Sitting of 8 June 1866

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—George Patton, esquire, for Bridgwater.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Princess Mary of Cambridge's Annuity.*
First Reading—Princess Mary of Cambridge's Annuity* [183].
Second Reading—Carriage and Deposit of Dangerous Goods* [168]; County Assessments* [179].
Committee—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [R.P.] [19]; Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Abolition [82].
Report—Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)* [182]; Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Abolition [82].
Third Reading—Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage* [166], and passed.

METROPOLIS—LEICESTER SQUARE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have any intention of causing the inclosure in Leicester Square to be turned into a garden or ornamental ground under the provisions of the Gardens in Towns Protection Act, 1863; and, if so, how soon the garden will be proceeded with?
  ME. TITEstated, in reply, that the Act of 1863 was intended to authorize the Metropolitan Board of Works to take in hand any neglected open spaces, such as Leicester Square, and to lay a rate upon the inhabitants of the locality to defray the expenditure incurred in their improvement, but great difficulty had been experienced in carrying into effect that Act. After inquiry, it was found that there were 153 open spaces in the metropolis which would come under its operation, and that twenty-six had been extremely neglected. Leicester Square was obviously one of the worst, and, after taking the advice of eminent counsel, in 1864 notice was given of the intention of the Board to put the Act in operation in regard to that Square. A counter notice was immediately received from the owners stating that the Board had committed a trespass. They defended themselves in the court, and at the close of 1865 the action was tried. A verdict by consent was taken, and several points of law were reserved for the consideration of the Court of Queen's Bench. A special case had been agreed upon, but the matter could not be argued before the Judges until November this year. Until the point of law should be determined it was perfectly impossible for the Board to undertake any operations whatever. It might be advisable in another Session to bring in some measure with a view of amending the Act so as to make it operative, but at present they could do nothing beyond taking legal proceedings.

NAVY—THE "ROYAL SOVEREIGN."

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that their Lordships have decided upon testing the resisting power and general efficiency of the cupola system by firing at one of the turrets of the Royal Sovereign; and, if it has been so decided,

  25
  whether he has any objection to state to the House the nature of the experiments proposed?
  MR. BARING: It has been decided, Sir, to fire at one of the turrets of the Royal Sovereign, in accordance with the recommendations of the Turret Ship Committee—whose Report is in the hands of Members. The precise details of the experiment are not quite settled.

SCOTCH AND IRISH REFORM BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he intends to proceed with the Second Reading of the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Member, I am quite sure, will not be surprised when I tell him I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject of his question. I engage that full notice shall be given before the day arrives for proceeding with either Bill, but from the most encouraging view I can possibly take of the state of affairs I do not think it will be a very early one.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to know whether the second reading of the Scottish and Irish Bills would be taken before the present Bill was disposed of?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not prepared to make any answer to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It must necessarily depend upon the course of events, and I do not know what public convenience may dictate, but certainly our intention at present is to proceed with the clauses of the Bill now before the House, and not to allow any other question to interfere with it.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  LORD NAASsaid, he understood that the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was to be brought before the House for further discussion some time next week, he would therefore beg to ask, Whether that was the intention of the Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no such intention on the part of the Government; but full notice would be given when a day was determined upon.

ITALY—NEW MERCANTILE CODE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to repeat the question which he put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on a former occasion—namely, Whether, by the new mercantile code of Italy, the right of capturing an enemy's merchant vessels had been abandoned by the Italian Government in all cases where the same concessions had been made to Italy; and, if that were so, he wished to know whether it was a fact that in the war which appeared imminent the principle of immunity of private property from capture at sea had been recognized by the two great Powers of Austria and Prussia, as well as by the kingdom of Italy?
  MR. LAYARDreplied that, as he had informed the House the other evening, the Austrian and Prussian Governments had issued a declaration to the effect that they were willing to respect the merchant vessels of belligerents at sea. With regard to Italy, he was not then able to state what course the maritime law of that country would enable the Government to pursue; but he had since heard that the right of capturing an enemy's merchant vessels had been given up.

THE JAMAICA COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Jamaica Royal Commission will be laid upon the table?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Jamaica Commission and the minutes of the evidence which were brought home by the Commissioners were so voluminous that although he had got the greater portion he had not yet received the whole of them from the printer. The documents which were brought home subsequently by the secretary were being prepared for publication by that gentleman and the Commissioners, and had not yet reached him. He hoped that the Report and Appendices would be printed and circulated about the early part of the week after next.
  MAJOR STUART KNOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps with reference to the Bill of Indemnity?
  MR. CARDWELL: No. The time for that will be when the Government have

  27
  received and considered the whole of the evidence.

