Sitting of 17 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1° Courts of Justice Building Act (Money); Wills and Domicile of British Subjects Abroad, &c.
3° Transfer of Stocks and Annuities; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Locomotives.

THE HOMELESS POOR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of two poor Women, brought up before the Worship Street Police Court on Friday last, who had been found in a state of great destitution on the pavement in front of the Whitechapel Workhouse, having been refused admission by the Master, and to the remarks of Mr. Knox, the Police Magistrate, who is reported to have said that such cases were of constant occurrence; and whether he has caused an inquiry to be made?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had directed the Poor Law Inspector for the Metropolis to communicate with the Magistrate to whom reference had been made, who stated that he had been incorrectly reported. Mr. Knox did not cast any reflection whatever on the workhouses generally, or on the authorities connected with them, but simply referred to one particular workhouse—that of Whitechapel—of which he had on one or two occasions lately had reason to complain. As to the case itself, he believed there was also some inaccuracy in the report. The Superintendent of the
  1170
  casual ward admitted that two women were brought to him on the evening in question, but, as there was no room, he was unable to take them in. As to the statement in the report, that on the policeman taking the women to the workhouse they were there refused admittance without any allegation being made of want of room, the authorities at the workhouse had deponed on oath that the women never were brought there at all, and that they had never seen them. They also stated, that when the police brought cases of that kind to the workhouse they were invariably received, and produced a book, from which it appeared that within the last six weeks they had taken in no fewer than eighteen such cases which had been brought by the police. There was a difficulty in pursuing the investigation further, as the women, who were tramps, on receiving some gratuity from the magistrate went away, and it was impossible to find them.

ARMY—BREVET MAJORITIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR BULLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in reference to the Registered List of Officers of the Bombay Army serving in Bengal who have been recommended for brevet majorities on attaining the rank of regimental Captains, Why those officers of the Bombay Army now serving in the Bombay Presidency, and who have been equally recommended for the same reward, have not also been publicly registered?
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that, in order to entitle an officer to the distinction in question, it was necessary that he should be recommended by the Commander-in-Chief in India, and that it had been conferred only on two Officers who had been so recommended.

NAVY—IRON-CASED SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PERRY WATLINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that certain improvements in the construction of ironclad Ships and in the working of their guns, proposed by Mr. Alfred Hamilton, have been lately under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty for two months, and have been rejected by the Board? And whether there is any objection to lay Copies of the Reports and Correspondence of those Officials who have been charged

  1171
  with the examination of the said impovements before the House.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that Mr. Hamilton had made two distinct proposals to the Admiralty—one for raising and lowering guns by machinery, and the other for a peculiar construction of iron-cased ships. Both had been under the consideration of the Admiralty, and in the opinion of the Board, neither was likely to be efficient in Her Majesty's Navy. The Board thought it would be decidely objectionable to produce the Reports and Correspondence, because, if that were done, it would be impossible to refuse a similar concession in the case of every other inventor whose proposal was rejected by the Government.

COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to go on with this Bill that night?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was most anxious to have it discussed as early as possible. He should make every endeavour to bring it on.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: At what hour?
  MR. CARDWELL: I won't bring it on after twelve o'clock.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  QUESTION,
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, What course he proposed to adopt with regard to this Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had an opportunity of communicating with Her Majesty's Government upon the results of the Amendments which have been introduced in the House of Lords. I am generally aware that what we sent up to the House of Lords as a complete Measure, has in point of fact been so dealt with, that not a single feature which appeared to me valuable in the Bill—["Order!" "Chair."]
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill had not come down from the other House.

CRYSTAL PALACE EXHIBITION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE FORSTERsaid, he wish-
  1172
  ed to know, What steps would be taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent a repetition of the degrading exhibition of M. Blondin on Saturday last, so far, at all events, as related to the exposure of a child to imminent danger?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, my attention has been directed to the circumstance to which the hon. Baronet has referred; and I am also aware that it is proposed to repeat the exhibition at the Crystal Palace to-morrow. I have in consequence caused a letter of warning to be written to the Directors of the Crystal Palace, by which, I trust, that the exposure to danger of a child of tender years may be prevented. I have a sanguine hope that the letter which has been written will be efficacious to that extent.

REMOVAL OF THE LAW COURTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. and learned Attorney General, Whether, as there has as yet been no statement from the Government upon the subject, though notice has been given on the part of the lion, and learned Gentleman to bring in a Bill, he will put it as the first Order for Thursday, and make a statement as to the manner in which the Government propose to carry out their scheme? He would also call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Preamble of the Bill which the House was invited to pass, and which stands for a third reading. That Preamble contains the declaration that the House approves of the entire scheme which the Attorney General intends to submit.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was about three months since he had given notice of a Motion to bring in a Bill on this subject. He had begged and entreated that he might have an opportunity of bringing in that Bill, but the exigencies of the public business had been such that no opportunity had as yet been afforded him. He would mention the matter to his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and he hoped that an opportunity would be given him to bring the Bill in next Thursday. In the meantime the third reading of the Bill which had been referred to had better stand over.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee,
(In the Committee.)
Clause 3 (Chelsea and Kensington to form a Borough to return one Member),
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he regretted to say that, owing to the indisposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) who had given notice of his intention to propose a clause conferring one of the seats on the University of London, he was unable to attend. Several persons, however, who took an interest in the matter had requested him (Sir Francis Goldsmid) to move a similar clause. But in consequence of the multiplicity of Amendments of which notice had been given, and of other circumstances, with a statement of which it was not necessary to trouble the Committee, be thought it host not at present to move the Amendment, the object of which was to give a Member to the London University. He would reserve to himself the right of making the statement to which he had referred at any time at which it might appear desirable that it should be made, and if, when the Committee arrived at the end of the Bill—if they did arrive at that point—a seat remained vacant, he would move a short clause giving it to the London University.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton, he intended to submit the Amendment of which that hon. Member had given notice.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to move the insertion of the town of Burnley, in Lancashire, in the place of Chelsea, which had been struck out.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that his Amendment for the insertion of Cork preceded that of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and gallant Member that he was not in the House to take precedence. The hon. Member for Finsbury was now in possession of the Chair.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he wished to know if he should be in order to moving that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again that day six months?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood that the hon. Member for Finsbury had possession of the Committee.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that on Friday evening he asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intended to proceed with the Bill, and, if so, what
1174
place he intended to substitute in it for Chelsea and Kensington. The answer was, that the Government intended to proceed with the Bill, and that they would state in Committee the substitute which they intended to propose for Chelsea and Kensington. The person who ought to be addressing the Committee was the right hon. Baronet. The House was in Committee, and he asked the Government what place they proposed to enfranchise instead of Chelsea and Kensington, which had been struck out? For his own part, he thought that the Motion to report Progress, or, which would have been better, to proceed to the other orders of the day, would have been a very proper Motion to have adopted. He could not understand Ministers bringing in a Bill of that sort for what they called Reform, though it certainly was a very trumpery measure, and submitting to the striking out of the first clause which gave representation to wealth and population without at once throwing up the measure. The consequence was that the Committee was about to be dragged through the mire of a parcel of propositions which were to be made one after another, without any prospect of arriving at a satisfactory result, and all the time which was so spent would be wasted. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) desired to give a Member to the London University; but if such a proposition had been made he (Mr. T. Duncombe) should certainly have been inclined to move as an Amendment that Burnley should be put in its place. The wealth and population of Burnley entitled it far more than the London University to representation. The London University belonged to the district which he had the honour to represent, and therefore, his vote would be unpopular; but he wanted to know what were the claims of the London University? It was said that it had the same claims as Oxford and Cambridge. Their right to representation was, however, conferred upon those Universities by charter, and if it was intended that it should possess them, why were not similar rights conferred in a similar manner upon the University of London? In the Reform Bills of 1852, 1854, and 1860, to the introduction of one of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was a party, Birkenhead and Burnley took precedence of the London University, and why should their position be changed? He called upon the Government to state

1175
the name of the place the claims of which they were prepared to support. The murder must be out that evening. He did not like the measure at nil. It was a frittering away of the great cause of Reform. He would rather wait for better times, when the House of Commons would be obliged to do what they now refused. That House, though called together for the purpose of Reform, was not likely to pass a Reform Bill, and, therefore, the Government might ask what their duty was. He should say their duty was to bring in a good comprehensive measure of Reform, to ask the House to read it a second time, and, if they refused, to take the sense of the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of "Burnley" in the place of "Chelsea and Kensington," which had been struck out of the clause.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he had stated upon a former occasion that the Government did not bring in this Bill as a comprehensive measure of Parliamentary Reform, they brought it in as a measure to supply the vacancies in that House, which had been occasioned by two Acts of Parliament, under the operation of which four seats had become vacant. That was the whole extent of their proposal, and they were now quite ready to go through the Bill, taking in succession the different proposals which might be made in the place of that which was negatived on Thursday evening, and to give the best opinion which they could upon each of them. As to this being a pitiful measure, as the hon. Gentleman had implied, he would only remark that if giving an additional Member to the great county division, the West Riding of Yorkshire and another to South Lancashire was a pitiful proceeding, then that word was properly applied to this Bill; but it certainly appeared to him from the Amendments of which notice had been given that there was on the part of different portions of the country no want of solicitude to obtain a representation in that House. The question before the Committee was, whether the seat which the Government had proposed to give to Chelsea and Kensington should be given to the borough of Burnley. There was no doubt that the town of Burnley was a considerable and an increasing place. The reason why the Government did not propose to assign a Member to Burnley was that Burnley was in North Lancashire, upon the border of South Lancashire, and that it was a manufacturing town, its principal industry being
1176
the production of cotton goods. The Bill already proposed to give one seat to South Lancashire, another to the West Riding, where much the same land of manufacturing industry was carried on, and the third seat to Birkenhead; so that had the Government proposed to give the fourth scat to Burnley, they would all have been assigned to a limited district in Lancashire, Cheshire, and the West Riding. Therefore, though he did not dispute that the claim of Burnley to additional representation was entitled to consideration whenever a more extensive scheme was brought before the House, he did not feel justified, under present circumstances, in giving his support to the proposition.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he thought it would have been very advantageous if the House at the outset of the discussion had agreed to the Motion of the noble Lord (Earl Jermyn) for adjourning the further progress of the Bill to that day six mouths. At present the Government were coy in proposing any fresh Motion, fearing they would suffer a further defeat, which they most certainly would; while lion. Gentlemen with a favourite seat to propose were equally coy in commencing the battle, hoping that when all the other Motions had been disposed of, their's might be accepted as a pis aller. Hon. Members must regret the illness of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, but it certainly was fortunate for the University of London that he was invalided, because, as his Motion was the first to come on, unquestionably he would have been the first to be defeated. The Scotch Members, with the shrewdness which distinguished them, put their heads together and abstained from giving notice of any Amendments which would come on early in the debate, intimating their intention of proposing certain clauses, which they would try to carry after the other Amendments had run their course and been defeated. It was not fair on the part of the Government to leave matters to proceed in this confused manner. To put an end to this state of uncertainty he very much wished that somebody would move to report Progress. Hon. Members behind him suggested that he should do so himself, but as he had a proposition to make he would leave that very popular Motion to them, by way of Amendment, and he should be very happy to vote in its favour. With the consent of the hon. Members for the Queen's County and Dungarvan, he

