Lords Sitting of 11 March 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—
Clerical Vestments (39).
Committee—Alimony Arrears * (17). Report—Alimony Arrears * (17).

CLERICAL VESTMENTS BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to lay upon the table a Bill which has been prepared for the correction of certain ritualistic abuses which have crept into the Church of England. Your Lordships are perfectly aware how deeply the feelings of the people have been moved by the introduction into the service of the Church of innovations so little in accordance with the long-established system of public worship in our country, and more particularly by that which relates to sacrificial vestments. It is on that account that the Bill which I am about to introduce touches the question of sacrificial vestments alone; and for two reasons—first, because those vestments strike the eye and offend the sense of the country in a particular and unusual degree; and secondly, because there is some ambiguity in the law on the subject. With respect to other matters—candles, incense, and other matters of that description, I believe the law is not doubtful, and we can redress the abuses by prosecutions in the Courts of Law; but with respect to sacrificial vestments there is a doubt, and because there is that doubt I now venture to propose a Bill to your Lordships. My object is to give the force of law to a usage regulating ceremonials of public worship that has existed in this country for nearly 300 years down to the present time. That usage—if we may call it so—was first prescribed by a statute of the latter end of the reign of Edward VI. The Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary; but the same usage was afterwards re-instituted by the injunctions

  1625
  of Queen Elizabeth, in the year 1564. These injunctions regulated the ceremonial of the Church until 1603, when Convocation embodied in a canon—the 58th of the canons of the Church of England—the usage that had existed in the time of Edward VI., and under the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth in 1564. That canon was formed by the Convocation of the two Provinces of Canterbury and York, and was ratified by the Crown. The canon runs in this form—
  "Every minister saying the public prayers or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves; and if any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of the Ordinary. Furthermore, such ministers as are graduates shall wear upon their surplices, at such times, such hoods as by the orders of their Universities are agreeable to their degrees, which no minister shall wear, being no graduate, under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk."
  I propose, my Lords, to give effect to this by means of the statute law without touching the rubric or the canons. I merely adopt the spirit of the canon which was agreed to by Convocation and ratified by the Crown in 1604, the year after. I submitted this Bill to the right rev. Bench, and many distinguished Prelates entirely concurred in its provisions. Since that time, however, I have heard that the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to propose a Bill on the part of the Bishops to this House. I am glad that it is so; but nevertheless I must submit this Bill to your Lordships, because it is doubtful when the Bill of the most rev. Prelate may be propounded, whether it may not be delayed or defeated, and I am anxious that there should be some measure in readiness to meet the case of either of these emergencies. Moreover, I cannot but think it right that after much trouble and time have been devoted to the framing of this measure it should be submitted to the country with the view of obtaining its opinion upon it. I beg, my Lords, to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is quite true that the right rev. Bench do feel the gravity of the matter; the subject has been under our serious consideration for some time past, and we have come to the conclusion to bring in a Bill. But I am bound to say we hesitated whe-
  1626
  ther that was the best course to be taken. I earnestly hope that in a week or ten days we may come to some definite conclusion.
  Motion agreed to,
  A Bill for better enforcing Uniformity in the Clerical Vestments and Ornaments to be worn by Ministers of the United Church of England and Ireland in the Performance of Public Worship—Was presented by The Earl of SHAFTESBURY; read 1a (No. 39.)

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—REFORM STATISTICS.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to lay upon the table of the House any information with respect to Reform in addition to that which had been collected by the late Government?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that no additional statistics with regard to the representation of the people had been called for by the Government or produced. All the statistical information which they had was already before Parliament; but that information would be shortly presented to Parliament in a more compact and comprehensive form, for the purpose of supplying the best information as to the probable effect of the Government proposals. He understood that several Motions for the purpose of obtaining further information had been made in the other House, and of course it was perfectly competent for any Member of their Lordships' House to make the same Motions here.

BRITISH MUSEUM— NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTION.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to a Question by Lord LYVEDEN,
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, there was no foundation whatever for the rumour that the Trustees of the British Museum had come to any new decision as to the separation of the Natural History collection from the other collections of the British Museum, The recommendation which they did make was made seven years ago, upon the Motion of Lord Palmerston, who was then an Official Trustee, and was to the effect that it would be desirable to separate from the British Museum the collection of Natural History. But to assert that there had been any altered decision of the Trustees in a contrary sense, or in any sense, was not well founded.