CATTLE DISEASE IN THE ISLE OF MAN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEstated that he had received the following letter relative to what had been supposed to be the Rinderpest in the Isle of Man:—
  "Government House, Isle of Man, June 6. "Sir,—Since my last report I have had opportunities of examining several cases of the disease at present prevailing among cattle in the Isle of Man, and presumed to be cattle plague. The post-mortem appearances in every case were remarkably like, but the symptoms during life essentially different from those observed in cases of rinderpest. In localities where the malady first appeared the animals which were in contact with the diseased ones have given no evidence of being infected, and I have to-day examined a case of the disease which occurred in a cow, pastured in an isolated situation upon the top of a mountain, where communication of disease by contagion is extremely improbable. Some animals are still under observation, but the evidence which has been obtained up to the present justifies the conclusion that the affection from which the cattle in the island are suffering is not rinderpest, but a disease depending entirely upon local causes. "I have, &c., G.J. BROWN."

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. DISRAELI:—I wish, by the permission of the House, to take this opportunity of adverting to a statement which I made in the course of a debate the other night with reference to the conduct of our Plenipotentiary at the Conference of Paris. His name having been introduced in the course of the debate somewhat unexpectedly, with the view of influencing the House in an impending decision, I stated that our Plenipotentiary at the Conference of Paris had entered into a conspiracy against the freedom of the press on the Continent of Europe—especially in Belgium. I do not wish to enter into any controversy upon the statement I made that night with any individual, or in any quarter, whatever; but I think it important that when statements are made by Members of this House—particularly by those who take a leading part in its affairs—this House should be satisfied that those statements are accu-
  28
  rate. It is unnecessary for me to enter into any argument on the question. I have only to refer to documents upon our table which will vindicate the statement that I made. It has been alleged that that statement of mine must be inaccurate, because on the occasion in question our Plenipotentiary at the Conference, in answer to an invitation given to the Representatives of different States to address themselves to the subject of the excesses of the press in Belgium—and to the necessity of having recourse to measures to restrain its liberty, stated that it was not for him, as the Minister of a Constitutional country, where the freedom of the press was established, to enter into any union of action for the coercion of the press. But, at the same time, our Plenipotentiary expressed an opinion that if the excesses alluded to by the French Minister were experienced in Belgium, those who committed those excesses were undeserving of the protection which guaranteed to the press its liberty and its independence. It has been said that the most perverted ingenuity could not twist that expression of opinion into an act of conspiracy. Now, Sir, I am perfectly willing to admit that if that was all that was said or done on that subject in the Conference of Paris by our Plenipotentiary my remarks were not only unjustifiable, but they were absurd. Because, an expression of opinion, however objectionable, cannot, by any straining of language, be construed into an act of conspiracy, which must necessarily be an act involving combination with others. I wish to refer to the Protocols of the Conference of Paris, which are on the table of the House, and at the disposition of every hon. Gentleman, in order to illustrate and to explain what really took place. On the occasion in question the Minister of the Emperor of the French called the attention of the Members of the Conference to the great excesses committed by the press, and especially by the press of Belgium, and insisted that some measures of coercion should be adopted in order to terminate evils which otherwise would be productive of great disadvantage to Europe, and would occasion a disturbance of the friendly understanding between nations. On that occasion, no doubt, the Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty did express himself in the manner to which I have adverted; but he was not the only individual who on that occasion expressed his opinion. The Ministers of all the Powers who were represented at

