of the community. On the second reading of the Reform Bill of 1867 he had ventured to make some remarks strongly condemnatory of the provision known under the name of the dual vote. Why had he denounced the dual vote? He had denounced it because he regarded it as an imposture and a sham. It did not go anything like far enough. It was all very well as far as it went; but it was altogether a meagre instalment of what was required to meet the exigencies of the case. The dual vote was a very different thing from the system of voting which he now ventured to urge upon the Committee. The dual vote allowed an elector to be placed on the register not only in the capacity of a freeholder or of an occupier, but, in addition, it gave him a separate vote as a taxpayer, or as the holder of Government Stock. That, he thought, was a very puny provision. He had not hesitated to condemn it at the time, and he had never regretted the attitude he took with regard to that or any other provision of the Bill of 1867. All he
    1540
    proposed now was that the voter should be entitled to vote in accordance with his stake in the country, provided always that the number of votes possessed by an individual did not exceed the number at present provided by the law in regard to the election of Poor Law Guardians—namely, six votes. He suggested that a voter should be entitled to a plurality of votes, not exceeding six altogether, in proportion to the taxation he contributed to the State. There would be one great advantage in the adoption of that principle. It would enable the House at large cordially to adopt the principle of household suffrage both in the town and in the country, a principle which, as it was provided in the present Bill, they would only be induced to accept with the greatest reluctance. He confessed that he himself had never been able to see any charm in a difference of suffrage between town and country. His idea had always been that every elector should have a fair share of electoral power accorded to him, whether he happened to live in a county or in a borough. He had been charged with opposing the adoption of household suffrage, and he should continue to oppose any scheme which did not make adequate provision for the maintenance of that fair balance of power between all classes and sections of the community which he considered to be necessary. There were several methods of obtaining that end. It might be possible to say that nobody should have a vote at all—that only a privileged few should possess the electoral franchise; or they might say that all persons should possess the electoral franchise, but that there should be a different weight accorded to different voters in the ordinary scale. That was what he thought would be most equitable under all the circumstances of the case. He hoped the Government would not shelter themselves under the plea that this would be going back from the great principles already established. He ventured to say, on the other hand, that if the subject was to be fairly considered by Parliament, apart from the prejudice of mere political opinions, he was at a loss to understand on what grounds it could be seriously contended that this was an objectionable principle to adopt in future. The Prime Minister might, perhaps, say that it might be the establishing of inequality. The right hon. Gentleman pre-

    1541
    sumed to say that the other night in very decided terms; but, in his (Mr. J. Lowther's) judgment, the people of England were by no means enamoured of uniformity. The last thing the working classes of this country entertained an idea of was the establishment, on a dull level of mediocrity, of uniform laws. It had been the boast of Englishmen that the highest prizes of life were open to every man, and that, notwithstanding the condition of life in which a man was born, he might, by application, and industry, and ability in that sphere of life, raise himself above the scale in which he was born. He would now conclude his observations by expressing a hope that the Committee would fully and fairly consider the subject; and he was sure it was one which ought to receive full attention at the hands of each of the Parties in the State.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman began by addressing a question to the Government—namely, whether, in our opinion, it would be competent to him, if we passed this clause as it stands, at a subsequent date to move an Amendment for the introduction of what I may call plural voting in a rough way? I am quite prepared to answer that question at once. I have not the least doubt that it would be competent to him to do so, because the word "uniform" manifestly refers to uniformity between counties and boroughs, and does not, I apprehend, contain any limitation of the franchise, provided it applies to the counties and boroughs alike. But while I say that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make that proposal at a future date, I venture to add a respectful hope that if, and when he does make it, he will bear in mind that he has already made his speech, and that it will be unnecessary for him again to entertain us with those most interesting references to his personal history, and to the gallant manner in which, on all occasions, he has maintained his principles, and which will be indelibly recorded on our memories.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had asked the simple question, "What is a house?" What was meant by a house? What was the meaning of uniformity if every house to which it applied was different? That would destroy all uniformity. Some
    1542
    neighbours of his lived in an old railway carriage. Would they be considered householders? There were a great many people who lived in tents. Would those Ishmaels be considered householders? Others lived in caravans. Would they be householders? The point was clearly of great importance, especially with regard to Ireland, because in that country, notwithstanding the remedial legislation of the present Government, the majority of the people lived in mere hovels. Was a house that was unfit for human habitation to be considered one which would give the franchise to the occupants? If a house had no chimney, was such a place to be considered a house? That was a question which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had asked, and he hoped the Attorney General would have the courtesy to answer it.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he observed that there was a difference between the Scotch and the English Acts as to lodgers. In the Scotch Act it was provided that the lodgings must be a part of one and the same dwelling house; but that was not so in this Bill. He did not know whether there was any dispute about that; but the question was whether, under the term "uniform franchise," these two conditions of lodger franchise, which were re-enacted in the Bill, could, in strictness, be described as uniform?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): That really is the sense.
    MR. CUBITTsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; but the question had not been answered as to the way in which the self-acting register was to be prepared for the lodger franchise. The Prime Minister had stated that the Bill had been prepared by the Government; but the Attorney General had not answered that question.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed to add the word "franchise" after the word "household," in order to prevent confusion of ideas with regard to the nature of the uniformity. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Agreed.] He did not like too ready an acquiescence until they knew exactly what they were about; and he did not wish to take advantage of the Prime Minister's acquiescence too quickly, but to treat him more generously than

    1543
    the right hon. Gentleman generally treated hon. Members on this side. He was not sure whether the Prime Minister saw the consequence of what he now proposed. His object in moving this Amendment was to move another Amendment shortly, to which, perhaps, the Prime Minister would not so readily accede; and that was after the word "and" to insert "a uniform," so that the whole would be a uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger franchise. That he thought would be clearer than the present mixture of household and lodger franchise. Although the Prime Minister acceded so readily to this Amendment, he must point out that in so doing they would cut away the ground from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), whose Amendment was misplaced. Therefore the Prime Minister might again be in error in acceding too readily to this proposition. But at present it would be sufficient to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "household," to insert "franchise."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the word 'franchise' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONproposed to add after "lodger" the words "and freehold." The Committee had heard so much about uniformity, and the Government had stuck to it with such tenacity, that he hoped they would now assist him in making the Bill more uniform and more complete. Everyone who had listened to the speeches by which the Bill had been introduced had, he believed, been satisfied of one thing—namely, that the basis and foundation of the Bill was the assimilation of the county and borough franchises; and everyone outside the House believed that this Bill would really do what the Prime Minister had said it would do—namely, assimilate the two franchises. In fact, it would do nothing of the kind. It left anomalies as great and as grievous as they were before; and as some of these anomalies, and this one especially, could be easily removed, he hoped the Government would be willing to accept his Amendment, for it carried out the spirit of their own Bill. Precisely the same argument could be adduced for the claim of the borough, freeholder to be
    1544
    registered on the borough list as had been adduced for the lodger or occupier who resided outside the old borough lines to he registered on the county list. Let them consider the present state of things. An occupier of a tenement outside the borough limit which gave him a vote for the county, and owning a freehold within the borough limit, was disqualified from voting for the borough; whereas, if it had been just the other way—if he had occupied a small tenement within the borough boundaries, and had a freehold outside the borough, he would have been able to vote for both county and borough. The principle of the Bill, as had often been stated by the Prime Minister, was that every capable man who had a qualifying possession within a constituency should have a vote; but he made no provision for the qualifying freehold, which gave a vote within the county, to give a vote within the borough. Under this Bill, the occupier of land in a county, who had a freehold in a borough, and who, therefore, had an interest in the borough, was a capable citizen of that borough; but if he did not reside upon his freehold he was disfranchised. This Bill retained old anomalies and disfranchising conditions. The principle he proposed to introduce into the Bill existed in Ireland, where the freeholder in a borough, though non-resident, voted in the borough. The borough freeholders were generally urban voters—people belonging to the borough, and had little to do with the county. Therefore, it was proper that they should vote in the borough. Besides, it was a case of give and take. The occupier in the county, who had a freehold in the borough, would be introduced into the borough as a voter. Each constituency, whether county or borough, would be self-centred; every capable citizen with the qualifying condition would vote for every place where he had a qualification. There would be no disfranchisement in this at all. On the contrary, it would make the franchise uniform, and give equal rights inside and outside the boroughs; and, therefore, it seemed to him to be a principle which should be supported on every ground, but especially upon the ground upon which this Bill was brought before the attention of the House—namely, the assimilation of the county and borough franchise.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "lodger," insert "freehold."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'freehold' be here inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this Amendment was a very important one; but the Government could not agree to it. By accepting it they would disfranchise a great number of voters, because, if they gave a freehold vote in the borough, the principal persons who would be entitled to vote would be resident householders. Dealing with them first, they now had a vote for the county if they had a freehold qualification in a borough; but this proposal would deprive them of that vote. It would disfranchise the whole of them. If a freehold gave a vote for the borough, it could not give a vote for the county; and, therefore, what the hon. Member proposed as a sufficient qualification for the borough would prevent the owner of it voting for the county. If a man had two such qualifications he could not choose between the two; therefore, they must determine, in the sense placed before the Committee, whether they would allow the vote to be a qualification for the borough or county. If they gave the borough vote for the freehold situated in a borough it must cease to be a county qualification; and so they would disfranchise every county voter who had a freehold qualification within a borough. Then, that equally applied to the non-residents, because if a person resided elsewhere, if he had a voting qualification for the borough, they could not say that he was to have a vote for the county simply because he was non-resident. The result of this Amendment must be this—no freeholder in a borough could have a county qualification; and there were in England and Wales 112,000 county voters, whose freehold qualifications being situated in boroughs, who would be disqualified. The Government were not prepared to disfranchise even those 112,000.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, non-residents would vote under his Amendment, just as they do now, only they would vote for the borough instead of for the county.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked whether the hon.
    1546
    Member was going to give non-residents votes for boroughs under this clause?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Certainly. They have votes now for the county.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could imagine nothing more likely to create "fagot" votes than to give the 40.s. non-resident freeholder a vote in the borough.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, there were in his district a great number of working men who had become the owners of small houses, and who were deeply interested in the point under consideration. He entirely agreed that it would be a mistake to give to non residents a vote for the borough; and, therefore, in a later Amendment which stood in his name he had introduced the words—
    "Subject always, in the case of boroughs, to such conditions as to residence within, or within a certain distance thereof, as are now by statute or shall he under the provisions of this Act prescribed."
    There were only two courses which could be taken with any justice in dealing with this Bill. Either a man who was both an owner and an occupier in a borough might be stripped of his ownership, or, on the other hand, a man who was both an owner and an occupier outside the borough, might have a property vote conferred upon him in addition to the vote he enjoyed; and he believed that if hon. Members would, for a moment, consider what would be the position of many of the best class of working people if this Act were passed, they would see that it was one which could not be tolerated by the country. Suppose two brothers were joint owners of a freehold situated in a village three or four miles from a town, one of them living in the village adjoining the freehold, and the other in the borough three or four miles away. One of them would be unable to vote, whilst the other would be entitled to vote in right of this property. Could anything more monstrous be imagined? He would take, as another instance, the case of a man living in a borough who was the owner of a freehold house within the borough, which he let. Under this Bill he would have a vote in the borough as an occupier, and one in the county as an owner; whilst his brother, living, say, a mile outside the borough, and owning a similar or a more valuable property, would have only one vote. Of these two men, whose circum-