MR. FRANCE'S PAMPHLET.

  RESOLUTION.
  Report of the Select Committee on Mr. France's Pamphlet read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that according to the Notice he had given, he proposed to call their Lordships' attention to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of Mr. France's pamphlet. The Report of that Committee was that the charge made by Mr. France against the Chairman of Committees, of having improperly introduced a clause into the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway Bill of 1865, was without foundation. This relieved him from any impression the pamphlet might have been calculated to produce: but he regretted in some respects the manner in which the subject was referred to the Committee, because they were prevented reporting in some way upon the character of the clause introduced, and upon the circumstances which led to its introduction. These were matters of some importance, and he wished, therefore, to refer to them. The Bill in question was originally opposed; but the opposition having been withdrawn the Bill came before him as an unopposed Bill, and he then inserted the usual clause to meet the circumstances of a junction Bill. Under the circumstances, it was perfectly reasonable and proper that the clause should be introduced, and he was entirely absolved from the charge of having introduced it improperly by the evidence of Mr. France's own solicitor. In answer to the question whether, supposing the matter had been opposed before a Committee, he could have resisted the clause, he admitted that he could not; and his own impression was that it was a clause which it would have been impossible to have resisted, and that was the reason he gave his sanction to its introduction. Their Lordships would perceive that as regarded the clause, as well as the manner of its introduction, no blame could attach to himself. This was the seventeenth year he had filled the office of Chairman of Committees. In the seventh year of his holding the office a similar attack was made upon him in the Edinburgh Review. Fortunately the charges made were specific, and the editor of that work having allowed him the privilege of an answer to those charges, in the next number he wrote a reply; and he believed those of their Lordships who had seen the publication would admit that in the most
  1628
  complete manner he refuted every one of the charges brought against him. Now ten years afterwards this charge was brought against him; and their Lordships would see from the temper in which it was made that if any other charge could have been made it would have been preferred. He was far from regretting that the charge had been made, because its isolation and the complete answer to it proved by inference that he had discharged the duties of his office creditably to himself and advantageously to the House. Mr. France made his charge in a pamphlet sent to nearly all the Members of both Houses of Parliament; and therefore, although having been somewhat hardened by the experience of office these matters scarcely affected him, he felt he ought not to allow the charge to pass; for had it been brought against anyone more new to the office than he was it might have been more distressing to another Peer than it was to himself. He was for their Lordships to guard their officers against such charges. He believed Mr. France to be so extremely wrong-headed that it was almost impossible to remove any false impression he entertained. For instance, he persisted in asserting that the Select Committee to which the Bill in question was referred passed the preamble of the Bill; whereas the Committee reported that they did not enter upon the consideration of the Bill because the opposition was withdrawn; while the Standing Orders laid it down that when opposition was withdrawn a Bill was referred to the Chairman of Committees, as if it had been originally unopposed. Under these circumstances, it was impossible the Committee could have declared the preamble proved. He did not think it necessary to press their Lordships to take any steps with regard to Mr. France; he was perfectly satisfied to leave the matter entirely in their Lordships' hands, believing that they were the best judges of what ought to be done under the circumstances. He was rather disposed to suggest that Mr. France was utterly unworthy of their Lordships' further attention.
  LORD TAUNTON,as one of the Committee to which Mr. France's pamphlet had been referred, in answer to the noble Chairman of Committee's complaint as to the form in which the matter was referred to the Committee, said it would have been most improper for the Committee, after the lapse of two years, to revive the original question as to the character of the