  29
  the Conference in turn expressed their views, and, generally stated, the opinions which they individually expressed were these—an acknowledgment and denunciation of the excesses of the press, especially in Belgium, and their strong and unequivocal opinion that means should be taken to coerce the liberty of the press, and to terminate its action. Well, then, Sir, that happened which always happens when there is a meeting of this nature. Gentlemen will find on reference to the Protocols that every Representative of the Powers present having expressed his opinion, eventually the general opinion of the meeting is ascertained, and is expressed in a concluding paragraph, which denotes the unity of opinion and action of those present at the Conference. The language of the concluding passage in the present instance is before me, and I will read it to the House—
  "That all the Plenipotentiaries, and even those who considered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the liberty of the press, have not hesitated loudly to condemn the excesses in which the Belgian newspapers indulge with impunity, by recognizing the necessity of remedying the real inconveniences which result from the uncontrolled licence which is so greatly abused in Belgium."
  That conclusion of the discussion in the Conference was signed by all present, and among the signatures I find that of the Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty at the Conference. Therefore, I think, I was perfectly justified in the remark which I made that there was a combination, or conspiracy, or whatever phrase you may wish to apply to it—that there was joint action among various individuals, who arrived at a common determination and who by subscribing their names proved that they were prepared to carry into effect the recommendations which they had made. But, Sir, when those Protocols arrived in England there was a feeling of great indignation and alarm throughout the country. The matter was brought in detail before the House of Commons by a right hon. Friend of mine, and also by a noble Friend who sits near me. I will not advert to the observations which either of them made, or to any observations which I may have offered on that occasion, because it may be imputed to us that we were influenced by party motives, though on such subjects I trust no strong feeling of partizanship will ever prevail in this House. But there can be no doubt that there was in this House at the time an unanimous feeling on the subject. For
  30
  my own vindication, and for the satisfaction of those whom I now address, I will refer to the language of one who, whatever may be his position in this House, will always be one of the highest authorities within it, who had been a colleague of the Plenipotentiary of the Queen, and is now also one of his colleagues, and who on that occasion entered into a discussion of all the questions entertained during the negotiations at Paris, with an ability which, I am sure, those who listened to it still remember. Let me read a passage from his address with regard to the Protocol I have already referred to—
  "I do not know whether the House has fully appreciated the purport of that passage, but so important, so momentous, and grave is the fact that a passage couched in those terms should go forth to the world with the signature of the British Plenipotentiary appended to it, that I venture to bring it again under the notice of the Government. The substance of the 22nd Protocol is summed up at the end under four heads, and the fourth, which touches the point, refers to Belgium. And, not in the name of any one, but in the whole assembled Plenipotentiaries, it recites as follows."
  The recital here is the concluding passage of the Protocol which I have already read to the House, and then the speaker continues—
  "So that, according to this ill-omened passage, the licence of the press under Belgian law is greatly abused; there is a necessity for remedying the evils which arise from it, and the necessity of remedying the evils which arise from it is recognized by every Plenipotentiary, even those who considered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the liberty of the press. These propositions are of a most formidable character. They touch us very nearly. If the Belgian press be free, what is the press of England?"
  Now, those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House—I think well-considered words, and words which were unanimously recognized by the House at the time as a perfect expression of the general sentiment of this Assembly. I have shown, therefore, I trust, to the House that the observations 1 made the other night were neither unjustifiable nor reckless. For I have been told that if I spoke with a knowledge of these proposals my observations were unjustifiable, and if I spoke without a knowledge of them that they were reckless. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman vindicated the law of the press prevailing in Belgium, which is a just and a liberal law, and he said this—
  "In the Protocol it is intimated clearly enough that if the Belgian law be not altered by gentle means recourse must be had to compulsion."

  31
  I have placed this matter, I hope dispassionately, before the House. After the observations which I made on a former occasion, and having been challenged in a manner which I could not pass unnoticed, I felt it my duty to bring the matter before the House. I think I was justified in the language which I used. The policy thus held up to the reprobation of the House by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by my friends, was pursued for two years. There was an understanding, no doubt, with the French Government and with others, to effect these changes, and that policy culminated at last in the Conspiracy Bill, which was the cause of the subversion of the first Government of Lord Palmerston.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, not being aware that the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring this subject before the House, I am not prepared fully to answer him. But on the occasion to which he alludes the right hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to making one accusation against Lord Clarendon. He made three distinct accusations against the noble Lord, which, he said, incapacitated him from again being charged with the management of the Foreign Affairs of this country. The first accusation was that he had entered into a conspiracy for the suppression of the free press of Europe. The second charge was that he had agreed to an alteration of the boundaries of Turkey, depriving Turkey of a portion of her territory, and that it required all Lord Palmerston's influence to reconcile the people of this country to the proposal. The third was that he had neglected to support the Circassians in the establishment of a free monarchy on the coast of the Black Sea. I am able to state that all these three charges have no foundation whatever, that they are all, one and each of them, entirely opposed to the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a passage from the end of the Protocol of the Conference of Paris. Perhaps the House will allow me to read from the Protocol itself what actually took place. Count Walewski having called the attention of the Conference to the subject of the press, on the ground that the Belgian press more especially was accustomed to preach the doctrine of assassination as regards the Emperor of the French, thereby inciting persons in France and elsewhere to assassinate the Emperor, and having suggested that something should be done to prevent
  32
  the press from holding such language, what was the reply made by Lord Clarendon to that proposal? Lord Clarendon, after the matter had been somewhat discussed [Cries of "Order, order!"]—I am reading from the Protocol—replied in the following terms:—
  "As regards the observations offered by Count Walewski on the excesses of the Belgian press and the dangers which result therefrom for the adjoining countries, the Plenipotentiaries of England admit their importance; but, as the representatives of a country in which a free and independent press is, so to say, one of the fundamental institutions, they cannot associate themselves to measures of coercion against the press of another State."
  There is a distinct and clear statement on the part of Lord Clarendon as Plenipotentiary of this country. He went on to say—
  "The first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, while deploring the violence in which certain organs of the Belgian press indulge, does not hesitate to declare that the authors of the execrable doctrines to which Count Walewski alludes, the men who preach assassination as the means of attaining a political object, are undeserving of the protection which guarantees to the press its liberty and its independence."
  The House will see from those words that Lord Clarendon did not speak of the press as being undeserving of the protection which guaranteed its liberty, but of those who preached assassination as being undeserving of that protection. Lord Clarendon drew very distinctly the difference between the press and the men who preached assassination in expressing his opinion before the Conference that the latter were not deserving of the protection which was granted to the liberty of the press. That is what passed at the Conference, and I think that it clearly shows that Lord Clarendon in no way associated himself in any conspiracy against the liberty of the press; but, on the contrary, that he laid down the principle that as the Plenipotentiary of this country he could not associate himself in any measures for the restriction of the liberty of the press. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought this matter before the House, Lord Palmerston explained what had taken place at the Conference, and his explanation was considered so satisfactory that from that day to this no one had raised a discussion on the point until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire referred to it the other night. Lord Palmerston said—