1177
should move that the blank be filled up by inserting "the county of Cork," and if it had not a good case the Motion might as well be negatived and its advocates be put out of pain. He did not see how it was possible to reject the claim which the county of Cork possessed, unless the House adopted the principle laid down by the right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary the other night, that these being English seats, Ireland need not expect any share of increased representation. He had never advocated the repeal of the Union, but if it were once understood that the different portions of the United Kingdom were not to be identical in rights and privileges, he should advocate a complete and actual severance, as far as was consistent with loyalty to the Queen. He based his claim to a third Member for the county of Cork upon figures taken from Thom's Almanack—the most accurate work on this subject which he could find; and if Ireland had any representative in the Cabinet attention would undoubtedly have been directed to the subject. Excluding the city of Cork and the other boroughs already represented, he found that the county of Cork contained of property rated under Schedule A £832,045, 15,716 electors, and a population in the year 1851 of 563,576. The county Down stood next in point of property and number of electors, but was deficient in population. Tipperary was third in wealth and number of electors, and second in population. He had heard it said that Mayo was by some considered to have a stronger claim to increased representation, but a brief comparison would show that this idea was mistaken. Cork contained £832,000 worth of property; Mayo only £224,000; Cork had 15,700 registered electors, while Mayo had only 3,779; the population of the county of Cork was 563,000, while that of Mayo was but 274,000. Again, it was said that Cork, taking into account its borough Members, returned a sufficient share of representatives to that House. In respect of population, valuation, and acreable extent the county of Cork might be regarded as one-tenth of the whole of Ireland; yet the number of Irish representatives was 105, while Cork, including the city and boroughs, had only eight, of which the county had only two. He did not want to take a Member from any other Irish constituency, but he wished to have an additional Member given to the county which he had the honour to represent. He believed that
1178
Cork had a more overwhelming case than could be made for any other county; and, therefore, he hoped his proposal would receive the support of the Irish Members. Then, as regarded the English counties, the county of Lancaster, including its boroughs, had no less than twenty-six Members, and there was a proposal on the paper to give it another. ["Divide, divide!"] If hon. Members wished him to sit down he would do so; but it was not fair to refuse him a hearing after he had been at the trouble of making up his case. He was about to state facts which were already known to himself; and, therefore, if he were not allowed to state them, the loss would not be his but that of hon. Members who refused to listen to him, and who were at present ignorant of that which he wished to tell them. He ought not, perhaps, to accuse the Committee at large of interrupting him; for he believed the buzz of "Divide" came from two or three Members on the back benches. He had gone carefully through the English and Scotch counties; but had not found one of them that could contest with the county of Cork the claim for another Member. Comparing the county of Cork with what were called the "unicorn" counties of England, returning each three Members, he found that it was superior to any one of them in regard to valuation, to number of electors, and population. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would come forward and manfully declare in favour of Cork, and he could assure them that if they did so it would go far to do away with that unfavourable opinion which he had been forced to form of them, especially with regard to their Irish policy. He did not see how the refusal to give Cork an additional Member could be justified, except on the disloyal principle laid down the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that Ireland was a distinct and separate country, and not to be treated as an integral part of the empire. He trusted no one would oppose his proposition on the ground that the county of Cork would return a Catholic to that House. The hon. Member for Westmeath stated it the other night as a fact, that, while Protestant constituencies never returned Catholic Members, Catholic constituencies were often found returning Protestant Members. This fact was strongly borne out by Mr. Massey in his History of the Reign of George III., in which he said that while Dissenters of every kind were elected by the English

1179
people, and had no difficulty in finding seats, yet "during the thirty years that followed Catholic Emancipation, not more than two or three Roman Catholics had been sent to Parliament by Protestant constituencies." The county of Cork and its boroughs returned eight Members; and of these eight the Catholics might, if they chose, return seven. Perhaps they could not return a Catholic Member for Bandon. That borough returned a good Tory Protestant of the right sort. The borough of Youghal returned a Liberal Protestant, and Kinsale sent a Liberal Presbyterian. The Catholic borough of Mallow returned an Ultramontane Protestant, and the Catholic constituency of the county of Cork returned as his colleague a Gentleman whom he might also describe as an Ultramontane Protestant. ["Divide!"] He knew that in dilating on the unwillingness of Protestant constituencies to elect Roman Catholic representatives he was uttering unpleasant statements; still, the House of Commons was the fairest audience in the world, and if he had uttered equally unpalatable statements to any audience elsewhere, he should not succeed in getting an audience at all. He also could joke and jest when he chose, but he wanted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to answer his figures, and to state some better reason why the county of Cork should not have an additional representative. He defied contradiction when he asserted that the Roman Catholics exercised the franchise in a more ultra-liberal manner than Protestant electors. Perhaps no Irish Catholic candidate had ever had sufficient spirit to present himself to an English constituency. If he were rejected for a Roman Catholic constituency he might try some English constituency like Marylebone, in order to see whether there were not some really liberal constituencies in this country. It might be said that Protestants would not elect a Roman Catholic because, although there were liberal Protestants, there were no such persons as liberal Roman Catholics. But many Roman Catholics were kept out of Parliament at that moment because they would not adopt the politics of the Ultramontane party. While there were Protestants too liberal for Irish Protestant constituencies, there were, on the other hand, Roman Catholics who were quite liberal enough to represent English Protestant constituencies. There were Roman Catholics who, although attached to their
1180
religious creed, altogether dissented from the Ultramontane policy in Italy. If the Committee would bear with him he would read—[cries of "Oh!"] He was saying what would, perhaps, be unpopular among his constituency, and, if the Committee stopped him, he must not hereafter be charged with concealing his opinions on this subject. He had that morning cut out of a Cork newspaper of Saturday a statement by a writer who would not object to his name being quoted. ["Divide, divide!"] It was difficult to address that House. It had been said that eloquence was rather in the audience than the speaker. He, therefore, defied any Irishman to attempt to be eloquent in that House. As soon as he got under way some hon. Gentleman on the back benches always interrupted him in a rude manner. He wished that hon. Members would not interrupt him until he had done, to use an Irish mode of expression. [Cries of "Agree!"] If hon. Members would not hear him he might as well sit down. The hon. Member concluded by moving to insert "County of Cork," in lieu of the words "Parishes of Chelsea and Kensington in the," which had been struck out.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not put his Amendment until the other propositions before the Committee were disposed of.
MR. AYRTONsaid he rose to move that the Chairman should report Progress, because he thought something was due to the House from Her Majesty's Government in order to extricate them from the state of bewilderment in which they were placed by the four propositions which had been submitted to the chair. First, they had the proposition of the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid); then came the noble Lord, the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield), who shadowed out a proposal, but did not make one. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) next followed with a statement in favour of the proposal, which he did not intend to have put, but which was accidentally put by the Chair; and, lastly, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), which could not be put from the Chair. On a former occasion he had suggested that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) should go on with his proposal, but the Government had then desired Progress to be reported, in order that they might consider what course should be adopted. It was

1181
generally expected that the Government would come down to-day and make a statement of their intentions in regard to this Bill. The Government submitted to the Committee a distinct proposal for dealing with the four seats, and he should have thought that it was intended to stand as a whole; but as the proposal was negatived in part the Committee was now entitled to ask the Government what step they intended to take for filling up the vacancy thereby created in the plan. In dealing with a Bill which affected the constitutional Government of the whole country, was there to be a scramble for the seat among different Members, while the Government only gave utterance to vague expressions which would not commit them to anything, leaving the House to get out of the difficulty in the best way it could? That was a case with which no private Member could deal properly, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to consider, according to the great principles of justice, what should be the representation of the country. He, therefore, made the Motion for reporting Progress, in order to invite the noble Lord the Prime Minister to inform the Committee what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the four seats, and unless he got some distinct answer lie should divide upon the Motion.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the difficulty of which the lion. Member complained had not been in any way created by the Government, nor were they responsible for it. The difficulty had arisen out of the course, the unusual nature of which he had pointed out when the Motion was made, of moving to omit certain words in the clause without proposing to substitute other words for them. The consequence was that a blank had been created which different hon. Members proposed to fill up in different ways, and it was necessary that their Motions should be taken in the order of precedence. It was not in the power of the Government to prevent those Motions being made. The Government were perfectly ready to state their views upon each Motion as it was made. The Motion before the House was that the blank should be filled up by "Burnley," and if the hon. Member for Finsbury should press that Motion he (Sir George Lewis) should give his vote against it. With regard to the question of the county Cork, they had virtually divided on that—but if the Motion should be repeated be would be quite prepared to state his views upon it. Whenever the
1182
Motion of the noble Lord, the Member For Middlesex (Viscount Enfield), or that of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) should be made the Government would be ready to vote in favour of the proposition for giving a third Member to Middlesex.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that after the course which he had taken a week before of persuading his Friends to support the Motion then made to report Progress, he would take the liberty of making one remark. Certainly on that occasion he was under the impression, and he thought the House largely shared in it, that the Government intended generally to consider their position with regard to the clause, so that when the House went into Committee again, they would receive a distinct statement on the subject from the Government. What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State repeated to night—namely, his complaint as to the manner in which the opposition, the successful opposition, to the proposition of the Government as to the representation of Chelsea was to be regarded—appeared to him not to be sound. The course taken might have been inconvenient to the Government, but no one would pretend that it was unusual or unparliamentary. It was adopted with a due regard to precedent by the Gentleman who made the proposition, and no one questioned the full right of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. It was undoubtedly inconvenient for the Government that the Amendment should have been carried; but the resistance to the proposition on the part of the Government did not denote that the success of the proposition was an event of which they had not in some degree contemplated the probability. But although that success was inconvenient to the Government in the previous week, that was no reason why the Government should not, in the interval, have considered their position, and upon that question of all others—the representation of the people in Parliament—have been prepared with some suggestion which would have served as a guide to the House. IF the Government were responsible for anything they were responsible for the policy pursued on that question. They had to consider the due distribution of the representation in the north and in the south, in the urban and in the rural population; they had to consider whether there were distinct interests not represented, or not adequately represented at that moment. These con-

1183
siderations formed the peculiar province of statesmen, and of a Cabinet of statesmen, who, if they did not bring forward large and comprehensive measures, had at least on some of these points taken large and comprehensive views. But if the whole matter was simply to be thrown down into the centre of the House, for any Gentleman, who considered he could bring forward a title for a share in the four seats, to take up, without due reference to the general interests of the community, there would be no end to the inconvenience in reference to public business, and there might be possible injury to the public welfare. He, therefore, intreated the Government to assume the responsibility which belonged to them, and bring before the House some proposition made with their authority. The Government had no right to complain of the manner in which the proposal respecting Chelsea and Kensington was treated by the House. The debate was not of a character, especially on the part of the Government, to convey to the House the conviction that the proposition was one which the Government were anxious to enforce with all the weight of their authority and position but let them profit by the lesson, let them well consider the subject, and again bring forward a proposal on which he did not say that there should be staked the existence of the Government (which the Government always fancied in danger when advice was given), but with respect to which they might say that they sincerely believed that its acceptance was of importance to the general welfare; and he was bound that the House would give it a fair consideration. If Government were not prepared to pursue that course, then he thought that the best step the Committee could take would be to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He did not wish the Committee to come to a conclusion hostile to the Government, but he would suggest that they should name a day for resuming the Committee, when they would submit their proposition to the House, and the House would give it fair and ample discussion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he begged leave to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the Government made no complaint of the manner in which the debate was conducted on a former evening. Those four seats having been long vacant, the Government thought it their duty not to let the Session pass without proposing to the House a measure
1184
for allotting them. They chose four places which, in their opinion, were fitting to receive these four Members. The House appeared to the Government to concur with them in regard to three of them. With regard to two there was an actual vote; with regard to Birkenhead it seemed to be generally agreed that that was a fit place to receive a Member. The House disagreed with the Government in regard to Chelsea and Kensington. The right hon. Gentleman might have wished that decision should be considered as a decision determining the fate of the Government, but other hon. Members having proposed places in lieu of Chelsea and Kensington, the Government did not wish to impose a heavier responsibility upon those who, however reluctantly, were prepared to assume it. There being now several propositions before the House as to places to which different Members suggested that this single seat should be given, the Government had taken into consideration which of the propositions was on the whole the best suited for adoption by the House, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had stated that the Government were prepared to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, that a third Member should be given to Middlesex. He hoped that the House would concur with the Government in supporting that proposition, and he trusted that it would not be necessary for the Government to pursue the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman of adjourning the debate further for the purpose of considering some great and comprehensive measure as to the disposal of one single and solitary seat. Such were the intentions of the Government, and when the hon. Member for Northamptonshire submitted his proposition to the House it should receive their support.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to observe that he had that morning received a communication from his constituents at Burnley, complaining of a statement which had a few evenings before been made by the Secretary for the Home Department to the effect that the population of that town amounted to—he believed it was—only 26,000 persons. That statement must, he felt assured, be the result of some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, for it appeared that the population of Burnley was at least 38,000, and that if a somewhat larger district were taken it would