    1547
    stances were precisely similar, one would thus be endowed with twice as large a share of political power as the other. That was an injustice so monstrous that in his county division it would create something approaching a political insurrection. He had not spoken to one workman who did not firmly believe that, though he might live outside a borough, this Bill would give him both an ownership and an occupying vote, and thus place him in a position in all respects equal to that of his neighbour inside the borough. The confusion which would follow from any other course would make it impossible to work out the measure; and the consequence would be that before very long there would be a great agitation against the ownership vote being left to the people resident in boroughs. That might or might not be a result contemplated by the authors of this Bill; but a settlement which would deal out equal justice between these two classes of people was one which could not be long delayed. This proposition was, therefore, one of the most important points to be considered in this Bill, because they were now at a place where two ways parted, and the decision they should arrive at would probably determine the future course the country would take—whether they should have one vote for one man, and abolish the second or ownership vote now enjoyed by inhabitants of boroughs, or whether they should proceed towards the equal enfranchisement of owners outside boroughs, and the continuance in both boroughs and counties of that political distinction between those who were and those who were not owners of rateable property which had been one of the greatest and best moral influences operating upon the working classes. He believed it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this decision; and he hoped it would not force upon the cream of the working class the idea that they were to be reduced to the level of the most worthless and improvident amongst their neighbours. He could not conceive anything more calculated to uproot the good work of inducing these men from their youth to save money and become owners of property than to destroy this distinction; and he earnestly appealed to the Committee to pause before coming to a conclusion which would have that effect.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Preston would have convinced the Attorney General that this Amendment was not to be disposed of in the summary manner he had imagined. It was impossible, at this time of the day, to do adequate justice to an Amendment of this importance; and he hoped the Government would consent now to report Progress, in order that this matter might be properly discussed at the next Sitting. The Attorney General had objected to this proposition on the ground that it was a disfranchising proposition; and when he found that it was an enfranchising proposal he found fault with it for that reason. He thought it was desirable to report Progress, and at the next Sitting they could consider more fully this Amendment, which he hoped the hon. Member would press to a Division. He moved that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sorry that Progress had been moved now; but it was not worth while considering the matter, and he should consent.
    MR. WARTONasked when the right hon. Gentleman intended to put this Bill down again for Committee, as it was necessary that hon. Members should have time to consider what Amendments they would put on the Paper?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would put the Bill down for Friday morning; but he was not quite certain whether it could then be taken.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MOTIONS.

    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.—RESOLUTION.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BROADHURST, move—
    "That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people in this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for,"
    said, he felt that in making the Motion some explanation was due to the House of the manner in which he became associated with it. It had for some time past been very ably dealt with by the hon. and learned Member the Recorder of the City of London (Sir Thomas Chambers); but after some length of time and after the continual pressure of friends, and especially of his constituents, he at last consented to take charge of the question. To show the House the interest his constituents took in it, he would that state last winter a requisition in its favour was sent to him signed by 25,000 of them, of whom more than 10,000 were women above 18 years of age, and representing not only the working classes of the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, but also the middle classes, besides many Town Councillors, Aldermen, and members of Local Boards. Another reason for his connection with the subject was to be found in the Petition which he had the honour of presenting to the House yesterday, signed by 115 delegates representing the trades of the country at the last annual Trades Union Congress. There were really 170 signatures; but some 55 failed to sign the proper paper. In the hurry of their week's work they failed to get near the Petition, and they signed letters instead, expressing regret that their names were not attached to the original document. But for this circumstance the original Petition would have contained 170 signatures of the leading working men of the United Kingdom, representing altogether something like 500,000 of the people of this country. At the outset of his speech he wished to state that he did not profess to represent every working man's opinion in the country. He never did profess to. There were a great many opinions in the country he would be very sorry to represent; and he would be glad to transfer them to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, or anywhere else, who chose to espouse their views. As Representative of Stoke-upon-Trent, he had endea-
    1550
    voured to represent the constituency as a whole, and not any one class. His own opinion as to the importance of the subject was that, with the exception of the Franchise Bill, then before the House, there was a more general consensus of opinion upon this than upon any other. So far as signatures to Petitions were concerned, his experience showed that the possibility of obtaining them was only limited by a person's time and opportunities; and, indeed, he had never met a person who declined to sign one in favour of the proposed alteration. ["Oh!"] He did not say that no such person existed; but, whereas 2,000,000 people had petitioned in favour of the Bill, not one-tenth of that number had petitioned against it. Three hundred and fifty Town Councils had at different times sent Petitions in favour of the amendment of the law. One hundred and thirty Boards of Guardians in the country had petitioned in its favour. The Town Council of Edinburgh had petitioned 11 times, and the Convention of Rural Boroughs had petitioned 11 times. He mentioned signatures of Town Councillors and members of Local Boards especially because they might be taken to represent the highest and best form of Conservative feeling in the country. By this he meant Conservative, not in a political point of view, but Conservative in its best and highest sense; and he would say this especially with regard to Boards of Guardians, than whom there were no representative Bodies in the country more capable of giving expression to what was desirable on a subject of this kind. Coming to another form of organization, the Liberal Associations of the country, no less than 225 of these Associations had passed resolutions in favour of these views. He thought that it was known to most people that His Holiness the Pope and the greater number of the leading Catholic clergy, as well as the more prominent laity of the Catholic Church, were in favour of this alteration in the law. The general interest in the subject was very great. As regarded Scotland, in the City of Glasgow 42,000 people had signed Petitions for the change in a short time last year, and over 300 Scotch ministers had expressed themselves in its favour, while the leading organs of the Scotch Press were also favourable to it. In England itself, as apart from any

    1551
    other portion of the United Kingdom, he thought it was safe to say that public opinion, if not unanimous, at least came nearer to being so than it had done upon any great question that had engaged public attention for many years past. Many also of those who sat on the other side of the House were in favour of it; so that this Motion was no outrage upon Conservatism. What had been the result of the attempt to create a feeling adverse to this proposal? The most supreme efforts had been put forth to elicit opinions in opposition to it; but they had met with most signal failure, and had by no means repaid the labour and expenditure employed. He had been told that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Cambridge University had called upon the clergy of the Church of England to come to his assistance and place notices upon their church doors in opposition to this measure, calling upon the people to use their best efforts against it. What had been the result? After months of labour about 12,000 signatures had been obtained, many of them under questionable circumstances. A very remarkable Circular had also been issued on the subject marked "Confidential," and addressed to Members of Parliament, from a special meeting of C. E. W. M. S., which he was told meant the Church of England Working Men's Society. It said that he (Mr. Broadhurst) could not be accepted as representing the working classes on this question, and it requested Members to vote against the Motion. It was especially requested that there might be no mention of the Church of England Working Men's Society, or of any Church Society. It was signed on behalf of the Society by S. Powell, Secretary, Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, W.C. He had given these particulars because that was rather an out-of-the-way place for an institution of that kind. The Bishop of Lichfield, of whom he wished to speak with great respect, had made a great effort to stir up the people in defence of the law as it at present existed; but after going through the whole of his district he had succeeded in getting something like 8,000 signatures, or less than one-third of the number of signatures in favour of this Motion, obtained within the boundaries of his own constituency, and of grown men and women. It had been stated that this was not a
    1552
    working man's question at all, but that it was simply for the convenience of a very few rich people. He was sorry to hear such prejudice expressed on the Conservative side of the House against justice being done to people who were rich. His own Liberalism knew of no distinction between rich and poor in matters of justice. It would be a bad day for the country when Parliament legislated for the convenience of either rich or poor; the ground of its action should be justice, and not consideration for any class of people. He was not prepared to admit that this was a rich man's question only. Undoubtedly, rich people had the good sense to make these marriages in the interest of their own happiness and that of the bereaved children; but such marriages were far more numerous among the working classes than among the upper or the middle classes; and that was some justification for the position he occupied. The difference between rich and poor in these matters was very great. The rich man's resources enabled him, if he was a widower, to obtain proper treatment for his children; and, as a rule, if he married again, the opinion of his class prevented his second wife from ill-using her step-children. These advantages the poor man did not possess. He, perhaps, had to leave his home before dawn, and all day his children were in the hands of the step-mother, and infancy was often a barrier to their communication with others. No one was more likely to be a second mother to the children than the sister of her who bore them; she often became so during the long illness of the mother; and to wrench her from the children was often to them as a second death. Not only in the interest of the children themselves, but in the interest of humanity, the House should not stand for one moment between the Resolution and the hopes of these poor people, but should concede their reasonable and just demands with as little delay as possible. Hundreds and thousands of these marriages were already contracted, and thousands more would be contracted if the law was amended. He sincerely hoped that the House would pass his Motion. Society did not condemn these marriages, whilst every sensible person in the country—he did not use the word "sensible" in an offensive sense—approved of them,

    1553
    Parliament ought to be abreast of the opinion of the country, and the expression of a decisive judgment on the part of this House would probably have great weight with the other House, and induce it to yield to the claims of common sense, justice, and humanity. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
    MR. HENEAGE, in seconding the Motion, said, he regarded the prohibition of these marriages as most unjust and inexpedient. The law was contrary to Divine law and to natural law. There was nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament against these marriages. Within the last few weeks unanimous testimony had been given by Professors of Greek and of Hebrew as to the interpretation of the controverted passages in favour of these marriages, which, indeed, had always been approved by Jews and by Mahomedans. The Roman Catholics did not say that these marriages were against the Divine law, but simply that they were against the moral law, which could be dispensed with at the pleasure of the Pope. The Protestants, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, desired this amendment of the law. The marriages were legal in the other English-speaking nations of the globe. Cardinal Newman wrote that if he looked upon this question as one affecting the rich he should, perhaps, think the marriages inexpedient; but in the interests of the poor he thought they were expedient. ["Read on!"] The Cardinal spoke further of the danger of relaxing the sanctity of marriage; but that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. If, these marriages were expedient they ought not to be prohibited because of the inexpediency of any other marriages which nobody contemplated. We had two laws in two different parts of the Empire; and a marriage in Canada might be repudiated here without any redress for the woman; although the law of Canada had received the assent of the Queen. Looking at the question from a social point of view, he maintained that the objection founded on alleged intimacy and relationship was all nonsense. There was closer relationship between first cousins, particularly where two brothers had married two sisters; and, as a rule, they would be
    1554
    well known to each other. In the case of a husband and his wife's sister, they might not even know each other until they attended the wife's funeral. This was not a question for the small social circle of London; it was a question for the nation at large, and for the English-speaking people of the Colonies. It had been stated that if they altered the present law, and allowed marriage with the deceased's wife sister, the number of divorce cases would be increased. He did not know whether that would be so or not, but he would point out that two wrongs did not make a right; and if that House had passed a Divorce Law, which was against the teachings of the Bible, that was no reason why they should try and keep another law in force which was also opposed to the language of the Bible. The present law upon this subject was, in his opinion, a disgrace to a civilized country, and ought to be abolished. He seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people in this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    COLONEL MAKINSin rising to move, as an Amendment—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws relating to Marriages within the prohibited degrees,"
    said, he did not think that any apology was needed for bringing this subject before the House. The question had exercised the public mind ever since the passing of the Lyndhurst Act half a century ago; and he quite admitted that any hon. Member was at liberty to take it up. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had stated that a large number of Petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill. That was perfectly true; but he would remind the House that a very large number had been presented against the Bill, and it should be remembered that it was always easier for those who were attacking an existing law to get up Petitions than those who were supporting it. It was