  33
  "Lord Clarendon very properly declared that, as the representative of a country of which the freedom of the press was one of the fundamental institutions, he could not identify himself with any measure tending to destroy that liberty in any other country; and there is nothing in the concluding sentence adverted to by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester which diminished the force of that declaration."
  And he further said—
  "My noble Friend expressed his determination calmly that he would have nothing to do with any proceeding which tended to any practical restriction of the freedom of the press; and I think the House will perceive that, though those expressions were couched in civil and courteous language, they were not the more liable to be misunderstood, and were quite as effective as if uttered in a violent and angry manner. I can assure the House that, if my noble Friend were left to his own natural impulse, he would never give any countenance to an infringement of the liberty of the press."
  That was Lord Palmerston's reply to the charge made in this House against Lord Clarendon, and from that day to this it has been regarded as entirely satisfactory by this House and the country. With regard to Turkey the real state of the case was exactly the contrary to that which would appear from the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman; because after the war there was an addition to the territory of Turkey, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks to the Protocol he will find that it was principally owing to Lord Clarendon that that territory was ceded. I allude to the Bessarabian frontier. It was given to Turkey and a strip of land was given to Moldavia, by means of which cession Russia was deprived of an important portion of territory which gave her access to the Danube. Therefore as Lord Clarendon was an effective instrument in obtaining for Turkey an increase of territory, this accusation also falls to the ground. With regard to the third charge made by the right hon. Gentleman, when the war broke out with Russia it was the desire of the English and French Governments that Circassia should take part in the struggle. The English sent Mr. Longworth to Circassia as their agent, and the French Government also sent an agent, in order to see whether the Circassians would rise against Russia; but though the Circassians had had hostilities with Russia, they were just then at peace with the Russian Empire, and they positively refused to take any part in the contest. Some tribes who had been for a long time at war with Russia agreed to a meeting with the agents, but they never
  34
  came; the agents completely failed in their mission; and of their own accord the Circassians took no part in the war between the allies and Russia. At a subsequent period the Circassians sent agents to this country, asking our Government to support their claims to an independent sovereignty. The answer of the Government was that at the time when there was an opportunity for asserting their independence—the time when they might have had the support of England and France—they took no steps to do so, and that therefore we could hold out no hope to them. Would the Government have been justified at that time, after the close of the war, in engaging in a new war with Russia in order to assert the independence of the Circassian people, who had refused to assert it themselves when an opportunity offered for their being supported by England and France? These are the facts of the case, and I venture to say that every accusation which the right hon. Gentleman has raised against Lord Clarendon is utterly without foundation, and that these charges all fall to the ground.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS said: I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was going into a discussion upon the conduct of England towards Circassia in 1857, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman has taken upon himself to give a perfectly novel and an utterly erroneous view of the whole circumstances of the case. Without having the opportunity of consulting the Protocols, I take upon myself to say that in one or two most important particulars the hon. Gentleman—no doubt, unconsciously—is quite wrong. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the efforts of Mr. Longworth and the agent of the French Government were entirely unavailing; that they could not induce the Circassians to enter into the matter; and that it was not till the war between the allies and Russia had concluded that the Circassians sent here to see if they could get any assistance against Russia. If that were so, I ask what need was there of a Protocol on the subject of the portion of territory on the Black Sea, conquered by the Circassians from Russia during the war? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Prime Minister made a statement as to the efforts of the English Plenipotentiary to retain for Circassia the forts so conquered by the Circassians. It appeared, however, that for some time the English Plenipotentiary ceased to make any effort for