1185
amount to nearer 40,000. He had also been requested to call the attention of Parliament to one or two facts. The borough of Burnley had always stood the first in the list of those boroughs to which in any scheme of Parliamentary Reform, from the first Reform Bill down to the present time, it had been proposed to give a representative. Even in 1832 it was discussed in the Cabinet of the day whether Burnley should not have a Member. The decision was against the town. But in every Reform Bill since introduced Burnley had stood first. In the Bills which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had introduced since Burnley stood first; it was first in the Bill introduced by the Government of the Earl of Derby; and at the present moment the inhabitants felt that the town ought to have been placed among the four places now selected for a representative. The case now rested in the hands of the hon. Member for Fins-bury; but that hon. Gentleman was, he thought, putting it in a somewhat disadvantageous position by taking so early an opportunity of pressing its claims on the attention of the Committee. It would seem that there was to be a regular scramble for the seats to be disposed of by the Bill, and, under those circumstances, those towns would, he believed, stand the best chance the names of which came last on the list. Be that, however, as it might, if the hon. Member for Finsbury went to a division he should give him his support.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Burnley is not yet included in the returns of the census of this year. The numbers I quoted are given correctly from the Return of 1851, 20,828; and Birkenhead, in the same return, is placed the highest, 24,175.
COLONEL WILSON PATTEN: That was Burnley Proper. The error, no doubt, had arisen from the population of an adjoining parish to Burnley, but forming part of the borough, having been given separately.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that when on Friday the Committee rejected the claim of the University of London he inquired whether Government intended to support the proposition of giving an extra Member to Middlesex, and if they had replied in the affirmative he would not have moved the insertion of "Burnley." The four vacancies had been created in borough representation, and he thought, therefore, that the seats ought to have been given to the other boroughs. He could not see that Ireland
1186
had the least claim; but Chelsea having been negatived it had been proposed to give the seat to the county of Middlesex, and he should withdraw his Motion in favour of Burnley in favour of that proposition.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought no course could be productive of a more useless waste of time than to leave it to hon. Members generally to set up ninepins to be bowled down one after another at discretion. If, therefore, the Government should be a second time beaten in supporting the claims of a particular locality he hoped they would abandon the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the course proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was the one proposed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the middle of the debate the hon. Member for Northamptonshire moved to omit certain words, and did not propose to fill up the vacancy with other words particularizing the place he wished to insert. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire would, no doubt, bring on his proposal as to Middlesex as soon as he had the opportunity, but so long as any hon. Member had an Amendment to come earlier it could not be submitted. If the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was allowed to propose the insertion of the words of which he had given notice as to the county of Middlesex, it would form a substantive Amendment. But it was not in the power of Government to overrule the forms of the House.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must beg leave to differ with the right hon. Gentleman. The course proposed was exactly contrary to that taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If the view of the right hon. Gentleman was right—and he did not dispute it—it showed that the repeated complaints of the Home Secretary as to the conduct of the Committee had no foundation whatever. It seemed that now it was held that the course taken by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was not an unusual and inconvenient course, but the only course he could adopt.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not understand that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) had blamed the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That hon. Gentleman stated the reasons why he thought Chelsea should not have the Member, and he gave some of the reasons why he thought Middlesex should have a third Member. The Government proposed, when he (Mr. Knightley) brought forward a Mo-

1187
tion to give a third Member to Middlesex, to support that Motion, their own original proposition which they thought best not having met with the favour of the Committee. Nothing was more regular than the course adopted.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, if ever he understood anything distinctly, it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had complained, and, on more than one occasion, of the course taken by the Members of the House. Therefore he was now very glad to hear the admission of the right hon. Baronet that he concurred in the views of his right hon. Friend. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that a great deal of valuable time had been lost; and if the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made earlier the communication which the Committee had just heard from him, the whole of the early part of the discussion might have been saved. The first statement was that the Government were prepared to accept any Amendment. It was quite clear hon. Members had, without knowing it, been present at the sitting of a Cabinet Council within the last hour or two, and that upon the Treasury bench the steps which the Government intended to take with respect to the point under discussion had within that time been decided upon. He regretted that the Cabinet had not met and considered the subject a little sooner.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Member opposite had misrepresented his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Committee would recollect that his right hon. Friend stated distinctly that it was the intention of the Government to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYexpressed his belief that unless the Government pledged themselves, in the event of the proposition of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire being negatived, to withdraw the Bill, the claims of the county of Middlesex would be more regarded than those of Chelsea and Kensington. Whatever proposition were made, there were thirty-seven Scotch Members who would still adhere to their wish to have the Scotch Universities represented.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the Committee would permit him to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, as the object of it had been attained by the statement of the Government that they
1188
intended to give a third Member to Middlesex.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he then rose to move that a third Member should be given to Middlesex.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he rose to order. He had an Amendment to propose which appeared on the paper before that of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. The Amendment which he wished to submit to the Committee was the second of those of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) had given notice—namely, to "leave out from 'county' in line 29, to 'borough' in line 31, inclusive." The substantial effect of that Amendment, if adopted, would be to dispose of the claims of the county of Middlesex to a third Member. It was, in fact, a direct negative to the proposition which the Government had announced their intention to support. He did not think that a third Member was a good thing for any county; but, if he had to make a choice, he should prefer the West Riding of Yorkshire to Middlesex. There was another constituency, however, which he thought had stronger claims still—he meant the Scotch Universities. Middlesex was almost part of the Metropolis, and the Committee had already decided that no addition should be made to the number of metropolitan Members.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire would only plunge the Committee into greater confusion than before. It was part of an Amendment of which notice had been given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and its adoption would leave the clause without any meaning, unless the hon. Gentleman followed it up by proposing the insertion of words in lieu of those which had been struck out—namely, "parishes of Chelsea and Kensington."
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he thought he had sufficiently distinctly expressed his preference for the Scotch Universities. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Stirling) had given notice of an Amendment to insert the Scotch Universities, and he (Mr. Blackburn) wished to clear the way for him.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that so far as he was able to see, the claim of the West Riding to the fourth seat was the strongest; but the House had decided against that. [Cries of "No, no!"] He hoped the House would not be induced to

1189
stultify its proceedings, as he thought there was some danger of doing. Next to the claims of the West Riding, there was none so valid as those of the county of Middlesex. He was born in that county, and he had had the honour of sometimes acting as Chairman of its Conservative registration, and, therefore, he felt that he addressed the Committee with a knowledge of the circumstances of that county. He rejoiced most sincerely that Her Majesty's Government had adopted the second best case among the counties of England. He hoped then that his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire would be allowed to proceed with his Motion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was evidently endeavouring to get rid of the clause altogether. He ought, therefore, to reserve his proposal until they came to the end of clause, and meanwhile the hon. Member for Northamptonshire should be allowed to proceed with his Amendment.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, on that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. KNIGHTLEYassured the Committee he would not detain them more than a very few minutes. The population of Middlesex, including the City of London and the represented boroughs was, according to the last census, £2,205,771; the next largest was the West Riding, and then South Lancashire. They had already given one additional Member to the West Riding and one to South Lancashire; and he thought the claims of Middlesex, on the grounds of population, property, and importance, unquestionably came next. The proposal of the Government was to enfranchise Chelsea and Kensington, but he did not see why those two parishes should have a monopoly of the new Member to the exclusion of the remaining population. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had suggested that Middlesex should be divided, and that each division should return two Members. He cordially concurred in that suggestion. He thought it much preferable to any other proposal which had been made; but then they must cut their coat according to the amount of cloth they possessed. He ventured to submit his proposition with great deference, but, upon the whole, he thought it a fair compromise between the claims of the northern and southern parts of England
1190
on the one hand and of the towns and counties on the other. He should, therefore, move to leave out from "shall" in line 30 to "serve" in line 33; and insert "be entitled to return three Knights of the Shire instead of two."
Amendment proposed, in line 30, to leave out from "shall," to "to," inline 33, and insert the words "be entitled to return three Knights of the Shire instead of two."
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman included the City of London and the represented boroughs; but he was prepared to show that, excluding London and the represented boroughs, Middlesex had the next claim after the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was free to say that the West Riding had, perhaps, a higher claim; but, after the West Riding, he repeated the county of Middlesex had the strongest claims to additional representation. If they gave two new Members to the West Riding, the whole four would be assigned to the north of England, and it was a fair compromise to give one of them to Middlesex. There were seven counties which returned three Members—Berkshire, with 4,847 electors; Bucks, with 5,774 electors; Cambridgeshire, with 7,157; Dorsetshire, with 6,723; Herefordshire, with 7,722; Herts, with 6,071; and Oxfordshire, with 5,123 electors. Now, Middlesex had 15,328 electors, and North Lancashire only 12,183 electors. There were fifteen counties—Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derby shire, Durham, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire—all returning four Members, and with fewer electors than Middlesex. The annual value of property rated under Schedule A, not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was—in Middlesex £1,616,405; in North Lancashire, £1,269,367; in South Derbyshire, £1,541,024; in Parts of Lindsay, £1,525,925; and in West Kent, £1,356,859. The gross estimated rental not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was, in North Lancashire £1,304,991, and in Middlesex £1,819,569. The population not within the limits of a Parliamentary borough was, in North Lancashire, 316,804, in Middlesex; 283,256. North Lancashire was larger in population but less than Middlesex in the number of electors, contributions to Schedule A, and gross estimated rental. He took these