  1629
  clause, and to determine whether it was a proper clause or not. The question referred to the late Committee was not whether the clause was a proper or an improper one, but whether it was properly introduced by the noble Lord as Chairman of Committees; and he had no hesitation in saying that there could be no doubt that the noble Lord acted with entire regularity and in accordance with the well-known Rules and Standing Orders of the House. Whether the clause was a right one or a wrong one—on which the Committee expressed no opinion—he was bound, as a member of the Committee, to say that he considered the noble Lord was entirely cleared of the charge brought against him. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say that, under the circumstances, he did not press for any ulterior measures against Mr. France, who did not impute any corrupt motive to the noble Lord, and, after all, the noble Lord, occupying the position he did, must not be too thin-skinned, as to a certain extent his official conduct was exposed to public criticism. He did not deny the right of public criticism on occasions of this kind—on the contrary, he thought the public derived great advantage from criticism when fairly conducted. But on this occasion he thought the noble Lord had not merited the charge brought against him—he had acted strictly according to the Rules of the House, and had exercised a sound discretion. He entertained as high an opinion as any man of the value of the services which the noble Lord rendered as Chairman of Committees.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHwould make but very few remarks on this subject, as he could only re-echo the opinions of the noble Lord who had just sat down. The question in dispute was one not of opinion, but of fact. The Committee, of which he was a member, had experienced no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, inasmuch as they had merely to investigate a number of facts, to ascertain whether there had been any irregularity in the conduct of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. There really could be no doubt on the subject, for the question did not depend on the veracity of witnesses. The truth was arrived at by the easiest possible means—there was no difference of opinion—every member of the Committee came to the conclusion that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge brought against the
  1630
  noble Lord who for so long a time, and with such great reputation, had held the position of Chairman of Committees. He did not know what course the House might choose to adopt on the present occasion; but as the statements made with regard to the noble Lord who held so responsible a position in that House might in some degree implicate the House itself, it might, perhaps, be proper that some action should be taken in order to vindicate the propriety and integrity with which the noble Lord had acted.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said by the two last speakers as to the integrity with which the noble Lord had performed his duties, and that there was no ground whatever for the charge which had been made against him. He agreed, too, with the statement of his noble Friend who had just sat down as to the facility with which the Committee had arrived at its conclusion. He, in common, he believed, with all the other Members of the Committee, had that morning received a letter from Mr. France, and had been requested to read it to their Lordships; but this he should decline to do, because he thought no further proceedings ought to be taken with reference to the merits of the clause or of the Bill. He was glad the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had brought this matter before the House, and he hoped this occurrence would be considered deeply with a view to amend the system of legislation respecting Railway Bills. He had on several occasions drawn attention to the subject, and it was well-known that his opinion in regard to it differed from that entertained by many of their Lordships. This Bill was a striking illustration of the mischievous and ruinous results of our system of legislation for railways. The effect of the system was felt all over the, kingdom, and it had caused such a waste of money, labour, and time as no other country could have endured. In the present instance the railway was not one which had been got up by contractors. The Bill was introduced and referred to a Committee of the House of Lords. It was opposed by a great Company, and the parties interested in the Bill were consequently put to the expense of counsel, witnesses, and so forth. Sow what happened? When the Bill was opened, the counsel for the opponents got up and declared on the part of his clients, the great Company, that he

  1631
  did not think it necessary to offer any further opposition to the Bill, which, therefore, went straight to the Chairman of Committees as an unopposed Bill. When it got into his room the agent of the opponents of the Bill appeared before the noble Lord and proposed the insertion of a clause which was said to be a usual one; but if that were the case it might be asked why it had not been introduced into the Bill at an earlier period? About £200,000, he understood, had been already expended upon the railway, which, however, would under this clause be entirely delivered up to the mercy of the great Company which opposed it, unless another Act of Parliament were passed on the subject. The agent for the opposition told the Select Committee that it was intended to effect a compromise before the Bill was withdrawn; but that the clerk omitted to carry out this intention by inserting the clause. But the agent did not state that the clerk had received instructions to make any such condition or compromise. He did not wish to throw any doubt whatever on the statement of the Parliamentary agent; but, supposing that that gentleman was acting solely in the interest of his clients, he knew well enough that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees thought it was right to insert the clause. Of course, his noble Friend acted upon his own judgment, and he did not for a moment say that he had arrived at a wrong conclusion. What he objected to was that in the case of an unopposed Bill there was no protection whatever against the introduction of clauses except the decision of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. Such a system could not be regarded as satisfactory. The subject was of the highest importance, and some measure to remedy the defects of the existing system would, he hoped, be introduced by the Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Marquess had carried them a little away from the subject; he would endeavour to bring them back to it. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had placed himself entirely in the hands of their Lordships as to the mode in which they should deal with the Report of the Committee on Mr. France's pamphlet. After the observations which had been made by several of their Lordships, he had little difficulty in stating his opinion as to the course which the House ought to pursue—not for the purpose of vindicating his
  1632
  noble Friend from the charge of having improperly exercised his functions as Chairman of Committees, which he had for so long a time discharged so ably and impartially, but for the purpose of dealing with Mr. France. After the observations of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), it would be perhaps as well that their Lordships should be reminded of what had so offended Mr. France as to lead him to publish the pamphlet. Mr. France was a contractor and a promoter of the Mold and Denbigh Junction Bail-way Extension Bill. The opposition to the Bill in question having been withdrawn, it went before his noble Friend, in accordance with the Standing Order, as an unopposed Bill. He considered the Bill in the common way; and the proviso having been proposed by the agents of the London and North Western Railway Company, his noble Friend heard those gentlemen and also the agents of the promoters. The clause proposed was, he understood, a very common one in Bills for junctions; and the Chairman of Committees, in the exercise of his judgment, came to the conclusion that it was one which ought to be inserted in the Bill before him. But the way in which it should be introduced by the House was on the third reading; so that before it was made part of the Bill, Mr. France and all other persons interested had full notice. Mr. France, being ignorant of the forms of the House, when the opposition was withdrawn thought that the Committee had necessarily declared the preamble proved, and that therefore no alteration could be made in the Bill, although, before their Lordships' Committee, evidence was given in Mr. France's presence to show that it was a justifiable proceeding. He was then displeased at finding this Amendment and wrote the angry letter which nothing could justify; a Select Committee had inquired into the charges made, and reported that they were utterly unfounded. Their Lordships would observe that Mr. France did not make any charge against the character of the Chairman of Committees of having acted partially or improperly. What he did charge was, that the noble Lord had inserted the clause under an arbitrary exercise of authority. From the tone of Mr. France's pamphlet, from his correspondence with the noble Lord, and from his conduct before the Select Committee, he believed nothing would give Mr. France greater pleasure