    1555
    not correct to say that there was a general feeling in favour of the measure. No resolution had been passed by any meeting of representative clergy or by any well-known sect in this country in favour of legalizing marriage with the deceased wife's sister. He was sorry the hon. Member for Stoke had stated that Liberal Associations approved of the Motion; because hitherto the question, of the Marriage Laws had not been regarded as a Party question. It was a mistake for the hon. Member to drag in those Associations in support of the measure. The hon. Member claimed to speak on behalf of working men, but showed that upon this subject he had no right whatever to represent those working men who belonged to the Church of England. He was prepared to state that most of the working men who were members of the Church of England were utterly opposed to the measure. The hon. Member had further claimed to speak not only in the name of the working man, but of the Pope. He did not know what authority he had to speak for the Pope; but this he did know—that a very large number of Roman Catholics were utterly opposed to the measure. Then the hon. Member for Stoke claimed that the measure for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister was a measure of justice to the people as a whole; but he forgot that gross injustice would be done to those who did not desire it if it passed into law. If they altered the law, the sister of the deceased wife would not have that protection which she now enjoyed, and the opposite to that which the supporters of the Motion desired would be effected. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was fully persuaded that the Divine Law was in favour of the Bill. Seeing, however, that all Christian Bodies ever since the institution of Christianity and other bodies before the institution of Christianity maintained the present law upon the subject, he failed to see how the hon. Member came to the conclusion that the Divine Law was in his favour. The Roman law was against such marriages. They were not known in the days of the early fathers. St. Basil said—"Such marriages are not known among us." It was said that it was not intended to extend the proposal. But the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr.
    1556
    Thomasson) desired to extend it by inserting the words "and with a deceased husband's brother;" and the hon. Member for Kirkealdy (Sir George Campbell) desired to extend it to "the relations" of the deceased husband or wife, thus opening the door as wide as he possibly could. Hitherto the matter had been in the hands of private Members, and he did not see much prospect of their being relieved of it; but the question was of so much importance that if legislation was undertaken at all it ought to be undertaken in connection with the whole Marriage Law and by a responsible Government, whom he did not see just now on the Bench opposite. Both the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion had ignored the canons altogether. If they were to remove the prohibition against those marriages they would place the clergy in a most awkward position. Taking the 99th and the 26th canons together, no clergyman would be allowed to marry those persons or to admit them to the Holy Communion. The table of prohibitive degrees as it stood was perfectly logical, simple, and intelligible. It dealt with 20 cases of affinity and 10 of relationship by birth; and if they took one of the degrees of affinity what was to become of the others? The principal persons in favour of the proposal were the paid officials of the Society, those who had contracted those unions or who hoped to contract them, and the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) and the school to which he belonged. In that hon. Member's hands the Motion would have found a more congenial home. The hon. Member had referred to the Colonies. But it should be recollected that in the Colonies there was no State Church, there was no Canon Law, and they were not under the same difficulties in dealing with the question as we were. The members of the Liberation Society were also supporters of the proposal, for they saw in it a great weapon against the Church. On the other hand, the religious communities were opposed to it—the synods and conferences of the Church and the diocesan conferences. The Scotch Assembly had passed very strong resolutions against it, and the Scotch Episcopal Church had issued a pastoral letter condemning it in the strongest manner. The hon. Member for Stoke said he represented

    1557
    the working men; but he did not say much, about the working women or the women at all.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he had distinctly stated in his opening remarks that a requisition asking him to take charge of the matter had been signed by 10,000 women over 18 years of age in his own constituency.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he was speaking of women generally, and he had no hesitation in saying that the proposal was utterly repugnant to their views. He had received letters from women of all classes, especially those of the lower middle class, telling him that the effect of the passing of the measure would be to drive them from the homes in which they now lived very much to the benefit of the children of their late sister. What did the proposal come to? To the selfish gratification of a few against the interests of the many; but they would never be able to transform legal concubinage into holy matrimony. Then there was another very serious question involved, and that was the condonation of the past breaking of the law. What the hon. Gentleman, proposed was the secularization of marriage. He would legalize that union, but he could not convert it into holy matrimony. He should be sorry to see the state of things existing in the United States of America introduced into this country. He supported the present law, because it maintained domestic happiness and domestic purity. Whatever Forms of the House were at his disposal he would use to delay and defeat the Bill. He did not enter into the Scriptural argument, for that had been already fully stated, and it was not so well suited to that House. This, after all, was in some sense a legal question; and all the Lord Chancellors in recent times—Lords Hatherley, St. Leonards, Cairns, and Selborne, together with the present Lord Chief Justice of England, were opposed to this Bill. He ought, perhaps, to make an exception in favour of that great ecclesiastical lawyer, Lord Westbury, and Lord Bramwell was also in favour of the Bill. The Bishops and clergy of the Church of England and all diocesan synods and conferences had condemned this Bill, and this showed that opinion was not all on one side. This was a matter of great social importance, and one which, if dealt with at
    1558
    all, ought to be dealt with by the Government, and not by a private Member. The Government required evidence on the subject, and therefore it was that he proposed that a Royal Commission should be appointed. He concluded by moving his Amendment.
    COLONEL MILNE-HOME, in seconding the Amendment, said, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was one fraught with the deepest possible interest to those whose position and circumstances it chiefly concerned; but it went further, because any alteration in the Marriage Law affected family life, and what affected family life affected the whole community. He at once admitted, so far as his own individual opinion was concerned, that nowhere, either in the Levitical or the Biblical law, were they told that this prohibition was to hold good. At the same time, if they were to follow out the very letter of the Scriptural law, almost anyone might be a Mormonite except a Bishop or a Presbyter. The law of the Bible was certainly made for the nations of the day; but the principle of the Bible was handed down for us to act up to according to the lights of our generation, and according to the progress of civilization and Christianity. He thought we were following out that principle as laid down in the Bible, and more particularly the New Testament, by restricting ourselves in the way the law restricted us now. A very large majority of the Church of England considered that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was religiously wrong. The Roman Catholics, he understood, were divided in opinion. The Presbyterians in Scotland and elsewhere were chiefly in favour of retaining this prohibition. But whether the majority of all classes of religious seets were in favour or not, this was a Christian country; and we were bound in common charity to respect the opinions of our religious brethren. We should, therefore, err, if we erred at all, on the right side, by keeping the law as it was—unless there was tremendous reason shown for the change. He submitted that they had had no such reason put before them tonight. Having conceded the theological point, he would take his stand only upon the social ground. He considered that for all classes in the community it was

    1559
    better to keep the law as it now was; and in this view he was supported by not a few of the clergy, though there were clergymen of the Church of England who did not take the extreme view of this question which was laid down by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins). They must take into consideration in this question the wage-earning as well as the wage-paying classes; and when he saw the name of the hon. Member for Stoke down as the champion of this movement he felt considerable qualms of conscience as to what course he was to take. He had invariably voted against any change in this direction; and the only thing that would induce him to alter his views was the persuasion that such a change in the law would be really a benefit to the working class. It seemed to him that those who were in a different position to them were bound to give up something for their benefit. Widowers in all classes were to be pitied, but chiefly those among the working classes, because when the wife was taken the housekeeper was taken also, and that meant terrible inconvenience in the home. That was more noticeable, perhaps, in the community in which he lived than in any other, as married soldiers had no end of privileges and allowances; but when the wife died all those allowances and privileges went. The soldier, who was a widower, had immediately to become a member of his company's mess; and, in addition, to pay someone to look after his children. But the question arose, would the Resolution, or a Bill like it, if carried, be a remedy for all this? He thought that the sisters-in-law of men in the position of working men were generally either married themselves or were in service or otherwise employed, and were not at liberty to come and take charge of a household. One great argument against the hon. Member for Stoke was that the sisters-in-law were not available. The real remedy was to take steps to improve the dwellings of these people. ["Question !"] That was the question; the reason of all these discomforts of the working classes was that they were so badly housed; and it was an insult to the pure-minded among them to come to the House and ask for a Bill which they themselves did not want. He had endeavoured to find a Return of the
    1560
    number of these illicit marriages; and the only one he could find showed that in a cycle of 12 years the number of what he might call rich marriages was 1,608, against 40 poor ones. That seemed to show either that the poorer classes preferred to remain as they were, or that they were not in a position to break the law. It also showed the sad fact that the richer classes did not scruple to break the law. The recent alteration in the law in Canada had been mentioned, and some hon. Members had seemed to consider it a very great argument; but it seemed to him no argument to say that because her children go wrong the mother country should do likewise. It had been said that it would be very awkward for persons so married coming home to this country from Canada, in that they would have no status as married persons. But Lord Cairns had said in the other House that the domicile of Canada legalized the marriage all over the world. If, however, people domiciled in Great Britain crossed to Canada, and took advantage of the law there, they must not be surprised if the law of their domicile took effect when they returned. As to foreign countries, these unions were permitted in France, Germany, and Russia, but only by a dispensation from the Church. That seemed to imply that the parties had done something wrong, as a dispensation was simply a pardon for an offence which was considered morally wrong. It was well known that in those countries divorce was rifer than it was in England. Whether that fact arose from the different conditions of the marriage law it was not for him to say; but it was for hon. Gentlemen who came and asked for the removal of the restriction to prove that family life in those countries, in America, and in the Colonies, was purer, and holier, and happier than it was in England. He believed that in America there was a growing dislike to such marriages. He thought that in what he had said he had shown that there was no desire on the part of the working classes for any change in the law. The hon. Member for Stoke would, in his opinion, defeat his own object if a law were passed founded on this Resolution. At present the sister-in-law could enter the widower's household, and help him in its management, and she was undoubtedly the right person