1191
figures from three Parliamentary Returns, No. 141, February 17, 1859; No. 131, March 1, 1860; and No. 400, June 22, 1860; and he ventured to think they made out a strong claim in favour of an increase to the representation of Middlesex.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought it very desirable that the Committee should not come to a decision on the question under an erroneous impression of what was to follow. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was mistaken as to the cause of the West Riding of Yorkshire being disposed of. It I Although the Committee had agreed, the was quite true that the Motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) had been negatived, but that hon. Member had on the paper a notice to move a clause, when the proper time came, to give another vote to the West Riding of Yorkshire. He must in candour say he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) that the claims of Middlesex were strong, and perhaps the best course would have been to divide the West Riding and Middlesex, and to give to each two Members. But that had not been done. He did not take the view of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, but would oppose every proposition in order to support that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in order to give another Member to the West Riding.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he intended distinctly to raise the question whether the West Riding should or should not be divided. That question had not been decided. The only question which had been decided was that Clause 1 should not be postponed. If the West Riding were divided, one division would have 21,000 electors and another 19,000, while the area of the West Riding was some hundredfold larger than that of Middlesex. Yorkshire stood first on the list for increased representation; and those who agreed with him were entitled to vote against every proposal until a fair measure of justice were meted out to the West Riding.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Knaresborough that the first clause had been agreed to, which assigned three Members to the West Riding and three to the Southern Division of Lancashire. That clause assumed that the West Riding, for the purpose of electing three Members, should not be divided; and if the hon. Member proposed that the Riding should
1192
be divided, it could only be for the election of a fourth Member, who could only be elected after the present Parliament.
MR. COLLINS: We should be quite prepared to wait that time.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that, though the Committee had arrived at the resolution to which he had referred, and passed the first clause, the hon. Member for Knaresborough would have a legitimate occasion to propose the clause of which he had given notice on bringing up the Report. Although the Committee had agreed, the House had not agreed that the West Riding should not be divided. He, himself, entirely objected to the principle of increasing the representation of counties by plurality of votes. He thought two Members enough to represent any place. In 1859, when he had the honour to bring forward a larger measure for the amendment of the representation of the people, there was a very general feeling in the House in favour of the view, that Members were sent to Parliament not to represent the power, but the opinions of a place, and two Members were sufficient for that purpose. If they once admitted plurality of votes in the representative body he did not see at what point they were to stop. It was very true that precedents were made in 1832, but they were bad precedents. The county he had the honour to represent was one of them. It had three Members, and had been placed in a very false position by that arrangement. He did not agree with respect to the Resolution which the Committe had passed, and he should support on the Report the Motion of the lion. Member for Knaresborough. In the present case he should certainly vote against giving a third Member to Middlesex, although it was not from want of appreciation of its claims and its importance, because had there been any arrangement brought forward to divide and give Middlesex two new Members, he should have been ready to support it.
MB. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he disapproved of the unicorn system, though he wanted a third Member for Cork, but then he wanted to divide that county afterwards. He went further than the right hon. Gentleman, and thought one Member sufficient for each place. He rose, however, to call attention to the fact that the county of Cork had a larger number of electors than the county of Middlesex. The Committee, by a previous division, had virtually de-

1193
cided not to give any more Members to Middlesex.
ME. HUMBERSTONsaid, he wished to correct a statement which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield). He had no doubt that the noble Lord was right in saying that the number of electors was somewhat greater in Middlesex than in Cheshire. But the difference in that case was not a wide one; and it should be remembered that while Cheshire had only three boroughs returning Members Middlesex returned sixteen borough Members.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had to remind the Committee that Middlesex, which had a population of 2,000,000, was represented by only two Members, and that the labouring classes were being gradually driven out of the Metropolis into the surrounding country. Under these circumstances he believed that the Committee, by adopting the proposal under its consideration, would be giving a Member to the labouring population of the Metropolis; and he knew no claim so strong as that of Middlesex to obtain an addition to the number of its representatives.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." Put and negatived.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 236: Majority 50.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that after the successive operations of which the clause had been the subject, he believed nothing remained but a few unintelligible words. The best course would, therefore, be simply to negative the clause and proceed to the next.
Clause negatived.
Clause 4 (Birkenhead to form a Borough to return One Member),
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We have presented to the House and successively supported what we believed to be the best proposals. I am sorry the House did not agree with the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; but, after the vote which has just been given, it is necessary for us to state our views. I think the best course will be for the House to affirm the clause which gives a Member to Birkenhead, and then we shall be quite ready to adopt the suggestion thrown out in the course of the discussion to give four Members to the West Riding of Yorkshire. That is a suggestion on which a great deal may be
1194
said, on which, indeed, a great deal has been said, and which has a great deal of merit in itself. The question will be, therefore, whether the West Riding should have four Members divided or undivided. My own opinion is that, perhaps, it would be better to divide it. That proposal, of course, can only be carried out by clauses brought up at the proper time.
MR. COLLINSsaid, that when he proposed that four Members should be given to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and that it should be divided, he told the Government that it would be better for them to adopt the suggestion at once. They must feel now that if they had only taken his advice they would have been spared all those troubles into which they had been led. He was confident that when he appealed to the common sense and justice of the Committee the other night he would not appeal in vain, and the result had proved that he was right. As they were all going to be unanimous, however, he would not interrupt the debate further.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government rested on a principle totally different from that on which the Bill was introduced. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, that if they abandoned the sort of compromise proposed in the name of the Government they ought to proceed on some definite and intelligible principle, such as the division of large constituencies. But there were other districts in England as important as that which the Government seemed to anxious to court, and which it was intended to strengthen exclusively by the Bill. The county of Middlesex contained a body of people who held in a large degree what might be called the fixed property of the country; and they were bound, when they divided the West Riding, to consider whether in common fairness they ought not also to divide the county of Middlesex. He would vote against the clause giving a Member to Birkenhead, with the view of supporting the appropriation of two seats to the West Riding and two seats to Middlesex.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that he was anxious to propose that one of the four seats should be given to the Scotch Universities. But he believed that in the present temper of the Committee, it would be useless to bring forward any such proposal; and the best course they could follow would be, as it seemed to him, to agree to the

1195
rest of the Bill sub silentio, and then for each lion. Member to submit his particular scheme to the House on the bringing up of the Report.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was not going to leave the Scottish Universities in the lurch.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he was satisfied that he would not be doing justice to the Universities of Scotland in attempting to urge their claims at that moment.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he concurred in the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Blackburn) that it would be better for the cause they espoused to advocate it on the Report. It was also desirable that the Government should have time to reflect on the circumstances of the case. They had made some very sudden proposals, and he feared they did not know whether they were standing on their head or heels. It was well that the Government should have an opportunity of reflecting on the undignified position which they occupied, so that before they arrived at the Report of the proceedings in Committee they might come to their senses, and see the propriety of adopting a juster policy towards the country to which he belonged, which was the only one of the three kingdoms which had to bear the badge of inferiority in not having her Universities represented in the House, while those of England had four Members, and those of Ireland two.
MR. DISRAELI: I would impress upon the Committee that this is a subject of great and enduring importance. It is highly desirable that we should not deal with such a question as if this were a mere private Bill, on which we often arrive at a decision in one Session which we reverse in a subsequent Session. The vote which has just been taken has very much changed the character of this Bill, and it is of the utmost importance that we should consider the consequences of these changes in all their bearings. With regard to the clause immediately before our notice for giving a Member to Birkenhead, I see that there is an Amendment placed on the paper by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, proposing to alter the boundaries of that borough as they are described in the Bill. I do not want now to go into the merits or demerits of that proposition. But I beg the Committee to remember that the question of Birkenhead has been considered over and over
1196
again, and has been considered by more than one Ministry; and, therefore, when a measure is proposed for giving a Member to Birkenhead, the House had a right to suppose that it has been very maturely considered. If the Government have felt suddenly that it is necessary to alter the boundaries of that borough, they ought to have placed before the House ample information as to the data on which that recommendation is made, and we ought not to be called upon hastily to decide on so important a question. When I remember that we are going to give four Members to the north of England, and that the only borough to which one of the four seats is to be appropriated is in so undefined a condition, I really think it is desirable that we should report Progress and allow ourselves an opportunity of further considering this subject. I would rather this proposal came from the Government, and I believe the noble Lord would now do well to take it into his consideration. This has been rather a memorable night in the history of the Bill. The Committee have done a great deal in a short time, and let us now digest what we have done—let us have an opportunity of seeing whether we cannot appropriate these seats in a manner satisfactory to the south as well as to the north of England. I must repeat my belief that on the whole the best arrangement that could be made would be to divide both the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county of Middlesex, and to apportion all the four seats between those two great counties. These are questions, however, which I wish the Committee to consider, and not to settle by any sudden Resolution. The claims of Birkenhead are, no doubt, moat respectable; but the Government seem to doubt whether that borough, as at first proposed, would furnish a sufficiently ample constituency to justify them in giving it a Member, or why the change of which the Homo Secretary has given notice? Therefore, I think that if there is a little delay, and Her Majesty's Government consider the propriety of dividing the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county of Middlesex, and appropriating the seats to those great, flourishing, and increasing constituencies, they will take a wise course, and one which will be satisfactory to the general community. I will not propose that we should report Progress, or take any other course which might be offensive to the Government. I would rather see the noble Lord take his na-

1197
tural position as leader of the House; but I think that the adoption of that course would he convenient, and not unprofitable.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I think it will be better that the Committee should proceed with the consideration of this clause. If the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member should in Committee propose any changes, they may then he considered, but at present the Government adhere to the clauses which have been carried. And be it remembered that the change which has been made, although there has been more than one division, has affected only one of the scats now in question. With regard to Birkenhead, I gave notice of an Amendment to incorporate with that place a small township to the north of it, which I thought might conveniently form part of the new borough; but since I made that proposal I have understood that the local interests are unfavourable to its incorporation with Birkenhead. This township adjoins the creek upon which Birkenhead is situate, and the gentleman who was sent to examine Birkenhead suggested to mo that it might properly be considered as forming part of the borough. For that reason I gave notice of the Amendment which has been referred to. I gave notice of it some time ago, in order to ascertain whether the change would be acceptable, and I have since found that it would not. The population of this township is insignificant, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman has magnified into an important, is really a very unimportant one. The whole population of the chaperly of Birkenhead, according to the last census, amounts to 35,000, or nearly 36,000 persons. There are other townships within the borough which raise the population to 51,105. The small township which I proposed to add, but which I shall not now insist upon adding to the borough, contains a population of only 3,600 persons; therefore, the House will see that this is a matter of very limited importance. I think that any one who looks at a map of the borough will think that there was a primâ facie case for annexing this township. However, I shall not press the Motion, and I trust that the Committee will agree to the clause as it stands.
MR. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, that the inhabitants of the township of Wallasey entertained strong objections against being included in the Borough of Birkenhead, which they had expressed in a petition to that House, and he thanked the right hon.
1198
Baronet for having so properly and so considerately complied with the wishes of those who were most concerned in the matter. He thought Birkenhead was entitled to a Member. It was quite impossible to consider what would be the population of that thriving place in the next ten years. They must not consider her local interests. The port of Birkenhead was greater than London, and greater than New York, and the docks they were now making would cost £3,000,000. The future Member would have to look to large interests, for there was not a manufacturing town in the north which was not interested in Birkenhead. The population of Liverpool was less by two-thirds than that of Lancashire and Yorkshire, but he would venture to say the duties of the Members for Liverpool were more heavy than those of the Members for the West Riding and Lancashire put together; and he was not sure that the duties of the Members for Liverpool were not more onerous than those of half a dozen metropolitan Members. Under these circumstances he felt that the Government had exercised a wise and sound discretion in giving to Birkenhead a Member.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that the proposal to give a Member to Birkenhead raised the important question of principle whether all these four seats should be given to Lancashire and Yorkshire, which possessed already almost as many Members as Scotland, and whether those two counties should be allowed to raise their preponderating influence in that House from fifty-one to fifty-five Members. If the argument against Middlesex was worth anything, à fortiori it was valid against Yorkshire. He objected to Ireland and Scotland being treated with contempt in a question of such importance, and should certainly move that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would support the Amendment, but upon different grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a great Irish grievance, but, in fact, he had made out no case at all, for the hon. and learned Gentleman had lost sight of the fact that the counties of Ireland were fully and amply represented; while, on the other hand, if he had taken the trouble to look at the matter from an imperial point of view, and taken the whole case of the representation into consideration, he would have found how badly the rural districts of