  1633
  than being called to the Bar of their Lordships' House and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor. He, for one, was not disposed to afford Mr. France that pleasure. As the judgment of the Select Committee and of their Lordships' House would, he felt sure, be ratified by the public, what Mr. France might think of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees must, he presumed, be a matter of indifference to that noble Lord. Under these circumstances, he would ask the House to deal with the matter by passing the following Resolution:—
  "That this House adopts the Report of the Select Committee on Mr. France's Pamphlet, which was arrived at after an Inquiry in which Mr. France had an Opportunity of being fully heard, and expresses its entire Confidence in the Integrity and Impartiality of the Chairman of Committees in the Discharge of his Duties."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—ELECTORS IN CITIES AND BOROUGHS.

  MOTION TOR PAPERS.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to move for Returns on the subject of the franchise. My purpose in bringing this Motion before your Lordships is two-fold. In the first place, I desire to call attention to certain proceedings which have been adopted with reference to a reform of the representation of the people in Parliament; and, in the next place, to call attention to the present state of that question. I presume no one will deny that this House is as much interested as any part of the country whatever in the representation of the people in Parliament. On the question whether the House of Commons is well or ill constituted depend the weal and woe of this country in the future as well as at the present time; and therefore I will make no apology for calling your Lordships' attention to this subject. Your Lordships will recollect that in the Queen's Speech the attention of the two Houses of Parliament was directed to it; and on the same day, the 5th of February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice that on the following Monday he would make a statement with reference to Reform to the House of Commons. Every one must have given credit to the Government for the promptitude with which it appeared Her Majesty's Government were about to proceed with the question, and the unanimity of the Government in their
  1634
  opinions. Accordingly, on the Monday following, the right hon. Gentleman did make a statement; but it was so obscure that it was impossible for any one to gather from it what were the precise intentions of Her Majesty's Government, On the next day a series of Resolutions were laid on the table of the House of Commons; but from these it would have been as difficult, without further explanation, to decide what the Government intended. But after some time it appeared that they had changed their purpose of proceeding by Resolution, although no opposition had been made to their proceeding by that method; and it was announced that a Bill would be brought in, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating to the House of Commons what the main features of that Bill would be. That, I think, was on the 23rd of February. In the beginning of March both Houses of Parliament were told that a change of opinion had occurred; that the Bill which had been announced would not be brought in; and that a Bill grounded upon the principle of the Resolutions would at once be introduced. It is a course entirely without precedent—it is a course which shows great vacillation on the part of Her Majesty's Government in that which was supposed at first to have been unanimously propounded. In the course of the speech in which that statement was made, opportunity was taken to state that the operation of the original Reform Bill has been to exclude the working classes from the franchise; it was said, moreover, as I am told by a Minister of the Crown, that the present Ministers are now about to restore to the working classes those franchises of which hitherto they have been deprived, and to do them that justice which hitherto has been denied to them. Such a statement induced me to look back to see what actually passed at the time of the Reform Bill, and also what has occurred since with regard to the number of persons disfranchised. If your Lordships will permit me, I will cite what I stated to the House of Commons on the occasion of the second reading of the Reform Bill which afterwards passed through Parliament. I said—
  "It is, therefore, desirable to fix upon a class of persons, who shall partake largely of the popular spirit, and yet not constitute a body hostile to property, or debased by ignorance. In order to effect this it will be advisable to bring into action the more intelligent of the working class in the large towns, and the more respectable of the