    1561
    to do so. If a Bill were passed founded upon this Resolution, the sister-in-law would, in the pithy words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have to "pack up her traps and begone." Then the children ought to be considered. If the marriages in question were allowed new families would spring up, and the children by the first marriage might be left out in the cold. He was amazed at the support which the proposal had received in certain quarters. If the people who were in favour of it would only compare the state of society in foreign countries where the prohibition was not acted upon—in the United States and in our Colonies—with the state of society at home they would soon change their views. Many persons forgot that if the restriction on marriage with a deceased wife's sister were done away with, it would be impossible to stop there. What would there be to prevent a man from claiming to marry his mother-in-law, his brother's widow, or his step daughter? The restriction, according to so learned an authority as Lord Cairns, dated from the earliest times of Christianity. Surely he could rely upon the Conservatives lining the Benches on his side of the House to vote for its retention. This was a moribund Parliament. Large numbers of people were soon to be admitted to the franchise for the first time. Would it not be well to wait and see what the new electorate would say on this subject? Some day, perhaps, we should have female suffrage. By all means let the House wait for that day before attempting to alter the present law, for he felt certain that the women would vote for the retention of the marriage law of England in its present integrity.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws relating to Marriages within the prohibited degrees,"—(Colonel Makins,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. EDWARD CLARKE: Sir, I suppose it is not expected that we should
    1562
    discuss in detail the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins) has proposed. It is an evasive and dilatory Amendment, asking the House to decline to pass an opinion on the main subject of discussion, and an Amendment which I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be the very last man to put forward as a substantive Motion for its acceptance. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would be more reluctant than he to throw open the whole question of the prohibited degrees in the Marriage Law. I turn at once from that large subject to the single question contained in the Resolution; and, with the indulgence of the House, I will give a few reasons why I intend to vote in support of this Resolution. It has been practically conceded that, so far as the maintenance of that restriction finds its authority in an appeal to Scriptural rules, there is no ground for the restriction. ["No, no!"] It is of no use to contradict me by "No, no !" It is practically conceded by the Mover of the Amendment, and it is conceded in terms by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick (Colonel Milne-Home). I think there is no more remarkable evidence of the slavery into which the intellect is sometimes brought by the will and the sentiment than the fact that there are people to be found in this country, honest and intelligent people, who contend that these marriages are forbidden by Holy Scripture. There is no difficulty with regard to the argument. The prohibition is generally supposed to be found in a single verse of Leviticus. As to that verse, there is no material discrepancy or dispute respecting translation, and there is no ambiguity in its phrases. If it be interpreted by those rules which all men, with one accord, would apply to the construction of any other authority in any other verse, it clearly gives, not a prohibition, but a permission to these marriages. It is one of the universal canons of interpretation that a particular prohibition implies a general permission. Therefore, as the verse in. question says that a marriage is not to be contracted during the lifetime of the sister, it follows that such a marriage is permissible when that life is at an end. ["Hear, hear!"] But my hon. Friends around me rather rely

    1563
    upon the interpretation of another text to be found in the Old Testament, and to be found twice in the Now Testament—a text in metaphorical language, which speaks of the twain being one flesh. It is scarcely possible, with due reverence and propriety, to discuss and point out the consequences of such a construction as is put upon that text; and I will content myself with this answer—which I confess appears to me overwhelming—that to say that that text was meant to convey a prohibition of a marriage of this kind is to be guilty of the grossest disrespect and irreverence to the writer of the Sacred Book in which it was found; it is to contend that a prohibition is intended to be conveyed to the world by the text, but that the inspired writer so ill set down the command it was his duty to give to the world that for 2,000 years the people to whom that command was supposed to be addressed unanimously misunderstood it, and disobeyed it. It is impossible to find in the Old or New Testament any further authority than these. But we have been told that if we cannot appeal to Scripture to support this prohibition we shall find it in the social condition of life, and in the mischiefs that would follow from the permitting of these marriages. It is, I think, a little too much forgotten that the existence of this prohibition is the cause of very serious social mischiefs. If my hon. and gallant Friend behind me quotes a Return stating that 1,600 marriages of this class have occurred within a certain time among wealthy persons, while only 40 marriages of the same kind have taken place among the poorer class, I want to know what is the explanation of that discrepancy? Is it to be supposed that in this class, where the reasons for such a union are far stronger than they are in the class to which hon. Members of the House belong—is it to be supposed that there, where circumstances press more strongly in support of such a marriage, the alliance is not made? The explanation is, I fear, a different one. The wealthy man can take the second wife away and marry her abroad. He brings her back to this country, as one knows in the circle of one's own acquaintances, with undiminished respect and acceptance. [Cheers, and "No, no !"]
    1564
    I do not believe there is a Member of this House who does not know within the circle of his own acquaintances at least two or three instances in which such marriages have taken place. At all events, the rich man can do that, and the poor man cannot go abroad and solemnize the marriage; and I believe the result is too often not that the union does not take place, but that the union takes place unhallowed by any ceremony of marriage whatever. There are these mischiefs now; but it is said that there will be serious social mischiefs if this alteration in the law be made. It seems to me, I confess, that my hon. and gallant Friends who are putting this argument forward are giving a most strange and grotesque representation of the social and domestic life of the English people. The ideal state of things seems to be this—that the wife throughout the married life is anxious and suspicious in regard to anyone who comes into the circle of the home life, in the fear, not that the affection of the husband may presently go out and result in unfaithfulness, but that, at some future time, when the wife herself has gone, he may contract a second marriage with that person. The idea seems to be that the English wife is so keenly jealous and suspicious, and has so little confidence in her husband's love, that she cannot reconcile herself to the presence of her own sister in the home, but for the consolation she finds in the fact that in 1835, almost by an accident, this prohibition was put upon the Statute Book. I say, almost by an accident, for in Committee of the House in 1835 the only Division that took place on the subject was a Division in which the majority was against the prohibition of these marriages; but those who were putting forward the Act of Parliament of 1835 pleaded that it might be allowed to pass in that year, and suggested that an amending Act permitting these marriages should be brought in in the following year. It seems to me that the view which has been taken is an entire misapprehension, of the condition of the domestic life among us. We should be in pitiful case indeed if that condition of anxiety, jealousy, and suspicion which has been pictured was the real condition of the English home—

    1565
    "In love, if love be love, if love be ours,
    Faith and unfaith can ne'er be equal powers;
    Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all."
    I do not believe that the wife, at the time when her health and capacity exist for managing her children, and when she is able to render all the satisfaction to her husband as when he took her for his wife—I do not believe there is this constant suspicion and anxiety on her part that in some future time, after she is dead, he will marry another. But there is a time when feeling becomes deeper. There comes to many women a time when they know of their sentence to go from the husband they love and the family they have taken care of, and when there is an interval between the season of active joyous interests in life, and the time when the final parting is made; and I do not believe that the tone of feeling of women at that time is jealousy or suspicion of the sister who may take her place. Women are not so selfish as men are. I do not believe that a woman could do the cruel and wicked act that men are every day committing, when they, by the terms of their wills, endeavour to prevent the wife from ever being happy again in married life. I believe that to the woman it would be a consolation, and not a vexation and a sorrow, to think that the children whom she loves, and is leaving behind her, should find their most proper protector, and the husband should find his best companion and helpmate in her own sister, who would bring back to them the memory of her who had gone. With regard to this matter, I would like to say a few words on the reference that has been made to the canons of the Church, and on the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the retrospective effect of the Bill to be introduced. Assuming that Parliament passes an Act to abolish this prohibition, it will be on this ground only—that the prohibition ought never to have existed; and if we make a declaration that the prohibition ought never to have existed and ought to be removed, it would be a monstrous thing to leave the stain of illegitimacy upon hundreds of thousands of persons with regard to; the marriage of whose parents we admit that that marriage is not forbidden by the law of God, and ought not to be for bidden by the law of man. It is said;
    1566
    that such marriages are forbidden by the canons of the Church; and, no doubt, one of the canons ecclesiastical does contain a prohibition in a very peculiar form. It declares that these marriages are forbidden by the Word of God; and it declares that, as I believe, without the smallest foundation. The canons are a series of orders issued by the authority of the Crown, with the concurrence and advice of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and they are not binding by law upon the laity of England at all. They are constantly and habitually disregarded by the Bishops and clergy themselves. The 99th canon, which has been referred to, comes in the middle of a number of others which are simply concerned with the procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and the only reason why those canons has been allowed till this day to exist, and remain in what I suppose I must call the Rule of the Church of England, is that the clergy have habitually disobeyed the Royal Order which was made when those canons were promulgated—namely, that each clergyman should read them once a-year at the afternoon service, one-half of them on one day, and the other half on the next. If the clergy obeyed that Royal Order I undertake to say that those canons ecclesiastical would not remain in existence for 12 months. There is only one other point on which I will ask the House to allow me to say a word or two, and it is that which touches the part of the question which is the most serious and the most important. Sitting here, and seeing the Prime Minister in his place, I have been reminded of the remarkable letter the right hon. Gentleman wrote in the year 1863 to the late Bishop Wilberforce, and which was printed in one volume of the life of that Bishop lately published, in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length to that illustrious Prelate of the position which the Church of England ought to take with reference to matters which affect Nonconformists in this country, and I have always thought that in that letter the right hon. Gentleman gave counsel so wise to members of the Church of England that the letter, if it stood alone, would justify the confidence which has been habitually and consistently placed in him by very large bodies of Churchmen. Sir, I am very

    1567
    anxious indeed with regard to the relation of this Motion to the position and character of the Church of England. I am a Churchman—a Churchman bound to the Church by ties of allegiance a great deal deeper and a great deal stronger than those which attach me to any political Party. The Church is a great institution—one of the greatest institutions we have in this country. It is higher in authority than Parliaments or Thrones; it will survive them all; and I think with great anxiety of the future of the Church and its relations to the State. I believe that disestablishment would be a national disaster, and that disendowment would be a national crime; but there is one event possible which would be far worse for the nation and for the Church than disestablishment, however complete, and disendowment, however rapacious—and that is that the Church should be degraded into a Department of the State, and placed under the control of the House of Commons and under the supervision of an Erastian Home Secretary. But I confess that I think that is the direction in which those who are now professing to lead Churchmen in this matter are unknowingly but most steadily going when they assert a claim to make the law of the Church—because they call it the law of the Church—the law of the land, and when they claim that those who do not belong to the Church itself shall yield obedience to that law simply because it is the law of the Church, and because in theory every man in the nation is a member of the Church. They forget that the natural and necessary corollary and consequence of that claim on their part is that the people over whose reluctant conscience they are attempting to place that yoke are entitled to turn round, and will turn round, and say—"You insist on the theory that we are members of the Church; and, because you insist that we are bound by its law, we in our own Parliament will regulate the rules, the ritual, and the doctrine of the Church itself;" and thus, in attempting to stretch the authority of its own rules over the people at large, the Church will have succeeded in reducing itself to a position which I think will be most disastrous to it and to the State as well. Now, I have not made these observa-
    1568
    tions upon this matter without a feeling of very strong personal responsibility. There has been no personal interest or personal influence pressing me in the direction in which I am going. On the other hand, I have been warned by those I whom I count among my best friends, and who are perfectly capable, if they choose, of giving effect to that warning, that the penalty of the course I am taking may be a penalty very serious to my political future. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I can only say I that that is the warning which has been given to me, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not be so well able to judge as those who sit on the Opposition, side of the House as to what the force of that warning may be; but a matter of that kind is a matter with which I have nothing whatever to do. Whatever may happen as to that, I have striven to study this question, and to come to a clear and conscientious conviction and result upon it; and I have come to a definite and clear determination that I must give my vote in support of the Motion. I shall give that vote most clearly and confidently, believing that I am doing nothing that will, in the least degree, derogate from the authority of any Divine law, or from the reverence due to it; that I shall be assisting the social purity and domestic happiness of the people; and, still more, that I shall be rendering true and loyal service to the Church which I desire most faithfully to serve, and whose work and whose influence are, in my belief, the most precious of our national possessions.
    MR. THOMASSONwas understood to support the Resolution, and to argue in favour of a Motion which he had put upon the Paper, and which, by the Rules of the House, he was precluded from moving, to the effect that in the opinion of the House a marriage with a deceased husband's brother should be rendered legal.
    MR. C. PHIPPSsaid, he sincerely trusted that before this debate came to an end some hon. Member of his own profession would get up and answer the arguments which had been put to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). For himself, it would be impossible for him to look at this question