1199
England were represented. Every seat given to a borough was an act of deliberate and cold-blooded spoliation. ["Oh, oh!"] He was prepared to prove that statement. Would any one deny that "taxation" and "representation" were convertible terms? If the whole power of taxation were put into the hands of one portion of the community, that portion would use it to relieve themselves of the burden of taxation at the expense of those who were less powerfully represented. The rural districts of England were in the latter position. He begged every rural representative to consider that in voting in favour of increased urban representation he was virtually assisting in placing those whom he represented in a worse position than they were at present.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to say one or two words. If population, the number of houses, and the amount of property were taken as the conditions that commanded increased representation, the counties of England were entitled to 130 additional seats. As to the claims of Ireland, he could only say that the wished that the counties of England were as fully represented as those of Ireland; taking into account the number of the population and the amount of property. Ireland could found no claim to additional seats, except upon the ground of population. Her case was infinitely weaker than that of Scotland. By population and by property, taken as as a test of the intelligence of the people, Scotland was entitled to twelve seats; but, as he had said, the English counties by the same rule were entitled to 130. He did not, however, desire to see a anything like a perfect equality of representation in that House between the boroughs and counties so long as the House of Lords existed; but he thought the counties deserved some consideration. The noble Lord the Member for the City in his Bill of 1854—which was on the whole the best Reform Bill which he (Mr. Newdegate) had known introduced—proposed to allot to the counties of England no less than forty-six seats. He trusted that in future they should hear no more of the claims of Ireland and Scotland, whilst the claims of the English counties remained unsatisfied to the extent which he had mentioned. He had voted for an additional Member being given to Middlesex; but he thought in justice that county should have two seats allotted to it. His opinion was, that so long as they had enormous masses of population represented
1200
in the aggregate by two Members only for each of these large constituencies, the elections would be controlled by knots of men acting with a power which rendered such representation analogous to that of close boroughs. Let the Committee consider the difficulty of communicating with vast masses of people. No ordinary man could address more than about 4,000 people by his own voice, and twelve was the number of a jury, probably because it was found that that was the greatest number of persons who could conveniently communicate by conversation. The reason against enlarging the number of Members of that House was because the numbers of the House would be too large for the purposes of debate. Unless these enormous constituencies were divided true public opinion would often be overborne in them, therefore, he agreed in the proposition for dividing Yorkshire. As two of the disposable seats came from St. Albans, a borough near the Metropolis, he thought that in justice those seats should be given to the metropolitan county of Middlesex. There was a strong Conservative element-in Middlesex, and it was but fair that that spirit should be represented. Without intending the slightest disrespect to the metropolitan Members, he was confident that they would find assistance in such an additional representation for the metropolitan county. Iii his own case he knew that the Members for the large boroughs in his county could perform certain duties to which he was unequal, whilst he, in like manner, could perform duties of which they were incapable. Let the Committee remember the combinations of working men, and the organization by which they were governed—often both unreasonable and tyrannical, but the existence of these combinations proved the Committee ought to give them legitimate representation, such as they would do by giving additional Members to Middlesex; that course would produce satisfaction which could not be produced by other means.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that considering the difficulty there was with the present press of business in fixing a certain day when the Bill could come on, there could be no course more inconvenient, or indeed, more unreasonable, than to report Progress at so early an hour. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would consent to go on with the Bill to the end.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had given notice of a Motion in reference to Cork, though he had not been fortunate enough

1201
to catch the Chairman's eye. He could not promise that the House should hear no more of the claims of Ireland, for there were no interests so badly represented in that House as Irish interests. The number of Irish Members were so out of proportion to the rest of the House that they had no chance; and, no matter where an English Member sat, he was always ready to cheer anything against Ireland. Ireland had got nothing from that House, and he hoped that Irish Members, for the future, would not be deterred by any amount of vituperation from combining, and would refuse to go into the lobby for any party question—no matter what it might be—which did not lead to her advantage. On comparing the representation of the various countries he found that Scotland had one Member to 53,000 persons, while Ireland had one to 63,000, and that in Scotland there was a Member to every 1,700 electors, and in Ireland there was one to every 1,704. Then as to the property of the country he denied that that was a fair test. The wealth of Ireland had been drawn for centuries into this country, for £11,000,000 of taxes were raised in that country but only £4,000,000 were spent in it; and, in addition, a large amount of the rent of absentees was drawn to this country.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he thought the Government ought to state exactly what course they proposed to adopt, in what way Yorkshire was to be divided, and whether the clauses for that purpose would be introduced in Committee, or upon the Report.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, what he proposed was that the remaining clauses should be proceeded with, and then that the ordinary course should be taken of reporting the Bill. Three seats had been disposed of, and on the Report it was proposed to bring up a new clause, dividing the West Riding, which it was not competent to do in Committee. The alteration in the mode of election in the West Riding, he should add, could only take place at the next general election. If but one seat were added the election might take place during the present Parliament, but the necessity of dividing the constituency would preclude the two new seats from being filled up till a dissolution took place.
SIB JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he felt so strongly the difficulty in which the Committee was placed, after the votes which had been taken, that he believed the best course which the Government could adopt would be to withdraw the Bill. If they
1202
wished to proceed with the measure they ought to take time for reflection, instead of being guided by the last vote. Either the Government had a principle or they had not. If they had, he supposed it was that population and rateable value should be regarded in the distribution of the seats, and that on that principle they had acted in proposing first to give a Member to Chelsea and Kensington, and then to Middlesex. That principle, however, had been twice upset. If they were to go on scrambling through the different propositions, he believed the only course which he could safely take was to imitate the action of the Scotch Members, and to vote steadily against every proposition, in the hope that ultimately Middlesex might come to the top again. He protested against the principle that four seats were to be given to the North. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman consulted the wishes of his own supporters, he would withdraw the Bill, which dealt with a subject that ought not to be trifled with.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he could not admit that the Government had trifled with the subject. They had distinctly pointed out the places to which, in their opinion, seats might with propriety be given; and, having done so, the most respectful course to the House was to allow hon. Gentlemen to urge their views, and then for the Government to deliver their opinions, instead of making any attempt previously to dictate to the House. But it was by no means to be inferred that they had not fully considered the subject. The Government stated that they would vote in favour of another Member for Middlesex, but the Committee decided against that proposition. While that issue remained uncertain it was not competent for the Government to say what course they would take; but as soon as the House had pronounced its decision, his noble Friend rose and stated what the Government was prepared to do. He did not see how it was possible to take a more clear and straightforward course. It was now said they ought to adjourn the debate and report Progress. Well, the Government did not ask for time. If they felt any doubt or hesitation it would be natural that they should ask for delay, and under the circumstances it would probably be conceded by the Committee. But they did not ask for it; they were quite ready to proceed with the Bill, and they asked the Committee to give a Member to Birkenhead, a pro-

1203
posal which formed part of the original scheme. With regard to the fourth Member, he understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite were favourable to a division of the West Riding. In the Bill of last year the Government proposed to give four Members to the West Riding. Everybody must see that it was a proposition which had strong arguments in its favour; and, therefore, as they entertained no objection to it, they were ready to adopt the proposal. But the only way in which it was possible to engraft the clause requisite for that purpose on the Bill was in the manner which he proposed; and if they reported Progress to all eternity they would be no nearer either to giving four Members to the West Riding or to submitting the question for the decision of the House. He hoped the Committee would not lose time in debating what they should do, but would proceed at once to consider the question of giving a Member to Birkenhead.
MR. HARDYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that, after an immensity of discussion, the House had now got into the right line, and that the Government had adopted a proposition which would receive the concurrence of the country at large. The West Riding had always shown itself an independent constituency, and the representatives which it returned had always truly reflected the political feeling of the time. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was in error in thinking that the West Killing would be purely a manufacturing constituency; as one went westward it became much more agricultural in its character. It had in it, moreover, a great number of what were called small statesmen—probably the most independent class in the community. It was to them that Wilberforce and Brougham in great part owed their election. With all respect for the Irish and Scotch Members, he had viewed the question before them from the first as an English question, and were a different course pursued it might afford a dangerous precedent, for at some future time one of their little boroughs might get into trouble, and English Members might conspire to rob them of the seat. Not denying that at some future time the good service done to the cause of education might entitle the Scotch Universities to representation? be believed fewer jealousies would be created by the division of the West Riding as proposed.
MR. JACKSONcontended that of the
1204
four borough seats which the House had to dispose of, the borough interest had a right to at least one. During the last few years the sum on which the income tax was levied had increased by about £20,000,000, of which the land only claimed £1,000,000, while house property claimed £8,000,000, mines and minerals £3,000,000, and manufactures £2,000,000; the rest being made up of miscellaneous incomes, a strong reason for continuing to boroughs the five seats. Birkenhead would have a very peculiar constituency. It would start with 5,500 voters, of whom the bulk would claim in respect of houses of £30 a year and upwards. It would represent a very varied interest, and would altogether be one of the most respectable constituencies in the kingdom.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he could not conceive any place more entitled to representation than Birkenhead, but he must protest against the assumption that because the four seats at the disposal of the House were English seats they could only be distributed to English constituencies. Such a doctrine could not be adopted by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary or those who wore concerned with him in the Reform Bill of 1832. Therefore, after the claim of Birkenhead had been disposed of, he should be prepared to submit the claim of the Universities of Scotland before either the West Riding or Middlesex for one of the vacant seats.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was quite true that by the Reform Bill additional seats were given to Scotland and Ireland, but he did not think it followed from that circumstance that whenever there was any distribution of seats the sister kingdoms must be included with England. In the present case, the four seats which the House had to dispose of were English seats, and he did not see that a case had been made out for giving any of them to Scotland or Ireland.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he wished to know whether the noble Lord meant to convey that until the Scotch Members succeeded in demoralizing one of their constituencies—which he did not think it would be possible to do—they were to have no claim for a representation of the two Scotch Universities? Did the noble Lord advise them to make the attempt in order to establish a title to such a representation?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I did not mean that.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought the Committee ought at once to know whether the Bill was to be considered a Government measure. The Government began by opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and in that opposition they were beater, by a very large majority—over 100. That evening they acceded to his second Amendment, and the result was that success left him, and he and they were beaten. They at first opposed the proposition of the lion, and learned Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), but now they tendered him their assistance, but he should recommend the hon. and learned Member to take care, for their assistance might be as fatal to him as it had been to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. He did not think the Government were consulting their own dignity in the course which they were taking in respect to the Bill.
Motion negatived.
Question put, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 26: Majority 137.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining Clauses.
On Question that the Bill as amended be reported,
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he could not see the fairness of the suggestion which had been made for giving all the four Members to one part of England; and he, therefore, gave notice that at the next stage of the Bill he should bring before the House the case of the University of London unless, meanwhile, the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) recovered, so as to be able to take the question into, his much abler hands.
MR. BLACKBURNsuggested that the Bill should be reprinted as amended, and that the Government should give notice of the clause for dividing the West Riding.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the extreme difficulty of dealing with these questions on the Report, and to suggest the recommittal of the Bill,
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he wished to give notice that on the Report he should take the opportunity of stating the case of the Scotch. Universities. It would probably be for the convenience of the House that the discussion upon the Scotch Universities and London Universities should be taken together; and, therefore, when he had seen the notice of the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid) he would endea-
1206
vour so to frame his own Motion that the discussion should be so taken.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was not usual to recommit a Bill unless extensive alterations were proposed. The change proposed was only on a single point; and it would be, therefore, competent for hon. Gentlemen to submit their Amendment upon the Motion for the division of the West Riding.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to give notice that, if the plan of dividing the West Riding were adopted, he should propose to strike out Lancashire and substitute for it the division of Middlesex.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he should take the same opportunity of urging again the claims of the county of Cork.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

COUNTY SURVEYORS, &c. (IRELAND), BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read, Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had no charge to bring against the Government for introducing the Bill, inasmuch as they had, perhaps, been misled by numerous petitions and representations forwarded to" them on the part of the grand juries. Its object was to increase the remuneration given to county surveyors in Ireland and to grant to them superannuation allowances, but the principle involved in it would go much further, as it would equally apply to all officers paid out of the county rates. In the county of Cork alone there were at least 500 officers who on the same grounds as county surveyors would be entitled to an increase of remuneration, and in the whole of Ireland there could not be fewer than 5,000. To prove that this was not a needless alarm he need only point to the fact that among the Amendments to the Bill of which notice appeared on the paper was one by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) to add to the salaries of and grant superannuations to the secretaries of grand juries. He confessed he did not see how their claim could be resisted if the principle of the Bill was sanctioned. The salaries of the surveyors were to be increased to £600 a year; that was to be the maximum.