  1635
  middle class in the small boroughs."—[3 Hansard, ix. 497]
  I then gave an account of what would happen at Leeds, where the working classes would be generally excluded, and proceeded as follows:—
  "I do not say, certainly, that the working classes will be excluded, generally, in large towns to the same extent that they will be in Leeds. I should be sorry to think that such would be the case. The operation of time and the growth of our manufactures have produced that anomaly in our Constitution—a mass of industrious, intelligent, prosperous men, without any direct tie binding them to our Government. …. It is an object with every sound Reformer to reclaim this powerful tribe from the political desert to which they have been confined; to recall them from wild prospects and hostile schemes, in order to bind them to our institutions, to make them a part of the great family of the Constitution, partaking in all its privileges and defending it in all its dangers."—[500.]
  That was the promise and the profession of the Reform Bill of 1831, and the consequence was that, though the working classes were not admitted to the extent we had wished, or that we should have been glad at the time that they could have been admitted, they were still admitted to a considerable extent. In such places as Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and other places, none of the working classes had been previously admitted to the franchise, and Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh were, to the end of their lives, opposed to the enfranchisement of those great towns. I in vain endeavoured to induce the House of Commons to permit three of those towns to send representatives to Parliament. In looking over the different Returns, I find that in twelve of the thirty-nine boroughs created by the Reform Bill, there were more than 25 per cent of the electors composed of the working classes; in thirteen others there were from 15 to 25 per cent of the electors so composed; and in twelve others there were under 15 per cent. On the whole, by the Reform Act, there were 58,000 of the working classes admitted to the franchise who never had votes before. I find, likewise, from the Returns presented to Parliament last year by Her Majesty's command, that there were 70,000 more in the old towns belonging to the working classes who were admitted to the franchise. In certain towns there were some, undoubtedly, who were deprived of their franchise. In some these were scot and lot voters, in others these were the ordinary freemen, and in
  1636
  some they were persons who held under burgage tenures. Altogether there appear to have been about 57,000 persons who since the Reform Act have been by death or otherwise removed from the privilege of forming part of the electoral body; while, as I have already said, there were 58,000 of the working classes to whom for the first time we gave the suffrage. The whole body contains therefore a large number less, not of the working classes, but of those who had the special franchises. "With regard to the representation generally, it was the opinion of the Government of that day that there had been so many abuses at elections, that even in the few populous boroughs which existed there had been so much of bribery, treating, and corrupt practices, that it was better to have a body entirely new, and both in the old and new boroughs to give the franchise to persons holding premises of a certain money value. Undoubtedly, the first consequence of that step was that the substantial part of the elective body consisted of the middle classes; I have never denied that consequence—I always thought that it tended to the stability of our institutions; and I think your Lordships will agree with me that during the time that has elapsed since the passing of the Reform Act the electoral body, generally speaking, has maintained harmony with the rest of our institutions, and has, in the words which King William IV., by advice of Lord Grey, addressed to Parliament—
  "Adhered to the principles of the Constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of the two Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people were equally secured."
  It was, I think, owing to the perseverance of Lord Grey, and owing to the eloquence with which he maintained in this House all the popular principles embodied in the Reform Act—especially the disfranchisement of the small close boroughs, which had become a scandal to the country—that the measure was carried triumphantly. Your Lordships will have seen lately a work which contains the correspondence of Earl Grey with his Sovereign, William IV. Everyone who reads that book must be of opinion that it was impossible to combine in a greater degree the respect and loyalty due to his Sovereign with the sincere maintenance of popular principles. It is the praise bestowed by one of our poets upon books that they speak the truth, and—