    1569
    as one of merely legal argument. He could not help thinking that it was far more a social question than a legal one, and that it was a matter affecting the welfare of the whole community. In common with many—in fact, in common with every Member of the House—he had listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He had listened with interest to that speech, because he willingly admitted that the hon. Member of all others was the exponent of the wants and wishes of the working classes; but on this question the House had to consider not only the interests and the desires of those who laboured by their hands, but also of those who laboured by their brains. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) asked for justice on behalf of those who worked from dark in the morning until after sunset; but he (Mr. C. Phipps) would ask the House to take into consideration not only those, but also that very numerous class, who, although perhaps they did not leave their houses at quite such an early period in the morning, were still practically removed from their children the whole of the day. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), so far as he could make out, supported the view he took by the opinions of Professors of Greek and Hebrew; but the question had been before so many learned men, not only Professors of Greek and Hebrew, but also Professors of the English language, that it was quite unnecessary for him (Mr. C. Phipps) to say a word about the archaeological view. Again, as to the Scriptural view, he could very well leave that to the care of the theologians. It appeared to him that the question before them was rather what was to become of their sisters-in-law; or, if hon. Members did not like that way of expressing it, he would put it in this way—the question was what was to become of the women with whom, for many years, they had probably been accustomed to live on the same terms of intimacy as they had with their sisters? The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) said that, in many cases, the relations between the husband and sister-in-law were of a most strained description, and that, in many cases, the husband was absolutely ignorant of his sister-in-law.
    1570
    Well, he quite admitted that that occasionally might be the case; but, so far as England was concerned, he submitted with all due deference to the House that the contrary was generally the rule. It appeared to him that when death might have removed the wife, no one was so likely to take proper care of her children, and to have a knowledge of them and affection for them, than the sister; and if this Resolution were carried, and if on the top of the Resolution a Bill embracing its principle were passed, they would practically remove the very woman who would be most likely to take proper care of the children. For one case where such a Bill would bring any relief, it appeared to him that there would be 99 in which it would inflict a positive hardship; because he could not imagine that there were any number of men who would willingly submit their sisters-in-law to the taunts and inuendoes and whispered asides which would take place through their living in the house after the death of their wives. They had been told that this change in the law had been asked for by the people at large, and that he entirely denied. There was another question which agitated a great number of people, and that was the question of Sunday Closing. For a good many years he (Mr. C. Phipps) had followed the fortunes of Sunday Closing; and he should just like, in order to show that a measure legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister was not asked for by the public generally, to compare the Petitions received in favour of that proposal with those received in support of the Bill for Sunday Closing. He would take the last Report on Petitions. In that he found that those against any change in the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister numbered 179, containing the total number of 11,641 signatures; the number of Petitions in favour of the Bill being five, containing signatures of those connected with the movement in favour of the proposed change in the law. When, however, he came to look at the number of Petitions in favour of Sunday Closing, he found that no less than 5,084 had been presented, containing a total number of 429,177 signatures. That, to his mind, effectually disposed of the question as to whether any change in the law was earnestly required. He was bound to say himself that the sig-

    1571
    natures upon Petitions he viewed with a great deal of distrust; but he certainly believed that the number of Petitions was something of a criterion, and he had often heard it stated, both in the House and elsewhere, that the proper gauge of public feeling was the agitation in the way of Petitions, and the signatures which were attached to them. It had been said that one reason why they should alter the law was in consequence of the number of irregular marriages—or he would not call them irregular marriages, but irregular unions—which wore constantly taking place in their midst. He very much regretted that, through an accident, he was unable to give some very interesting figures which he had recently come across; but he remembered this with regard to them, that the number of people who had married their deceased wife's sister was extremely small as compared with those living with other people outside the pale of the law. Well, there was another point which struck him very forcibly. If these marriages were very much desired by the people at large, certainly they would have seen and heard a great deal more about the question in the House of Commons than they had. The question, he believed, was first brought before the House in the year 1841, in which year the introduction of a Bill was refused. In the Parliament of 1847 a Bill on the subject was twice read a second time; in the Parliament of 1853 it was once read a second time; and on the next occasion it was brought forward it was rejected on the second reading. In the Parliament of 1857 it was twice read a second time; in the Parliament of 1859 it was twice rejected; in the Parliament of 1866 it was rejected once; and in the Parliament of 1868 the second reading was carried four times. There was, however, one remarkable fact about the Parliament of 1868, and that was that the majority commenced with 100 and dwindled down to 35. In the Parliament of 1874 the subject was negatived on the second reading; and here they were in the year 1884 of the Parliament of 1880, and this was the first time the matter had been brought before the House. Something had been said about America. America had been brought into the question, and allusion had been made to the Law of Divorce, and the
    1572
    estimable manner people lived together in that country. There was one thing that he did not think they had properly taken into consideration, and that was the very extreme facility with which the people living in America were able to obtain divorces. Directly the parties became tired of each other, or directly one person got tired of the other, there was no occasion to wait, as they had to do in England, for freedom by death, but a divorce was obtained. If they made the alteration in the law which they were to-night asked to make—an alteration on behalf of the deceased wife's sister—he wanted to know where on earth they were going to stop? It appeared to him that there was no halfway house in this matter. If an alteration were made they must pass on ad infinitum. He could not help believing that the people who supported this proposal had really not thoroughly thought the thing out; they had not placed themselves in the position of the widower, or in the position of the wife or the wife's sister. A good deal had been said about the male population; but very little attention had been paid to the female population in this controversy. As to the agricultural population, he in common, no doubt, with many other Members of the House, mixed a great deal amongst people connected with agriculture. He regretted that he was not in a position to speak with authority with regard to the females in the big towns; but this he could say, without the slightest hesitation, that the proposed change was not asked for in respect of the female agricultural population. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in this House, he had always endeavoured to discuss the questions of the day—that was to say, not only agricultural questions, but all kinds of social questions—with his constituents and other people. He had brought this question on over and over again; but he never heard on one single occasion any call for the change. He opposed the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) because he believed it would be attended with untold misery to the helpless wives, and untold sorrow probably to their sisters. He opposed it because it was an agitation promoted in the interest of the few. If it were an agitation brought before them by what they could believe the majority,

    1573
    he granted that, to a certain extent, the ground would be out from, under the feet of those who opposed the alteration in the law; but the agitators were in a minority, although, unfortunately, that minority was a wealthy one. The agitation was a paid one; and he had no hesitation in saying that the people—he had almost said sinners, but those people to whom the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) referred as bidding defiance to the law—were, in the great majority of cases, wealthy persons. Why did these people bid defiance to the law? Why, because the were wealthy and able to do it. He opposed the present proposal, because, as he had said, it had not been properly thought out, and because he believed that the more it was studied the more it would be repudiated by the nation as a whole.
    EARL PERCYsaid, that hon. Members who opposed this Motion had been met with the taunt that they had no theological argument to bring forward in support of their opinions. Well, to bring forward theological arguments on the floor of the House in favour of their view was a disagreeable task; but sooner than it should be said that there was no theological argument in favour of the view he and his Friends entertained, he was prepared, with the permission of the House, to say a few words on that point. He was met at the outset by a very great difficulty—namely, that the views on theology entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite were of such a peculiar nature. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had taken occasion, in the course of his argument, to declare that the proper interpreters of the Old Testament were the Jews and Mahommedans, for the reason that upon the Old Testament those people founded their systems of religious belief. But he (Earl Percy) would have thought that the Christian religion was, at least, equally based on the Old Testament as the religion of the Jews or the Mahommedans. He would state this—and he regretted anyone should be found in the House, calling himself a Christian, who could seek to controvert it—that to the Christians was given a light by which to interpret Holy Scripture—both the New and the Old Testaments—which had not been given either to the Jews or the Mahommedans;
    1574
    and he believed it a very bad sign when hon. Gentlemen got up and declared——
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Percy) had not quoted him correctly. What he had said was, that the Professors who had given their opinions were backed up by practices of the Jews and Mahommedans, who based their religion on the Old Testament.
    EARL PERCYsaid, if that was the hon. Member's statement, he had, he thought, also said that he believed the Jews and Mahommedans were the best judges of what the Old Testament meant, because their religions were based upon that. He (Earl Percy) disputed that altogether, and maintained that Christians were the best judges. Then the hon. Gentleman had said that Roman Catholics were not against these marriages. He (Earl Percy) was prepared to say this, that the Roman Catholics had always declared such marriages to be invalid and to be illegal by the law of the Church; and if they would ask Cardinal Manning, they would find he would make a similar statement. It was perfectly true that dispensations had been given to enable a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; but dispensations had also been given for men to marry their nieces; and would hon. Gentlemen say that marriage with a niece was right in ordinary cases? The truth of the matter, so far as his point was concerned, was that Roman Catholics held that the Pope had power to dispense in certain cases with that which was the ordinary rule and law of the Church, and that it was the ordinary rule and law of the Church that these marriages should not take place. He did think, therefore, that those Gentlemen who taunted the opponents of the proposed change in the law for not bringing theology in support of their view should have informed themselves upon these very elementary points before they made the charge. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in. his speech, continually spoke of Protestants and Nonconformists, as though drawing a distinction between them, and probably his Nonconformist Friends would hardly thank him for thinking there was any difference between the two—for thinking that Nonconformists were not members of the Protestant religion. That, however, was simply a question of a phrase, and he (Earl Percy) now came to another part of the argu-