1207
But when a maximum salary was fixed, it was apt, practically, to become the minimum. Some of the surveyors, who made themselves disagreeable, politically or otherwise, might be cut down to £300; but those who went hunting with members of the grand jury—and they would hunt oftener when they had £600 a year than when they had £300—would get the maximum salary. They would not discharge their duties the better for the increase. The fact was there was a number of young men in Ireland who had nothing to do, and their first proceeding was to get an office with a small salary; the next was to get the salary increased; the next to get a superannuation allowance attached to it; and then to prove that the office was utterly useless, and ought to be abolished. He had known cases where that had been done. No doubt the Bill had originated in goodnature. But there were several sorts of goodnature. One was to put your hand into your own pocket and pay £100 in charity, and say nothing about it; another sort was to put your hand into your own pocket and pay the £100, and put it in all the newspapers. That was a higher order of goodnature. Another was to put your hand into your neighbour's pocket, pay it out of that, and then advertise it as your own charity. And this was very much what the Bill proposed to do. It was brought in by English officials, who had no property in Ireland to pay the increased taxes arising from it. Instead of increasing the salaries of the present county surveyors, he thought it would be a better plan to add to the number of the surveyors at a less salary and divide their districts. There should be a smaller division of districts, and a graduated scale of payment. The claims of the officers of the Poor Law Board for superannuation were made on grounds that would apply equally well to Irish Members of Parliament. It was said they were overworked, that they had no time for social duties, that their patience was tasked to the utmost, that they must satisfy everybody, and that they could not look forward to any promotion or provision—precisely the case of the Irish Members. The principle of giving superannuation to local officers ought to be carefully considered by the House. Some returns had been ordered which would prove the great increase that had of late been made in the amounts of the county rates paid in Ireland. Those returns had not been laid upon the table, and he wished
1208
to know the reason of the delay. With respect to the Bill he thought the principles which it contained were most objectionable, and before they were adopted the subject ought to be fully inquired into before a Select Committee.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend, and to attest that he had beard a strong desire expressed that the Bill should not be proceeded with. It proposed at one blow to double the salaries of the county surveyors; for, as this Bill had been framed by the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), it was at the option of the grand jurors, without regard to the cesspayers, to accomplish this. He trusted that now the public feeling of the people of Ireland was known upon the Bill the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the measure.
LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that considering the nature of the duties which the county surveyors had to perform, and the responsibility thrown upon them, their present salaries were quite inadequate. The salary was nominally £300 a year, but when travelling expenses were deducted, frequently no more than £200 remained, and the private business of these officers was not uncommonly merely nominal. How could it be expected that competent men could be got at such a salary to discharge the duties of these officers? If inadequate salaries were given the duties of the office would devolve upon an inferior set of individuals, who, on account of the smallness of their remuneration, would be tempted to accept bribes. He would also remind those who opposed the measure that it was merely permissive, and not compulsory, and that it, therefore, involved no addition to the burdens of the ratepayers, except upon their own action with a view to the duties of the office of county surveyor being more efficiently performed. It merely carried out the recommendations of the Committee by which the subject was investigated three or four years ago, and he was surprised at the opposition with which it had been met.
SIR EDWARD GROGANthought that the Bill did not proceed in the right direction. If the salaries were not sufficient let them be increased, but he objected to the power which appeared to be given by the Bill to the county surveyors, of delegating to inferior persons duties for which first class officers were paid. With regard to superannuations, he wished to know why

1209
that particular class—the county surveyors—were to have superannuations, to the exclusion of all other officers; and he, likewise, desired to be informed if any estimate had been made out of the increased charge which the Bill would impose on the counties. The Bill excluded the ratepayers from all control, and although the subject required legislation, he thought the Bill had better be postponed for the present year, and next year legislation might take place on the subject after full inquiry.
MB. HERBERTsaid, he felt he had a right to claim the vote of the lion. Member for Cork in favour of the Bill, as he formed one of the large majority of the Irish Members who had addressed the Chief Secretary as advocates of some such measure as this. The measure carried out all the recommendations of the Committee of 1857. He (Mr. H. Herbert) considered that any postponement of this Bill would be an act of great injustice to a large body of men whose hopes had been encouraged by the professions of hon. Members on both sides of the House in their favour.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, before they proceeded further with the Bill they ought to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the many Amendments that were to be proposed in Committee. The measure and the proposed Amendments on it not only extended the principle of superannuation to all county surveyors, but also to all their assistants, and they were numerous. In that respect he did not think it was applicable to the condition of Ireland. He thought that the assistants ought not to be included in this provision. It should be recollected that all these offices were Government appointments. It was scarely fair, then, to call upon the country to pay them those large salaries, and afterwards superannuations. He hoped the Government would declare their intentions before they entered any further into the matter.
MR. BUTTsaid, the intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill were to be gathered from the Bill itself. The Bill had three objects in view—to increase the salaries of the county surveyors, to increase the salaries of their assistants, and to provide for them superannuation allowances. It was permissive in its character, and he could not understand how his hon. and gallant Friend, who had always been the advocate of local government, opposed the Bill, which was intended to allow counties to manage their own affairs. He had
1210
himself endeavoured to reform the grand jury laws; and in consequence he had received various letters stating that no reform could be accomplished unless the county surveyers and their assistants were elevated in their position. A Committee sat on the subject some years ago, who unanimously recommended that the salaries of the county surveyors and their assistants should be increased, and that the grand juries should have the power of granting them superannuation. That was the recommendation of a Committee which almost wholly consisted of Irish country gentlemen. These surveyors, in fact, had charge over a large sum of county expenditure, and to increase their salaries, therefore, would be the truest economy. So it was with the question of superannuation. The superannuation of an inefficient surveyor would be saved in the efficient management of a successor in the course of two or three years. He, therefore, gave his cordial support to the Bill.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he addressed the House on that question, not as an Irish Member, but as an Irish cesspayer, and he could assure the House that the cesspayer of Ireland had a great objection to pay rates for any such purpose as that contemplated by the present Bill. If it were true, as stated, that a large majority of the Irish Members had urged the Government to introduce this Bill, he despaired of the course of the cesspayer in Ireland. In Tipperary the county taxation had increased 20 per cent during the last ten years, and if Parliament were to pass the present Bill, every salaried officer in Ireland would apply to have his salary doubled. He objected particularly to the superannuation clause, and was astonished to see from the paper that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had given notice of an Amendment to make-that clause retrospective. Let them not call it merely a permissive Bill. They all knew the readiness with which Irishmen put their hands to paper, and he feared that they would be persuaded under the Bill to put their hands to many a job. Why, by the 7th Clause, it was provided that, after ten years' service, a county surveyor could claim superannuation, and, it as was to be retrospective, men who had long since retired would be entitled to claim superannuation. He hoped the Bill would be thrown out; but, if the Irish Members were determined to raise the salaries of county surveyors, let them, at all

1211
events, wait until the grand jury laws were put on a sounder and more healthy footing. The appointment of these county surveyors should not be left in the Castle of Dublin. There was great danger that the surveyors would be appointed, not for their scientific attainments, but for their political services.
MR. CARDWELL: There would be the test of examination.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Competition—examination! Surely the right lion. Gentleman was not so primitive as to imagine that there was any reality in that test. The county surveyors should be appointed by those who paid them. Until they reformed the whole system of county surveyors, he would not give permissive power to expend upon them one sixpence additional, either in the shape of salary or superannuation.
MR. HASSARDsaid, he thought if they gave adequate salaries to the county surveyors they might expect them to devote their whole time to the performance of their important duties which were now, in many cases, delegated to subordinates. No doubt, as had been stated, those officers were appointed by the Government, but their salaries were fixed by the grand juries, who also had the power of dismissal. He gave his hearty approbation to the Motion for going into Committee.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he Would admit that he had given his consent to the main provision of the Bill so far as regarded the permissive increase of salaries of county surveyors; but he could not approve combining with it the principle of superannuation, which would open the floodgates to petitions, memorials, and all kinds of private solicitations. It was not real merit that generally carried the day in these appointments. It was the appeal ad misericordiam—the having a sickly wife and eight children—that usually prevailed. He saw grave reasons for acting with extreme caution, and he should oppose going into Committee.
MR. CARDWELLobserved, that while the Bill had met with more opposition than he expected, he might on the other hand, appeal to the valuable support it had received, as a proof, in answer to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George), that it was not introduced in defiance of the feelings of the Irish people, nor without sufficient inquiry as to what their wishes might be. He only wished that when solemn deputations called on the Irish Government to give effect to the recommendations
1212
of a Select Committee, they would ascertain what those recommendations were. Out of those who had to-night opposed the Bill, he had to reckon the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Sir Edward Grogan), whose constituents were not affected by it; his noble Friend who spoke last, who recommended such a measure; and the hon. Member for Wexford, who Was a Member of a Government pledged to introduce a like Bill. By an amendment of the law in 1834, county surveyors, selected after examination by competent persons, were entrusted with the management of large sums of money, amounting to £400,000 or £500,000, to be expended in the maintenance of roads in Ireland. In 1857 a Select Committee was appointed to consider the case of those surveyors. On that Committee were the right hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir William Somerville), at one time Secretary for Ireland, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas), and the right hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert), who had also been Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Committee examined the subject very carefully, and reported unanimously in favour of an increase of salary and in favour of a system of superannuation, with a power for the grand juries to require the exclusive services of those officers. A memorial, signed by between thirty and forty Irish Members, had been presented, requesting the Government to carry out those recommendations, which was all that this Bill was intended to effect. It did not propose a compulsory increase of salary nor a compulsory amount of superannuation, but it merely said to those who administered the fiscal affairs of the country, that if they had a large sum of money to expend, and they thought it expedient to spend a trifling sum more in its supervision and control, believing that economy and advantage would result from it, they should have the power to incur that expense. It also gave power to dispense with a valuable servant at a time of life when they ought no longer to retain him in his place, by superannuating him. It was said this Bill would make patronage for the Government. It was true that the appointments in the first place were made by the Lord Lieutenant from a List; the result of an examination; and in the order in which the names stood on that List; but the amount of pay was fixed by the grand jury, and the grand jury had the power of dismissing the officer. The Government did not jump to the conclusion that the feeling