  1637
  "To various people tell not various things,
  But what they say to subjects say to kings."
  Lord Grey in this respect resembled a volume, never concealing from his Sovereign what he was saying to his subjects, and never ceasing to impress upon those subjects the loyalty which he invariably expressed to his Sovereign. Having thus stated to your Lordships the provisions of the Reform Act, I do not see, as has been elsewhere asserted, that it deprives the working classes of votes; but, on the contrary, by giving representatives to thirty-seven towns which never before had any, it increased the power of the working classes. In 1851 it became the opinion of the Government, of which I was then at the head, that some further change should be made, regard being had to the great increase of wealth in the country, and to the great increase in the number not on the electoral roll; and, at the same time, that advantage should be taken of this opportunity to extend the right of voting given to tenants-at-will in counties. That franchise given to tenants-at-will in counties certainly did not meet with my support. Although I was not present at the time when it was carried, the grounds on which I objected to it have been very much misrepresented. It has been stated that I objected to the enfranchisement of the farmers of England; the real fact is that I thought it quite right that the franchise should be extended to occupation, but I thought £50 too high a sum at which to place the occupation franchise in counties. I believe that if, instead of proposing £50 as the limit, it had been proposed to give the franchise to £20 occupiers, that franchise would have lasted much longer and provoked fewer complaints; whereas repeated proposals have been made that it should be reduced to £10 in counties, as in boroughs. In 1851 T suggested, and in 1852 I proposed, a Bill founded on these two principles, that of admitting a greater number of the working classes to the franchise in boroughs and that of reducing the amount of the occupation franchise in counties. It has been stated over and over again, and it is one of those popular sayings that pass without contradiction, that five Reform Bills have been introduced and five have failed. That is not a correct statement of the fact; for the Bill proposed in 1852 never came to any debate whatever in Parliament. The Government resigned, and
  1638
  the noble Earl opposite came into office. I did not think it my duty then to raise the question, nor was the question raised by the then existing Government; and, consequently, that Bill cannot be said to have failed, for it never was brought forward for discussion. I have been told again with regard to the Bill of 1854,' which had the assent of Sir James Graham, Sir Charles Wood, and others, that it likewise was a failure. But the fact is that this Bill also was never brought forward for discussion, because the Russian war intervened and effectually prevented any debate on the subject. Three Bills, however, have been actually introduced and discussed; there was one in 1859, another in 1860, by the Government of Lord Palmerston, and a third last year. Having, my Lords, given frequent and much attention to the subject of Reform, I venture to intrude upon your Lordships some remarks with regard to the principles upon which it is said the Bill now in contemplation may be.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I feel bound to rise to order. The noble Earl has already taken great latitude in commenting upon what is said to have been said in "another place;" but I certainly must take exception to his remarks with regard to the supposed principles of a Bill which has not yet been introduced to Parliament, and of which it is absolutely impossible for us, as a House, to know anything whatever.
  EARL RUSSELL: I do not wish to comment upon the principles of a Bill which has not yet been introduced to the House of Commons; but I think I have a right to comment upon that which is discussed in the public papers almost every day with reference to the manner in which a measure of Reform ought to be constructed so as to give satisfaction to the country. It is very commonly said that the only way of framing a permanent Bill—a Bill founded on a sound.principle—is to return to the old scot and lot franchise in boroughs, and this assertion appears to meet with general consent. Now, this is a subject we had under consideration in a small Committee, and afterwards in the Cabinet, at the time of the original Reform Bill; it has since been discussed over and over again, and I have recently turned my attention to the question as to whether it is now a fit principle to base a Reform Bill upon. I have come to the conclusion that, although it is natural to regard this as the