    1575
    ment. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), in his very eloquent speech, had referred to a text, and had chosen to interpret that in a particular sense. He had told them that they were not to use words except in their precise and literal meaning; and because the prohibition was not mentioned in the text they were to suppose that no prohibition existed—that, in fact, they were not to argue by analogy in this case, but were to hold what was not expressly allowed as forbidden. The hon. Gentleman quoted from other texts in the New Testament, which he objected to being taken in their literal meaning, saying that they could not mean what they said, that man and wife were one flesh, but that they must be taken in their general sense. Well, whether that was a fair mode of dealing with Bible criticism, he (Earl Percy) would not stop to inquire; but he would say that Biblical criticism was not based on any texts. He was well aware that they could prove anything from a text, and his view was that the theological argument was not based on any text of Scripture, but upon the general principle that ran through the whole of Holy Writ from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. That principle was that man and wife were one flesh, that the relations of the husband were the relations of the wife, and that the relations of the wife were the relations of the husband—that the relations of the husband were near of kin of the wife, and the relations of the wife were near of kin of the husband. Throughout the whole of Scripture this class of union was the type and figure of the higher and more sacred union, and a breach of this union, whether it were by the ordinary course of immorality, or whether by these illicit and forbidden communications, were symbolic find typical of greater crime. That was the principle that ran through the whole of the Bible, and that he held to be by far the strongest argument which could be offered against the Resolution—far stronger than any social argument could be—that so far from saying that they dare not support their view by theological arguments, he declared that, in his opinion, those were the only arguments that were worth discussing at all. The view which he entertained was the view not entertained by many hon. Gen-
    1576
    tlemen opposite, and he was afraid was not shared by some of those who were as willing and as ready as any of his Friends could be to take for their own personal guidance the law of the Church. They thought that in legislating for a great country, where many individuals were not of the same faith as those who sat on the Opposition side of the House, they should not subject them to laws that they felt binding on their own conscience. He should like to read to the House a passage from the speech of one for whose opinion the House had the greatest respect, and of whom it could not be said at any time, as had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke of many hon. Members who were opposed to him were remarkable for—namely, that he was wanting in common sense. The speaker to whom he referred said—
    "But are we, who have realized the results of Christianity, to go hack from Christianity to conscience? This, which is sometimes called the light of conscience, sometimes the light of nature, and which in no two countries or ages has ever been alike, has been of gradual growth and training from the infancy of mankind until it has reached the highest level on which Christianity is placed; and if we are to go back from that level, I ask where are we to stop? And I say that while I have a superior I should not be content to adopt an inferior standard. The law of the land, not in an arbitrary manner, but on principles based on Divine revelation, has adopted our present prohibitions in marriage; and I oppose the present measure because I see that it is part of a system which I do not say is intended to be so, but which in its working is certain to be, most pernicious to those results which the Christian religion has wrought out for mankind."
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Percy) was mistaken in declaring that he had charged hon. Members who differed from him that they were wanting in common sense.
    EARL PERCYapologized if he had misrepresented the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) on that matter; but, however that was, the words he had read were the words of the present Prime Minister. He would make no apology to the House for quoting one more passage from the right hon. Gentleman. He had said—
    "The best social result of Christianity is the perfect equality of man and woman as to the facility of contracting marriage. This Bill meddles for the first time with that equality. The hon. Member proposes to authorize the marriage of a man with a deceased wife's sister, and, therefore, with his wife's niece; he legislates for the man, but he does not propose, on the other

    1577
    hand, that the aunt may marry her husband's nephew. Is this a small change? When was woman first elevated to an equality with her stronger companion? Never till the Gospel came into the world. It was the slow hut certain, and, I thank God, hitherto unshaken, result of Christianity, not considered as a system of dogmas, but as one of social influence, to establish a perfect equality between man and woman, as far as the marriage tie is concerned. The hon. Member now proposes to change this fundamental law and principle, and I have a right to ask him how far he intends to proceed, and whether he intends to have one marriage code for men and another for women?"
    The right hon. Gentleman further said—
    "When we are told that it is a matter of doubt, it appears to me to be so only in the sense that everything is a matter of doubt to those who may have an interest in disputing it, or who may desire to do so. Any man has a right to say, 'It is a matter of doubt because I doubt, and as I doubt it I am entitled to call it doubtful matter.' Even the great principles of Christianity embodied in the Common Law are principles which may be called in question by the licentiousness of individual minds. Private opinion may question the authority of the universal voice of Christendom on this matter; but it questions it exactly on the same grounds that it may question the whole results that Christianity has brought to mankind—that everything that Christianity has elevated out of the region of private opinion, and made part of the common property and intelligence of mankind."
    It was not usual to quote at such length in this House; but he thought that when they found a passage so forcible and eloquently expressed, tending to support the view which they entertained—a passage from the speech of the Prime Minister—when they thought, alas! of a new light which in these latter days had dazzled the right hon. Gentleman's eyes, those who supported the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him (Earl Percy) for having brought an extract forward.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Motion asked them to record their disapproval of the existing law. One hon. Member had told them that that law had been on the Statute Book for centuries, and another had told them that it had been in force for the last 50 years. Therefore, he thought it worth the while of the House for a moment or two to consider not only when the existing Act was passed, but the circumstances under which it was passed, and why it was passed. With all deference to the hon. Members opposite who expressed an opposite opinion, prior to 1835 marriages of the kind they
    1578
    had been discussing were only voidable in this country after a suit was instituted in the lifetime of both of the parties; and if no proceeding was taken during the lifetime of both the husband and wife they were perfectly valid, and the children were legitimate. In 1835, however, a certain noble House in this country, to which he would not further allude, found their succession to the Peerage very seriously compromised by the existence of the law as it then stood, and Lord Lyndhurst brought in a Bill solely—when it was brought in—for the purpose of dealing with the question of these marriages so far as proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court were concerned. He brought in a Bill to provide simply that any proceeding for invalidating these marriages should be instituted within two years after the marriage of the parties, or six months after the passing of the Act. There was no attempt in the Bill, as brought in, to deal with the marriages in the future; but two very distinguished Prelates of the English Church—the then Bishop of London and the then Bishop of Exeter—in Committee of the House of Lords raised the question as to the prohibition of future marriages; and if he were allowed to use such an expression in connection with those distinguished individuals, and that branch of the Legislature, practically a bargain was struck between Lord Lyndhurst and the Episcopal Bench, they sanctioning and condoning such marriages in the past, and he being prepared, at their instance, to insert a clause, making such marriages null and void in the future. That was a singular contract, so far as the Ecclesiastical Law was concerned, because, if these marriages were incestuous, it was beyond the power of the Legislature to make them valid. When the Bill came down to the House of Commons, the then Member for Bridport proposed that the clause prohibiting these marriages in the future should be struck out, and accordingly, by a majority of 12 in Committee, the clause was struck out. Therefore, at that stage of the proceedings in the House of Commons, the House declined to declare these marriages null and void in the future. Sir William Follett, who had charge of the Bill, on Report moved the reinsertion of the clause; and he (Mr. H. H, Fowler) had it from those who

    1579
    were Members at the time, that a strong appeal was made to hon. Members by those interested in these marriages, on the ground that it was necessary to avoid prejudicing the other portions of the Bill in the House of Lords. They were appealed to, to allow the Bill to pass in a form in which it would secure the assent of the House of Lords, a distinct pledge being given to them that, in another year, a fresh Bill would be introduced to deal with future marriages. Under these circumstances, the House of Commons, by a majority of 58 votes, restored the clause. He thought that when the history of that legislation was told, it did not appear very creditable to those who had to do with it. It did not stand on very high moral grounds, and did not seem to him at all calculated to enhance the purity and sanctity of marriage. But a succession to a Peerage was secured, a noble Duke was made legitimate, and, as a compensation for that, an injury was inflicted upon a large section of the people of the country. As far as that Act ratified the past it was a distinct violation of the Canon Law, if the Legislature of that day thought the Canon Law binding. Then, the next stage of the history of this controversy—and he was going to allude to it because an hon. Member opposite had endeavoured to impress upon them that this question had never been thought out, and that it was inexperienced men who, in 1884, had discovered that these marriages were regular and proper—was the Royal Commission of 1847. There having been a good deal of dissatisfaction, and some of the clergy then in charge of parishes in large towns having themselves discovered the evil results of the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had alluded, and having called the attention of those in power to the evil that this legislation was producing, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the Law of Marriage. And he should like to call the attention of the House to the names of the Commissioners, for he believed that when he had stated them hon. Members would agree that such men were perfectly capable of thinking out the question, if anyone was. They had had allusion to-night to the present Bishop of Lichfield; but it was another Bishop of Lichfleld who was appointed on this Commission—the Bishop of 30 or 40 years ago, who was not only one
    1580
    of the ripest scholars, but one of the ablest and most impartial men who ever adorned the Episcopal Bench. He referred to Dr. Lonsdale, who was at the head of the Commission. Associated with this Prelate was a distinguished Member of the Conservative Party, a man know as a lawyer and a statesman—Mr. James Stuart-Wortley; Dr. Lushington, the eminent ecclesiastical lawyer; Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams; and the Lord Advocate. The Report which these distinguished men, after receiving an immense amount of evidence, presented, was a conclusive proof that the question had been fully thought out in 1847. One of the first questions to which the Commissioners addressed themselves was the point the noble Earl opposite (Earl Percy) had dealt with with so much force, and which he rebuked the supporters of the Resolution with being ignorant upon—namely, the law of the Roman Catholic Church. The Commissioners found that in the Roman Catholic Church these marriages were prohibited as a matter of discipline; but the prohibition might be, and was, dispensed with by the Pope. The noble Earl would admit that Cardinal Wiseman was acquainted, at all events, with the elementary principles of the law of the Roman Catholic Church. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would give two or three questions and answers from the evidence of Cardinal Wiseman. He was asked—
    "Q.—Taking the question first with reference to the Scripture, is such a marriage held by your Church as prohibited?
    "A.—Certainly not; it is considered a matter of ecclesiastical regulation.
    "Q.—When you say that such a marriage is 'unlawful,' do you mean unlawful by the law of the Church?
    "A.—Yes.
    "Q.—And when you think proper to dispense with such unlawfulness, you think proper to dispense with the regulations of the Church, and not with a portion of Scripture?
    "A,—Certainly.
    "Q.—With respect to marriages of this description, do you find amongst Catholics that those persons who have contracted such marriages are received with the same kindness and good feeling as persons who have contracted other marriages?
    "A.—With a dispensation, certainly; as it is not thought disgraceful the moment the Church has given a dispensation."
    ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl (Earl Percy) said "Hear, hear!" but this statement of Cardinal Wiseman's was not the impression the noble Earl wished