1213
of the country was in favour of the Bill. It was printed at the close of last Session, and although it was largely circulated no petition had been presented against it. As to the intentions of the Government, they would adhere to the provisions contained in the Bill, but they would not pledge themselves blindly to object to any suggestions or Amendments in Committee.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the enormous extent to which the system of raising salaries and providing superannuations of these county surveyors might be carried under the present Bill. He denied that this power of superannuation, if given, would be permissive. If given, they might be sure it would be used, and the power of resistance on the part of the grand juries was so small that they must grant the allowance if asked to do so. What he wanted to know was to what extent would this power be used? There was a strong case, he thought, to raise the salaries of some of the county surveyors, and after a certain number of years they might give a certain amount of superannuation to those surveyors who had been underpaid. If the salaries were raised for the future they would be able to provide for themselves against the evil day. He would support that part of the Bill which contemplated raising salaries, but he objected altogether to recognizing the principle of superannuating every officer who was paid out of the county rates, without having some estimate of what the taxation would be to the cesspayers.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should support the Bill, because he believed it to be just and expedient that every man ought to be paid for his labour according to his merits. The county surveyors were, undoubtedly, underpaid. He knew that in the county of Cork they could not afford to travel over the whole of their districts on account of the expense, and the consequence was that the grand jury had to rely in a great measure on the reports of subordinates. He was satisfied that it would be true economy to give the surveyors adequate salaries, and he held that they were as much entitled to superannuation as the civil servants of the Government.
GENERAL UPTONremarked that they should give grand juries the power of employing first class surveyors, and that they should be enabled to pay them liberally.
CAPTAIN ESMONDEsaid, the principle
1214
of the Bill was to give power to the grand juries to pay men better who they knew were at present underpaid. He did not believe grand juries would abuse the powers placed in their hands, and the provision that the increase of salary should be sanctioned by two grand juries was a sufficient safeguard against jobbing.
MR. W. R. O. GOREsaid, he objected to superannuations, and to raising salaries, but if it were required he would give the present surveyors assistance in the performance of the duties of their office.
LORD FERMOYsaid, over £1,000,000 a year was paid for county cess in Ireland, and he thought that they should be just to the poor farmers who paid it before they were generous to the county surveyors. They had good roads in Ireland at present, and there was no ground for saying that the business of the surveyors was not well done, or that there was any difficulty in getting good surveyors at the present rate of pay. There was no lack of candidates whenever a surveyor's office was vacant, and there were many other public officers, such as the medical officers of Unions, who had prior claims to the county surveyors. Taxation and representation ought to be convertible terms. It was not so in the Bill, and that, in his opinion, was one of the principal objections to the Bill. The universal feeling in Ireland was against the Bill. It was only making bad worse. He would, therefore, move that the House go into Committee that day three months, Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve solve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, one would imagine from the observations that had been made that the proposal was one for the increase of local taxation. It was nothing of the kind. The measure was the result of much investigation on the part of a Committee composed principally of Irish Members. He did not consider the grand jury system perfect; but he had not such an unfavourable opinion of them as to object to give them the slight power which the Bill proposed to confer on them.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was in favour of the original Motion, considering the Bill would have a beneficial operation; but he was opposed to the system of superannuation in toto.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, the discussion was 'a mere battle between the centralized authorities and the local interests of Ireland. He should support the latter, and considered there was no necessity either for the increase of salary or for the superannuation proposed. There was no ground whatever for the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 59: Majority 93.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 4 (Grand Jury at Summer Assizes held after passing of Act may on Application of County Surveyor resolve that his Salary be increased),
MR. LONGFIELDmoved an Amendment providing that previously to an alteration being agreed to by the Grand Jury it should have been adopted by a majority of the magistrates and ratepayers at Sessions.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word "put," to insert the words—
"Provided that the previous sanction of the presentment sessions of the county at large to any such increase of salary shall have been granted on application to be made in the same manner as is necessary for works exceeding in expense one hundred pounds on the county at large."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must object to the Amendment, on the ground that the words would take away the control over the county surveyors which the existing statute gave to the grand jury, and transfer it to the Presentment Sessions.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes 54; Noes 61: Majority 7.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, recognizing what appeared to be the wish of the minority, he would undertake to frame a provision to the effect that before the second grand jury could confirm any increase of salary the subject should be submitted to a Presentment Sessions.
MR. BRADYmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 71: Majority 47.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would propose an Amendment in the clause, providing that no appointment should be
1216
made under the Bill by a majority of less than two-thirds of the grand jury.
CAPTAIN ESMONDE: Will the hon. Member tell us what number would constitute two-thirds of twenty-three?
Amendment negatived.
MR. HENNESSYproposed the insertion of a provision for increasing the salaries of the secretaries of the grand juries. The increase in the number of sessions held annually in the Irish counties had added considerably to the labours of these officers, and the grand juries had petitioned for power to raise their salaries.
THE CHAIRMANruled that the Bill did not apply to the case of these officers.
Motion negatived.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to move a proviso to the effect that whenever the maximum salary was given to a county surveyor no allowance should be made for an assistant.
Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Clause, the words,
"Provided always, That when the salary granted to a County Surveyor shall amount to the maximum specified in the Schedule, it shall not be lawful for the Grand Jury to grant any salary for an Assistant Surveyor."
MR. CARDWELLopposed the Amendment.
MR. CONOLLYmoved that the Committee report Progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 59: Majority 38.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. COGANmoved that the Committee report Progress.
MR. CARDWELLsuggested that they should finish the clause.
MR. COGANwithdrew his Motion.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.
House adjourned at half-after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a East India Loan; Annoyance Jurors (Westminster).
2a Edinburgh Assessments; Excise and Stamps.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,referring to the answer of the noble Earl the President of the Council upon his (the Marquess of Normanby's) Motion the other evening for the production of the Correspondence which had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Home Government in reference to the Galway Subsidy, said, that answer had received in Ireland an interpretation different to that which the noble Earl, doubtless, intended should be applied to it. This was obvious from the observations made on the last occasion by his noble Friend, connected with the Company of Galway (Earl of Clancarty). The fact of the case was that when a deputation of noblemen and gentlemen waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the expediency of continuing the subsidy, his Excellency gave them a distinct pledge that Her Majesty's Government should be fully informed of all the points which they urged. But when he (the Marquess of Normanby) moved for the Correspondence which he supposed the Lord Lieutenant entered into with Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of that pledge, the

  1161
  noble Earl (Earl Granville) denied that there was any such official correspondence in existence, whereupon he (the Marquess of Normanby) expressed his regret that his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not thought it consistent with his duty to make to Her Majesty's Government an official representation upon the subject, as, from experience, he knew that such was the most convenient and most satisfactory course to adopt. It was not necessary when, as in his own case, there was almost daily confidential correspondence with the Prime Minister, his late friend, Lord Melbourne, with whom he never had a difference of opinion upon any Irish subject. But he also knew that the most important despatches in reference to Irish policy were those which the late Marquess of Wellesley, while Lord Lieutenant, addressed to the Secretary of State when there was, he would not say a difference, but the shadow of a difference, between himself and the Ministers with reference to the policy to be pursued in that country. It was not his practice to allude to what took place elsewhere, but on the present occasion he felt called upon to do so in consequence of the new principle for the government of Ireland enunciated in a recent debate by one of the Ministers of the Crown himself, the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant.
  EARL GRANVILLErose to order. He did not see how the matter referred to by the noble Marquess could in any way be taken as fixing the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he did not pledge himself to the precise expressions used by the Chief Secretary; but the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown, and any expression coining from him would limit the functions of the Lord Lieutenant who was his official superior. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to make a declaration to the effect that it was not considered desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should express any opinion upon the subject of the subsidy in question—a declaration the more extraordinary as being made after it was publicly known that a deputation, consisting of gentlemen of all parties in that country, had waited upon his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the matter, and that he had told them that that was not the first time he had had the matter brought under his consideration, and that he had not waited until
  1162
  then to inform Her Majesty's Government of his opinions and sympathy in reference to it. From his own experience, he (the Marquess of Normanby) must say that if that was the footing upon which the Lord Lieutenant was to be placed it would be impossible for him to efficiently discharge the duties of his responsible office, and the sooner the office was abolished the better. Of all questions, this was certainly the one on which the Government ought to have consulted the Lord Lieutenant. No doubt it was not a purely Irish question; but the object of the Lord Lieutenant's office was to endeavour to cement Irish interests with Imperial policy; and if the doctrine of the Secretary of Ireland prevailed, very few noble Lords would be found in the future willing to undertake the duties of Lord Lieutenant. He would not now enter farther into that question than to say, that when the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, some years since, was preparing a Bill for the abolition of the office, he wrote to Paris to consult him (the Marquess of Normanby) upon the policy of the proposal, when he replied that it would be impossible on account of the numberless changes which it would occasion to carry the measure through as they proposed, but that he farther thought that till the two countries were in many respects more nearly assimilated, nothing could compensate for the advantage which the office of Lord Lieutenant secured of having always present throughout the year a statesman of weight and influence to be consulted on all Irish interests. He wished to know whether the noble Earl adhered to the statement that no official communications had passed between the Government and the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Galway contract?
  EARL GRANVILLEwished to remind the noble Marquess of the answer he had given the other evening. In reply to a Motion then made by the noble Marquess, for the Correspondence which had passed between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government on the subject of the Galway subsidy, he (Earl Granville) stated that there was no official correspondence on the subject. No doubt communications had passed between members of the Government and the Lord Lieutenant; but there were no official communications which could be produced to Parliament. He did not know whether the expressions said to have been used by the Chief Secretary in "another place" were correctly given; but if any