  1639
  old principle of the Constitution, and to take it as a basis in our attempt to fix the franchise for the future, yet it would be found extremely difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to adapt such a principle to the present state of society. In the 17th century, when the famous Glanville Committee stated that soot and lot was the principle upon which the franchise ought to be founded, those who paid scot and lot were the great substantial burgesses of the towns; it was from them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained revenue for the support of the Crown; and they were the persons who were called upon to defend the country in case of invasion. But the state of society for many years past has been totally different, and it is different at the present time. I have examined the Returns to find whether any great change would be made in the list of electors in London if every person who is rated as the occupant of a tenement were given a vote, and I find that there would be scarcely any change. In Westminster perhaps one or two persons would obtain the franchise, and in some of the metropolitan boroughs six or seven, forty or fifty in another. The reason that no essential change would be made by the introduction of this principle is that the greater portion of artizans, artists, clerks, and professional men live in lodgings and are not householders in the legal sense, although it would be impossible not to include them in any reformation of the franchise. Then, again, there is a large class of persons in the country called "compound householders" who, by an arrangement made first by an Act of 59 Geo. III., and afterwards by an Act of the present reign, have their rates paid by their landlords. The rate collectors rely upon the landlord, who is re-paid by the tenant when he pars his rent. Any franchise, then, which will not admit both the lodger and the compound householders will be imperfect. I should say, therefore, that if Parliament were to resolve upon anything like scot and lot as the basis of a Reform Bill, that basis must be departed from, not partially, but almost totally, by admitting, first, lodgers, and, in the next place, compound householders. We are told, however, that to give the franchise to lodgers paying a certain amount would not be a permanent franchise, because the sum paid might be reduced from time to time. But if you once admitted lodgers without naming any
  1640
  sum, you would then arrive, as nearly as possible, to that which the Reform League has asked by the mouth of Mr. Potter in Trafalgar Square—that is, manhood suffrage with simple residence, and with no condition whatever as to the money value of that residence. It appears to me that the principle first set forth by the Committee of the 17th century can with great difficulty be adopted at the present time; and, if that be the case, I cannot see how you can maintain that what is not fitted for the present constitution of society would make a sound permanent basis for a Reform Bill. The measure which I had the honour to introduce in the House of Commons, and which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) sustained in that House with an eloquence which defeated all its opponents, has now, for thirty-five years, been the law of the country; it has contributed to the establishment of the municipal corporations; it has contributed to the registration of the Births and Marriages of Dissenters; it has contributed to the establishment of Free Trade; and, whatever changes you may now make with respect to it, I doubt whether you can improve the foundation on which it is based. If it be required, as I think it is required, that the best of the working classes should be added to the electors throughout the country, I do not think you should make such a total change as will swamp altogether the middle classes, and make them without weight or power in this country. I beg leave to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that there be laid before this House—

  1. A List in alphabetical Order of the Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales returning Members to Parliament previously to the passing of the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45., and stating the Nature of the Suffrage existing in each City and Borough:

  2. A Return showing the Number of Electors in each City and Borough in England and Wales for 1865–66, classed according to the several Qualifications in respect of which they are entitled to vote; and the Number of such Electors who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour, classed in like Manner:

  3. The Number of Electors made out from the foregoing Return, distinguishing those who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour in the Cities and Boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament before the passing of the Reform Act, and distinguishing the Mechanics, Artizans, and other

  1641
  working Men entitled to vote as Scot and Lot Voters, Potwallers, and other ancient Right Qualifications from those entitled to vote as Freemen or as £10 Occupiers:

  4. A similar Return of Mechanics, Artizans, &c. in Cities and Boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament for the first Time by the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45.; and also in the Borough of Birkenhead.—(The Earl Russell.)