    1581
    to convey to the House. The argument the noble Earl had conveyed to the House, and which he had rebuked the supporters of the Resolution for not accepting, was that the Roman Catholic Church disapproved of these marriages, because they did not rest on Scripture. They had heard it said to-night that there was hardly any other country where these marriages were allowed; but the Commissioners, on the other hand, said that in all Protestant States, with the exception of some of the Cantons of Switzerland, these marriages were permitted; and, as to America, they quoted from one of the most eminent Judges in America, Mr. Justice Storey—one of the most eminent Judges that either America or this country had over produced—to the effect that in most of the American States marriages of this kind were not only lawful, but were deemed in a moral and religious and Christian sense exceedingly praiseworthy, although in some few States the English prohibition was in force. The Commissioners, after finding that these marriages were approved of among the Jews and the great body of Protestant Dissenters, and that there was great difference of opinion on the subject amongst the clergy of the Established Church, came to this practical conclusion—
    "Some persons contend that these marriages are forbidden, expressly or inferentially, by Scripture. If this be admitted, cadit questio".
    And the Commissioners added—
    "We consider that the feeling against these marriages is in a great measure founded rather on a vague and uninformed assumption that they are prohibited by God's Word, than on a mature examination either of the Scripture or the law of the Church."
    The Commissioners unanimously—Bishops and Judges—were
    "Constrained to express our belief that the Statue has failed to attain its object, but also to express our doubt whether any measure of a prohibitive character would be effectual."
    That being so, they were met to-night by two classes of argument, which were mutually contradictory. The first speaker on the other side of the House (Colonel Makins) did not lay much stress upon the Divine Law, but had rested a great deal of his argument on the Canonical Law. The second speaker put the whole question entirely on social considerations, and gave up altogether the re-
    1582
    ligious argument which the noble Earl had galvanized into life again. What he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) contended was, that the House of Commons was not a competent Body to expound texts of Scripture. He was not going to presume to express an opinion upon them; but, at all events, so far as the meaning of Scripture on this subject was involved, there had been the greatest difference of opinion between the most eminent men in all ages on the question. He maintained that the allegation of a Divine Law, the existence of which was disputed by one half of Christendom, was too slender a basis on which to rest a restriction which imposed on the nation the special opinions of one section of the community. In the Church of Rome there was evidently a difference of opinion; for, whilst Cardinal Manning was against these marriages, Cardinal Newman, whose opinion was entitled to great weight, and whose mind was singularly free from any bias in favour of advanced or free legislation in Church matters, had stated distinctly in the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) that if he looked on this question as it affected the poorer classes, he was in favour of a relaxation of the law, but as it affected the richer classes, he was in favour of the law as it existed. One hon. Member had referred to the opinion of the Church, of Scotland. Dr. Chalmers was in favour of these marriages. Dr. Norman Macleod was of the same opinion. Taking everything into consideration, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was of opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature to leave the matter to individual conscience. A man might think these marriages wrong, but he was not bound to contract them; and, under any circumstances, he had no right to impose his opinions on other people who did not share them. In "another place," Lord Houghton had quoted the opinion of the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Philpotts, who, shortly before his death, said that if the law did not interfere with the Church of England he had no concern with it, and if the law gave the right to contract such marriages with Dissenters he had not a word to say against it. That was the opinion of the Bishop who, of all others, they might say was responsible for the law; and, that being so, they must, he thought, regard this question solely from

    1583
    a social point of view. That point of view was a ground upon which it was very difficult to found prohibitory legislation. What a number of gentlemen or the Legislature might think of social considerations was apart from moral considerations. If these marriages were morally wrong, nothing could set them right; but if they were not morally wrong—and there were a large class of individuals who thought them right—it was very thin ice to tread on to say that, because they themselves might not think them right, therefore they were to be forbidden. No stronger argument had been used against the Motion than that, which had been fairly put, that the residence of the sister-in-law would be interfered with if these marriages were allowed. But the law could not prevent affection springing up between these parties. It did not—experience showed that it did not. The legal prohibition was powerless. If they said that, because these people could not marry, they should never entertain an affection for each other, their argument would be strong—he did not say it would be unanswerable; but the mere fact of their passing an Act of Parliament saying that they should not marry, did not, and would not, prevent them from entertaining that very affection, the very existence of which, it was said, the law should prevent. All that the law could do was to give a conventional sanction to what was the true position of the parties. The position of any lady residing in a widower's house was a difficult and delicate one; and the argument used on this head as to the sister-in-law would apply in the same way to cousins, and even to strangers. If they allowed the parties to be placed in circumstances that permitted affection to arise, they had no right to crush that affection, but the converse. If the affection did not arise—and in the majority of cases it did not, for he was willing to admit that the class he was talking about was a minority, even where the circumstances would permit of these marriages—where was the difficulty? Someone talked about slander and insinuations cast at people—about the mean whisperings of the envious tongues of neighbours; but that was not a ground for passing legislation. They must not interfere with the rights of persons because some people might, under certain circumstances, make of-
    1584
    fensive references to them. They could not put a man and his sister-in-law on the same footing as a man and his sister. Human nature was stronger than the canons of any Church, stronger than any Act of Parliament. They could not upset the conviction which prevailed amongst a large number of the people that the best step-mother for motherless children was the sister of the mother who had gone. The main strain of the argument to-night was in reference to the poor, and they had been told that the proper remedy was some gigantic scheme for housing the poor—that by providing the poor with additional accommodation in their dwellings they could grapple with the difficulty. Well, those acquainted with the matter—and no one better than the hon. Member for Stoke—knew that with the poor this was a question of the gravest character. In the homes of the working classes there were not arrangements which enabled the relationship of a widower with the sister-in-law to be defined and guarded as it could be in other classes of life above them; and, no doubt, where the deceased wife's sister went to reside with the working man, and he wished to marry her and she wished to marry him, it was in the interest of morality as well as in the interest of the children and of the man that that marriage should take place. But there was another consideration. He had been dealing with the religious and social questions; but there was the question of the anomaly in the law as between the Mother Country and the Colonies. There could not be two codes of morality, one for Melbourne and one for London. There could not be two laws for people under the same Sovereign. Her Majesty reigned ever 9,000,000 square miles, and yet it was only in 120,000 of them that these marriages were forbidden. If the Crown had given consent to these marriages in the Colonies, there could be no argument based on moral considerations why the Crown should not give consent to them in this country. Assertions had been made—and some hon. Members had spoken incorrectly and unfairly—as to the morality of America and our Colonies. Vague assertions were made which were incapable of proof. In reply to them, he ventured to say that the relations between husband and wife, and between man and woman,

    1585
    were as pure and as high in the Colonies as they were in Great Britain itself. Endorsing every word of that section of the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Percy) containing the extract from the speech of the Prime Minister, showing what Christianity had done for woman, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) believed that no Christian people had ever recognized the ideal of womanly purity and conjugal sanctity as had the Anglo-Saxon race, and wherever that race prevailed these marriages took place; and there was not a tittle of evidence from either Legislature, Judge, or Representative in any Colony or in any State in America, to show that these marriages had produced immoral results. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the Motion was a just and a wise one. He was glad that the debate had been conducted, so far as those who had opposed the Motion were concerned, with a moderation in tone and language very different from what they had been accustomed to out-of-doors, and very different from that which they found in the various leaflets by which ton. Members had been annoyed and disgusted. The question was a very difficult and a very grave one, on which feelings were very strongly excited on one side or the other; but those who, on conscientious grounds, maintained the restriction of the present law, had no right to apply to those who differed from them language imputing one of the foulest crimes that human nature was capable of. He saw the word "incest" used in connection with the proposal to legalize these marriages. The Bill was called the "Sisters' Marriage Bill" and the "Incestuous Marriage Bill." ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) cheered that term. Let him tell the hon. and learned Member that the word implied the deepest moral degradation—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—and that there were men, and women too, who were in favour of the relaxation of the law, and who had themselves, contracted these marriages, who were as incapable of this moral degradation as the hon. and learned Member himself, or as any Member of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) asked them, to-night, whether they knew in their own individual circles cases which would be affected by a Bill to legalize these marriages? While
    1586
    the hon. Member was speaking, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had thought of one case, that of a friend of his own, who was now dead, and as all the other parties concerned were also dead, he might be allowed to allude to the case. His friend was a man of eminent attainments and of eminent public service; and if he were to mention his name—which he should not—many hon. Members would join in testimony to his virtues and great public service. This gentlemen, shortly after his marriage, was confronted with the calamity that his hon. Friend alluded to—he saw the mother of his young children destined to an early death from pulmonary consumption. On her death-bed she asked him, almost in articulo mortis, after they had received their last Communion together, to promise her, if ever he took another wife, he would endeavour to secure her sister to be the mother of her children. He gave the pledge, and many years after that, having waited in vain for the necessary alteration in the law, he was compelled to expatriate himself at the zenith of his position, to seek another domicile, not in a foreign country—startling irony of the situation—but still to remain a subject of the Queen in one of our Colonies, where he fulfilled his pledge to his dying wife. When he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) recalled to his memory this friend, and men like him, his indignation deepened to disgust at the prurient insinuations with which this controversy had been defiled. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had told them again and again, during the present Session, that the true protector of the rights of minorities was the House of Lords; but in that House a majority of the temporal Peers, ranging from Princes of the Blood to the last addition and greatest ornament of the House, had been outvoted, and might be outvoted again, by a clerical caste. But the noblest tradition of the House of Commons was the readiness with which it used its vast, and, when it was in earnest, its resistless power to prevent oppression and redress injustice, no matter how few or insignificant were the oppressed. He knew it was a minority for whom he was pleading. If it were a majority, all the arguments of the other side, theological, canonical, clerical, ecclesiastical, and social would have