  1163
  importance attached to them, it was most irregular and inconvenient to bring them under the notice of their Lordships in the way the noble Marquess had done. He had, however, not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Government were in constant communication with the Lord Lieutenant, and that they received with great confidence and deference his opinion on all subjects connected with the general policy of Ireland. Very likely the Secretary for Ireland stated in the other House that it was not considered necessary by the Government to consult the Lord Lieutenant in regard to the Galway contract. The question was whether a contract with a Government department, the stipulations of which had not been fulfilled, should be terminated, and that was an Imperial question, and not one to be referred to the Lord Lieutenant. He was informed by his noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that it had never been the practice and had never been thought necessary to communicate with the Irish Government on matters connected with the management of the Irish Post Office. In this instance it would have been placing the Lord Lieutenant in an unfair position, to call upon him for an official communication which might perhaps have rendered him unpopular in Ireland. Such a course would have been very injudicious. He could not believe that the object of the noble Marquess was to sow dissension between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government, or between the Lord Lieutenant and his Secretary, though coming from another person such an intention might have been presumed from the remarks which had been made. He could only say that they were now, he believed, on the best terms, and, no doubt, the wish of the noble Marquess was that those cordial relations should continue.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that on a question of such great public interest, affecting as it did the industry of Ireland, the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant ought not to have been thrown aside and passed over as having no bearing on the question, as they appeared to have been by the Government; for he could not otherwise understand how the noble Earl should have said, when the noble Marquess on a former occasion asked for the production of this Correspondence, that there were no official papers on the subject. He admitted that the question was of Imperial importance—for whatever affected the interests of Ireland affected
  1164
  the interests of the whole kingdom; but that was an additional reason why the Lord Lieutenant should have been consulted on the discontinuance of the subsidy, as his predecessor had been consulted on its establishment. It appeared that when a deputation waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin on the subject, the noble Earl could only express his sympathy with those who addressed him, and promised to place their views before the Government. To state after this that there was no official correspondence was, in his opinion, to lower the position of the Lord Lieutenant in the eyes of the Irish people, besides subjecting to a severe strain the philosophy and forbearance of the noble Earl himself.
  THE EARL OF LEIRIMsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl should have said that the production of the Correspondence would be very inconvenient—
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not stated that the production of the Correspondence would be inconvenient; he said that there was none of a public nature.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMhad certainly understood the noble Lord to say so. It appeared that an extraordinary line was drawn between official and non-official correspondence. He supposed the distinction was, that if the Lord Lieutenant, instead of beginning his letter with "My Lord," began "My dear Lord," "My dear Lord" held that correspondence to be private and confidential, though it might be of vital importance to the whole empire. He deprecated this system, arid he deprecated the imputation that the noble Marquess had brought forward this Motion with the object of producing discord among the Members of the Cabinet. If report spoke true there was enough of discord there already. In trying to avoid the production of the correspondence, the noble Earl had endeavoured to mislead the House. He had stated that the whole question was, whether a Company that had failed to perform its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This he denied. The question was whether Galway should be a packet station or not, and it was indifferent whether the contract was held by one Company or another. It had been said of a former Irish Government that the Lord Lieutenant did all the dancing, the Chief Secretary all the hunting, and the Under Secretary all the correspondence. It was high time to consider how far the Irish Government should be reformed. Was it to be the only thing in the United Kingdom that was not to be

  1165
  reformed? The whole thing was a paradox. The Chief Secretary was a member of the Cabinet, and had to attend to his Parliamentary duties; the Lord Lieutenant remained in Dublin to perform all the popular demonstrations; but he was only nominally the head of the Government—he was no more than the channel of communication between the English Ministry and the authorities of Ireland. Step by step they were taking all power and authority out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. They had made him, in fact, a mere electioneering agent. Even now, after the important debates that had taken place on the question, a Minister in the Crown could state that the whole question was whether a Company that had failed in its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This was not a fair way of putting the question. The question was whether the people of Ireland were to have any benefit from the Union or not—whether Ireland was to be treated as part of the United Kingdom or as a colony?
  LORD PORTMANrose to order. He protested against the noble Earl addressing their Lordships when there was no Question before them. Such a course was attended with great inconvenience to the public service.
  LORD BROUGHAM: How does the noble Lord know that the noble Earl on the cross benches does not mean to conclude with a Motion for the repeal of the Union?

EXCISE AND STAMPS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMhoped that Government would not lose sight of the important petition which he presented a few nights ago, signed by 12,000 persons, playing that in districts where two-thirds of the inhabitants desired it they might have power to prohibit the licensing of houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors within that district. The subject was one of the deepest social and national importance. That eminent philanthropist, Mr. M. D, Hill, declared that in all his attempts to prevent crime, to reform criminals, and to protect property, he found the demon drink starting up to thwart his efforts.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

  PROTEST ENTERED, 17TH JUNE,
  Against the Passing of the Customs' and Inland Revenue Bill.
  "Dissentient—
  "1st. Because, whilst it is the manifest duty of Parliament to relieve the people from all unnecessary burdens, yet reductions of taxation are justifiable only when consistent with the efficiency of the public service, with the maintenance of public credit, when effected is strict accordance with constitutional principles, and with the independence and freedom of action of both branches of the Legislature.
  "2nd. Because these indispensable conditions do not appear to have been sufficiently regarded or carefully adhered to, in the Bill now before the House.
  "3rd. Because neither our late experience, nor any statements made in debate, nor any evidence produced in support of this Bill, afford sufficient proof that a surplus exists such as to justify Parliament in sacrificing £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, of which £1,330,000 is produced by the Excise on paper—a duty steadily progressive during many successive years—thereby proving convincingly that neither the amount of the tax, nor yet the law under which it is collected, have arrested production, and whilst prohibitions or the imposition by Foreign States of export duties on the raw material, check a natural fall of price, and the relief which might, otherwise, be given to the consumer.
  "4th. Because it is the more unsafe to rely on the existence of an available surplus in the present year, justifying the abandonment of £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, when it is remembered that on the 10th of February, 1860, a surplus then estimated at £454,000 was, on the 15th of July, converted into a deficiency of £1,286,000; and that the excess of expenditure over income has, on the 31st of March, 1861, risen to the alarming amount of £2,558,384—a deficiency which would have been still greater had not (1st) the future receipts of revenue been anticipated by calling up duties on property, malt and hops to the amount of £3,148,000 (2nd) the Revenue been augmented by drafts on the Exchequer balance to the amount of £1,300,000; (3rd) by applying to the public service unexpected repayments of debt from a Foreign Power; and also (4th) by the consequence of the decision of this House in rejecting in 1860 the proposed repeal of the Paper Duties a decision made in the exercise of the undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Lords, and (lastly) the postponement of the payment of a debt of £1,000,000 due on Exchequer bonds.
  "5th. Because it appears in a high degree improbable that, during the present year (with a future surplus which the most sanguine have not estimated as exceeding £408,000, or an expenditure of £69,875,000) our financial resources can be restored to that credit which befits our dignity or provides adequately for our national interests, in the present state of the continents of North America and of Europe. We may be driven again to draw on our Exchequer balances, again to postpone the payment of our lawful debts when due, or to pay them with borrowed money; the property and War Taxes may again be continued or augmented, and yet after resorting to these somewhat

  1167
  questionable expedients, services still unprovided for may require increased burdens; the commutation of the Stade Duties, the increased interest on Exchequer bills, which have too long remained at a discount, further sums required for the interest of the loan for our national defences, will all demand the attention of Parliament, and require to be placed upon a more secure foundation than the promised remittances from China, or the still more uncertain anticipations of the state of the weather during the next harvest.
  "6th. Because, though it is proposed by the present Bill to repeal £1,133,000 per annum, property tax, and £1,330,000 duties on paper, thus establishing a somewhat plausible equality in the apportionment of relief between direct and indirect taxation, yet this will be found, on reflection, to be an equality, rather apparent than real; the first of these taxes being temporary, the latter permanent, and it hence appearing but too evident that any future national wants will be supplied by an increase and prolongation of the property tax, well described as fraught with political dangers leading to a conclusion that the income tax, though an admirable instrument for national purposes upon a great and national emergency, is a dangerous instrument in time of peace.'—[Hansard's Debates, 3rd February, 1859.]
  "7th. Because, in addition to the preceding objections to the Bill before us, as arising from the present state of our finance and the inadequacy of the promised surplus of £408,000, objections equally serious, though of a different character, may be urged against the form which the measure assumes, and the mode in which it has been prepared.
  "8th. Because the freedom and independence with which the two Houses of Parliament are enabled to perform their respective duties are essential to the dignity of each, and have invariably been appealed to by the highest legal and Parliamentary authorities, as indispensable to the harmonious working of our Constitution.
  "9th. Because, though the rules of Parliament which preclude the annexation of distinct and contrasted subjects, as tacks to Bills of aid and supply, have been asserted and enforced by this House, yet it cannot be denied that precedents may be shown in which various financial measures have occasionally been united in one Bill, without the raising of any objection in this House. This will be found exceptional in some cases, as in the consolidation and re-enactment of existing laws, where no change is practically made in the amount of revenue raised; exceptional in others where the enactments embrace many thousand separate cases which could not, without great public inconvenience, be dealt with in distinct Bills. Some of these instances appear to be founded upon the questionable argument of convenience only; some to be highly dangerous in principle; and in all it behoves this House to watch with the utmost vigilance all such measures, and to guard strictly and firmly against a violation of the principle laid down in their Standing Order, 27th April, 1699, reasserted on various subsequent occasions, and now forming an important part of the law and custom of Parliament, and declaring—'That the annexing of any clause or clauses to a Bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said Bill of aid and supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the Government.'
  "10th. Because the same principle asserted in the Standing Orders of the Lords has received the most unqualified assent of high authorities in the Commons. In 1787 [Hansard's Parliamentary History, p. 508], in relation to the proposal of blending two distinct subjects in one Bill, Mr. Fox stated—'This would not only be a bad precedent for the Commons, but would as absolutely preclude the Lords from free debate, as if the Commons had followed the example of Cromwell, and silenced a necessary and Constitutional branch of the Legislature.' On a subsequent occasion the same high authority spoke 'of the difficulty in which the House of Lords would be placed by the blending of the two objects in one Bill,' adding that—'Instead of affording the Lords reason to complain of the Commons for narrowing their grounds both of debate and of voting, the House ought studiously to avoid giving cause for such complaint.'—[Parliamentary History, 1787.]
  "11th. Because it cannot be urged that although a Bill of aid and supply and a Bill for a repeal of a tax both relate to finance, they are, therefore, to be considered as identical in their Parliamentary character, and fitting to be discussed in a combined rather than in a separate form. Practically these Bills are opposite and antagonistic. The one grants, the other takes away; the one adopts and recites the following preamble, which invariably distinguishes Bills of aid and supply from all other legislative proceedings—'We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom, towards making good the supply we have cheerfully granted, do humbly beseech you that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons, and by the authority of the same,' &c., &c.
  "A Bill for the repeal of duties, on the contrary, neither has, nor logically or reasonably can have, such a preamble. It would evidently be absurd to recite as a grant that which is a diminution of taxation. The Assent of the Crown is also given to a Bill of aid and supply in the ancient form of 'La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult.' To a Bill for the repeal of taxation the Royal Assent is given in the simpler but differing words of' La Reine le veult.'
  "12th. Because the usual course taken by successive Ministers and Houses of Parliament has been to deal with the repeals of Taxes in separate Bills, and to send up the Bill for repealing taxation as a distinct measure. Of these precedents the following examples may be referred to:—

  In 1802—Property Duty.

  1822—Malt Duty.

  1824—Salt Duty.

  1830—Excise Duty on Beer.

  1830—Excise Duty on Leather.

  1831—Excise Duty on Printed Cotton.

  1831—Excise Duty on Candles.

  1833—Excise Duty on Starch.

  1833—Excise Duty on Tiles.

  1833—Excise Duty on House Tax.

  1836—Excise Duty on Stained Paper.

  1845—Excise Duty on Glass.

  1845—Excise Duty on Auctions.

  1850—Excise Duty on Bricks.

  1851—Excise Duty on Window Tax.

  1853—Excise Duty on Soap.

  1855—Newspaper Stamp Duties.

  "13th. Because a practice of combining in one Legislative measure various and discordant subjects, more especially when the Bill is one of Aid

  1169
  and Supply, cannot but produce some risk that such Bills may be dealt with as a whole, and possibly rejected in consequence of some partial objection; a result which, though strictly in conformity with the indisputable privileges of this House, may occasionally lead to public inconvenience, and to the danger of an interruption of that good understanding which it is of such importance to preserve unimpaired between the co-ordinate branches of the Legislature.

  "Monteagle of Brandon

  Harrington

  Mayo

  Rutland

  Grinstead

  Normanby

  Wynford

  Carnarvon

  Lucan."

  Clancarty

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