  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I must say that I have heard with the most unfeigned astonishment the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I came down to your Lordships' House expecting to hear that he was about to ask for information to enable him more completely than we can, or are supposed to be able at present, to judge of a measure which, at; no very distant period, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring under the consideration of the other House of Parliament. I listened to his speech, but the noble Earl has not given us and reason for his asking for this information, he has not vouchsafed a word on the subject of his Motion; he has indulged in a series of autobiographical reminiscences which are, no doubt, exceedingly interesting to your Lordships, and especially so to the noble Earl himself. He has gone back to the 17th century; he has discussed the principle of a Reform Bill in the passing of which I took a humble part, though I did not stand in regard to it in so prominent a position as the noble Earl himself; and he has given us a history of the measures of Reform introduced by various Governments since 1851; but with regard to the Returns, for which he has an undoubted right to move, and as far as his Motion is intelligible to me I shall be most happy to give him, not a single word has fallen from his lips during the lengthened period which he has addressed your Lordships. I hope he will not think me disrespectful if I decline to follow him in any charges which he has made against the present Government, on account of the course which it has pursued during this Session; the circumstances under which it laboured I have already had an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships at length. Nor am I about to discuss the merits of the Chandos clause, or the peculiar qualities of a £10 franchise as the basis for a Reform Bill. There is no question that the Reform Bill introduced in 1831 imported into the constituencies of the country a very large number of the working classes beyond those who previously held the franchise;
  1642
  but the noble Earl somewhat irregularly referred to the statement which has been made elsewhere that while the Reform Bill introduced a large number of the working classes, it also excluded from the constituencies of many boroughs a very considerable portion of the working classes who exercised their rights under different franchises which the Bill abolished; and this the noble Earl docs not deny. Whether it was wise to do this or not in some respects, I say it was certainly a mistake to abolish all those various franchises which gave a degree of variety to the electoral body of this country, and, instead, to bring the whole down to the dead level of a £10 occupation. The noble Earl admits that since 1830 the effect of the gradual extinction of their existing rights, and the termination of existing interests, has been to strike off a very large number—I think he said, 58,000 persons—belonging to the working classes from the electoral lists. These were composed partly of freemen, partly of potwallopers, partly of freeholders, and partly of others having ancient rights to vote; and they have all been swept away by the Bill championed by the noble Earl, who believes it is the intention of the Bill about to be introduced to restore a certain number of these franchises to the working classes. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl has been kind enough to give us a sketch of what he thinks ought to be and what ought not to be introduced into the Reform Bill. He will excuse me if I say it is better at present to abstain from the discussion of abstract principles of Reform, or what is or is not likely to be in the coming Reform Bill, and I must respectfully decline to discuss his argument in this respect. Now, my Lords, I will not say another word with regard to the speech of the noble Earl; but, with reference to the Returns for which he has moved, wish to ask an explanation of what appears to me to be perfectly incomprehensible. About the first part of the Motion of the noble Earl there can be no difficulty whatever. The second Return is one that was furnished by Her Majesty's late Government in the course of last Session. It is very voluminous; but it was laid on the table of the House of Commons and there I was no objection to its production. It I contains—
  "The number of electors in each city and borough in England and Wales for 1865–6, classed ac cording to the several qualifications m respect to

  1643
  which they are entitled to vote; and the number of such electors who come within the description of mechanics, artizans, and other persons supporting themselves by daily manual labour, classed in like manner."
  But as regards the third Return for which the noble Earl has moved, I want to know how he can ascertain, from a Return relating to the state of constituencies in 1865–6—
  "The number of mechanics, artizans, and other persons supporting themselves by daily manual labour in the cities and boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament before the passing of the Reform Act."
  How is it possible, from the Return of 1865–6, to make a Return showing the state of the constituencies in 1831?
  EARL RUSSELL: It does not mean the number of persons entitled to vote in 1831, but the number of persons in 1865, in the boroughs which now remain after the passing of the Reform Act.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: But there is nothing said about that in the. Return moved by the noble Earl. All the boroughs disfranchised by the Reform Act are, in fact, included in the second Return of the noble Earl, the electors of which he asks to be made out from the Return of 1865–6. How are we to distinguish the mechanics and artizans, and other working men who were entitled as scot and lot voters, from those who were entitled as freemen? If the noble Earl only means to apply for those included in the second Resolution, the rest is all surplusage; because the noble Earl can attain his objects by moving, as an addition to the second Eesolution—
  "The number of Electors in the Cities and Boroughs in 1865–6, distinguishing those who were entitled to send Members to Parliament previous to the passing of the Reform Act, from those who were so entitled since the passing of that Act."
  If the noble Earl will strike out the last two Resolutions, and amend the second in the way I have suggested, showing the distinction laid down, there cannot be the slightest objection to furnish the Returns asked for.
  EARL RUSSELL: I think the Resolutions are perfectly intelligible as they stand, but I have no objection to amend them as suggested by the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.

  1. A List in alphabetical Order of the Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales returning Members to Parliament previously to the passing of the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45., and
  1644
  stating the Nature of the Suffrage existing in each City and Borough:

  2. A Return showing the Number of Electors in each City and Borough in England and Wales for 1865–66, classed according to the several Qualifications in respect of which they are entitled to vote; and the Number of such Electors who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour, classed in like Manner; distinguishing those Cities and Boroughs which were entitled to return Members to Parliament previous to the passing of the 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45. from those which have been enfranchised by that Act, including the Borough of Birkenhead.—(The Earl Russell.)

  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.