    1587
    been long since scattered to the winds. It was a minority who asked for this relief—he came to-night to appeal to the House on behalf of a minority of pure men and pure women. [A laugh.] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport might laugh; but let him get up openly and say that these people were not pure. He repeated, he came to the House to appeal on behalf of a minority of pure men and pure women who were smarting under these restrictions. He appealed not only on their behalf, but on behalf of innocent children whom a merciless sacerdotalism branded with the stigma of illegitimacy; and he trusted that the House, on the first occasion of its dealing with the question, would, notwithstanding the inarticulate objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite, record by a large majority its conviction of the impolicy, the injustice, and the cruelty of this prohibition.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: It was with sincere regret that I heard the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Much as I differ from his arguments, I thoroughly appreciate and admire his logic. I accepted what he said as to the moderation with which the debate had been conducted by those opposed to the proposed alteration of the law, and I was prepared to pay him a similar tribute; but in the latter part of his speech he used words which stir up some of the most bitter feelings of ecclesiastical hatred. He spoke of a sacerdotal caste, and he used such phrases as "intolerable" and "merciless sacerdotalism." I believe the hon. Member belongs to a denomination of Christians which is not mine. I believe that we have broad differences between us. Those differences might hereafter come up in salient antagonism; but I should be ashamed of myself if I were ever to use towards that form of Christianity which is dear to him phrases of contemptuous hostility analogous to those which he has just thrown upon my Church. So much for that part of the hon. Member's speech, of which I am glad not to think any more. The hon. Gentleman told us, with very thrilling pathos, an anecdote of a dying wife who invited her husband to make her sister the future guardian and nurse of her children. The story, as he told it, was very effectively rendered; but it was a story which must be judged, one
    1588
    way or the other, by facts and not by diction. Such an alliance as that was either right in the eyes of God and expedient in the eyes of man, or it was not. If it was right, it did not require a power of narrative like that of the hon. Member's to recommend it to the House; but if it was wrong, all his gifts of thrilling narration could not make it tolerable. The hon. Member dwelt on the history of Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and, while striving to make the House believe that the present law was not the ancient law of England previous to the year 1835, the hon. Gentleman gave copious anecdotes of the genesis of that Act. I cannot follow him in seeing much importance in the minutiae of its Parliamentary history. The important matter is, what was the Act which received the Royal Assent? On this head I want to bring before the House very distinctly that, whatever may have been the Amendments in Committee to the Bill, one thing is certain, and that is that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, in its ultimate form, is now the law of the land. Another thing is equally certain—namely, that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, in that ultimate form, simply re-enacts and carries out the ancient law of England, with this difference, that marriages which were once voidable are now void. So the controversy is narrowed up to the question, What is the difference between marriages voidable and void? I will give the answer in the words of a lawyer to whom, I think, even the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) will bow—I mean the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns); and I could call even upon the hon. Member to confess that the description of Lord Lyndhurst's Act which he gave is quite the description of it that an impartial critic would give after hearing the words I am about to quote. Lord Cairns, speaking in the House of Lords on the 11th of June, 1883, said—
    " My Lords, is that a true description of this measure "—namely, the proposed Bill for legalising marriage with a wife's sister—" that it puts things exactly in the position they were in before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed? I speak with some knowledge of the law, I hope, and I assert that nothing more inaccurate could be said. I say it is perfectly inaccurate so to represent this matter. I say that before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed these marriages were illegal and void. This has been so decided by your Lordship's House as the highest tribunal in the realm. They were technically spoken of

    1589
    as voidable, no doubt. That is to say, the sentence of the Court was needed to declare that they were void. But, as Lord Brougham said, they were voidable because they were void."
    I appeal to Lord Brougham, who was no reactionary Tory, no opponent of Reform, and whose name I should have thought was venerated by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches opposite—I am satisfied with Lord Brougham's view of the state of the law. Then the hon. Member dwelt a good deal upon the Report of the Royal Commission. I was in the House of Commons at the time when that Address was carried, asking for the Royal Commission, and I acquiesced in its appointment. But I do not pretend to say that I think the decision to which the House came to was quite the wisest that might have been arrived at; and I am glad to think that my countrymen have virtually come to my conclusion. If ever a document was proved to be a dead letter it was the Report of that Royal Commission, in spite of the eminent men who sat upon it. The inquiry, however, brought out one or two interesting facts, one of which was that, while the Commissioners professed to have found traces of 1,608 alliances of the kind, they balanced the statement with the pregnant fact that it was discovered that only 40 of these unions had been formed among the poorer classes. Lord Hatherley afterwards took very great interest in this question, and he made an inquiry in Westminster. He found that in the two parishes of Westminster there were 60,000 inhabitants, of whom 40,000 were poor people. Only one marriage of this sort could be found amongst this large population. Of course, the audacious lawyer was called to account, and the friends of the wife's sister found out the stupendous fact that Lord Hatherley's estimate ought to have been doubled, for not one, but two such marriages could be found amongst the 60,000 inhabitants of Westminster. My hon. Friend and Successor the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) took care not to tell us how many of that large body of themselves—-Memorialists in Stoke—have contracted this alliance, or how many are persons who employ themselves in the very common amusement of talking about and interfering with their neighbours' business. In the course of my connection with Stoke I heard of two marriages of
    1590
    this kind, and I came directly across a third. The gentleman who had contracted an alliance with his deceased wife's sister was so pleased at my not shirking my convictions on this question during my first candidature, that when I went a second time to the borough, to return triumphant, I found him one of my most active supporters. Such is my experience of Stoke. In fact, what I have never found, and what no one has ever found, is anything like a consistent growing feeling in the country in favour of the proposed alteration of the law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) certainly astonished me by some of his arguments. He began by asserting that the only theological argument against permitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister was a certain verse in Leviticus, of which there was only one interpretation. However, there happen to be two quite different interpretations of it; there is the marginal interpretation, and there is one of the text, and I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to read the margin as well as the text. Then his "only one interpretation" totally and absolutely ignores the verses that precede the 18th verse of Leviticus 18—those from the 6th to the 17th verses of that chapter—which lay down the table of prohibited degrees, not by specifying every degree, but by specifying one or other of all the analogous degrees in the person of one sex or of the other—prohibiting marriage with the daughter in the name of the mother, or with the wife's sister in the name of the brother's widow. So understood, the prohibitions are identically the prohibitions in our authoritative Table, and that is the ground on which we say these marriages have the law of Scriptural prohibition. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) talks of the great purity of private life in America. That is not a question on which I wish to enter; but I only point out that in the year 1860 there was one divorce amongst 59 marriages in Massachusetts. In 1878, in the same State, there was one divorce in 21 marriages. In Vermont there was one divorce in 14 marriages; in Rhode Island, one divorce in 12; and in Connecticut, one divorce in 11 marriages. Deducting the Roman Catholics, who do not admit divorce, there was in Massa-

    1591
    chusetts, amongst Protestant marriages, one divorce in 14 marriages, and in Connecticut one divorce in eight marriages. That is the state of things in the country we are called upon to take as our example. We know that in America, and in Germany, and in Holland, and in Denmark, and in all countries where the wife's sister can be taken to wife, the brother's widow can be taken to wife, that an own niece can be taken to wife, and that an own aunt can be taken to wife. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may think it very amusing, but I see nothing amusing in a statement so very appalling to all sound common sense and elementary morality. In France, by the Code Napoleon, alliance with near relations, either by affinity or consanguinity, was prohibited; but in 1832, in the early reign of Louis Philippe, an Act of the French Legislature was passed, allowing all these marriages with sister-in-law, niece, or aunt, subject to dispensation, not from the Church, but from the Head of the State; a thing which, I believe, is a mere formality. I ask the House solemnly to pause and to consider well whether it will or will not, by a Resolution which, though barren in itself, still has a certain dynamic effect in the country, take a first step towards a state of things from which I am persuaded the majority even of the hon. Gentlemen who support this Resolution must recoil with horror. I have but one thing more to say. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) wanted to make out that all the Professors of Theology in the various Universities were of one way of thinking, and that his own, upon this question. He strove to base his assertion on some misleading statements of a pamphlet which has appeared under the Earl of Dalhousie's name, and as to which I advise examination before it is relied on. Let me tell the House that I directed letters of inquiry to the 41 British Revisers of the Old and New Testaments, and that I hold replies from 29 of them. Of these 29 Revisers, 20 are opposed to those marriages, while only seven are favourable to them, and two are ostensibly neutral. But I gather that one, at least, of these two is really opposed. I will not keep the House from a Division; but I trust that, whatever the result, it may not be the first step to national demoralization.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House more than a few minutes. Before giving the reason for, he might say with truth, the only political recantation he had ever made during the long period he had had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, he had, in the first instance, to regret that upon a question which, of all others, ought to be taken out of the dermain of religion and theology, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had followed the example of his Dissenting Brother (Mr. H. H. Fowler) by drawing upon the floor of the House a false scent upon this subject. Grand and eloquent as were the sentiments expressed in the earlier part of the hon. Member's (Mr. H. H. Fowler's) speech, the hon. Member, in his observations, betrayed something which approached very nearly religious bigotry and intolerance. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was aware that the most liberal men in England were necessarily Dissenters. On one subject, however, it was not true that Dissenters were the most liberal of men, and that was the subject of religion. Upon that subject Dissenters were the most intolerant people he had ever met. Upon the present occasion, however, he did not mean to dwell upon theological questions. The religion to which he had the honour to belong allowed a dispensation in the case of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and, therefore, as an obedient servant of the Roman Catholic Church, he assumed there was no innate immorality in such a marriage. The Church of England, which was represented by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), had forgotten to tell them that, when the particular form of worship now known in the country as the Doctrine of the Church of England was first instituted, the reason that a row was made about these particular marriages was that Cranmer and others did not want to acknowledge the Papal supremacy. They denied to the Pope of Rome the power of dispensation, and they made a difficulty as to Henry the Eighth's marriage with his brother's wife, Catharine of Arragon; and they had continued the row they had with the Church of Rome to the present day. Many years ago he heard a great coun-

    1593
    tryman of his—Richard Sheil—speaking of a man who was lately the Lord Chief Justice of England—Cockburn—say, after hearing a speech of the noble Lord, "his Christianity is unattached." However right Sheil might have been in reference to Cockburn at that period, he was right in stating that Christianity, or any form of religion, ought not, upon questions of this kind, to enter into their consideration. He agreed with every word which had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick (Colonel Milne-Home). He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend in what he said as to the effect of such marriages as were contemplated upon social institutions; there was no man in the House who viewed with greater abhorrence the idea of such marriages being contracted; but this was an age of opportunism. It was not sufficient to say that a few men of high position and of high social connections objected to marriage with a deceased wife's sister as likely to break up their arrangements. Hon. Members ought to picture to themselves the case of a man in one of the large manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, who, perhaps, had but a very small lodging, and who might be left wifeless with three or four children to take care of. When his wife was removed, the person a man looked to to nurse his children was necessarily the person who was best known to them, and dearest to them, and that was the wife's sister. Owing to the crowded state of the dwelling, it was very possible that, in some cases, immoral consequences might ensue upon the deceased wife's sister being in the house unless marriage with her was allowed the man. [A laugh.] It might be a matter of laughter to hon. Gentlemen, but it was no laughing matter to the unfortunate artizan who found his wife removed from him. It was for the House to say whether, for social sentimental reasons, and to please a few in high stations, it would sacrifice the interests of the masses of the people. He maintained that, if the House laid claim to represent the nation, it ought not to regard the sentiments of a class, but ought only to look to the interests of the masses of the people. He disliked the whole question; but, for the reasons he had assigned, he intended to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst).
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 127: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 86.)
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people of this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 8) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Saint James, Westminster, Saint Martin-in-the-Fields, and Saint George, Hanover Square, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Colchester Tramways; Gravesend, Rosherville, and Northfleet Tramways (Extension); Hartlepools Tramways (Extension); Stockton-on-Tees Tramways (Extension); and Weymouth Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
    BILL presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]

    WATERWORKS RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENDERSON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Rating of Waterworks belonging to Local Authorities in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENDERSON, Mr. BUCHANAN, Dr. CAMERON, Dr. WEBSTER, and Admiral Sir JOHN HAY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.