  35
  the independence of Circassia, and handed her over to the tender mercies of Russia. There is no doubt that in the war Circassia did such service to the allies as to deprive Russia of all communication with three or four most important military posts previously occupied on the Circassian coast, but Circassia was at last abandoned when the terms of the peace were announced. That is as palpable and notorious as any fact in history. When the peace was announced I myself, and my noble Friend the Member for Tyrone, raised a debate in this House on the terms of that peace and on the conduct of the English Government towards the Circassians. That debate lasted two nights, I think, and the subject was very fully discussed; but I venture to say that never for a moment did any one in office or out of office contend that Circassia had had nothing to do with the matter, and had taken no part in it. And now for the practical conclusion of this question. I ask the hon. Gentleman, and I ask the House, whether my right hon. Friend was not right in saying that Lord Clarendon, as the Plenipotentiary of this country, did give up all the claims of Circassia? Is not the noble Earl responsible for the termination of the existence of Circassia as a nation? Now she has scarcely a name; now she has ceased to occupy any independent position whatever. My noble Friend the Member for Tyrone and myself ventured to predict what has been accomplished; and to the course taken by the English Plenipotentiary at the Conference is to be attributed the spoliation of all the national life of Circassia.

PRISONS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. VERNERsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Inspectors General of Prisons in Ireland for the last five years, with reference to the grave irregularities consequent on the management of certain City Prisons by Boards of Superintendence. He wished to refer to several complaints of irregularities on the part of the Board of Superintendence with respect to the Prisons in Dublin, and in particular to the case of Daniel Byrne, the warder of Richmond Gaol, who last year became so notorious on account of the escape of Stephens, the Fenian Head Centre. He would next call attention to the irregularities in Grange
  36
  Gorman Prison, where the system of electing the Board of Superintendence by lot was highly unsatisfactory, and he begged to observe to the House that the members of the Board, being for the most part persons engaged in trade, could not give the time and attention requisite for the proper discharge of their duties. His chief object in bringing this subject under the notice of the House was to effect a change in the system. He was warranted by the climax of last year in saying that a complete change ought to be made. The Inspector General had drawn the attention of the Town Council of Dublin to the necessity of some change, and they had prepared a series of Resolutions on the subject. Those Resolutions, however, were not approved by the Inspector General. [The hon. Member quoted at considerable length the Reports of the Inspectors General.] He had felt it his duty to draw the attention of hon. Members to the irregularities which had prevailed, because he understood that Her Majesty's Government had some thoughts of proposing remedial legislation, and he begged to thank the House for its patient attention to the long extracts he had read.
  MR. O'NEILLsaid, that the facts which his hon. Friend had brought before the House showed unmistakably that the management of the city prisons of Dublin had been, to say the least of it, capable of great improvement. This state of things arose, as the inspectors stated, from the manner in which the Board of Superintendence was constituted. This Board was elected annually, by lot, and from the fact that its members had other avocations, they could not become acquainted with the character and conduct of the prison officials, as the County Boards did. One illustration of the bad results of the system of election by lot was that only one member of the Board of 1862 was upon that of 1863; and the defects of the system became still more apparent in the manner that defalcations had been dealt with. The Board of 1863–4, having investigated that subject, recommended that the inquiry should be still further pursued by the incoming Board, which, however, at once cancelled all the proceedings of the former Board, and reinstated the officer who had been recommended for suspension. This new Board contained only two members of the former Board, and virtually only one, for the second member had never sat at the old

  37
  Board. Hon. Members could well conceive how fatal it must be to discipline to have it known that an incoming Board could reverse in this way what had previously been done, and that it could also reinstate defaulters who had been suspended. In further illustration of the injurious working of the system, he begged to quote to the House an official statement to the effect that the Board of Superintendence had given its sanction to a Report by the Governor of Richmond Bridewell, which contained statements that were irreconcilable with facts, the Report having been signed without being read, on the presumption that the Governor would not make statements that were incorrect. Considering the large interests at stake, it must be evident how important it was that the Board should consist of persons who would take a practical interest in its business, and, indeed, of persons who could devote themselves uninterruptedly to it. As the irregularities had culminated in the escape of Stephens, hon. Members would agree that the subject was worth attention, and if it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate upon the general subject, he hoped that this branch of it would not escape their attention.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that having listened to the speeches of the hon. Members, he was yet in the dark as to the objects they had in view. If they desired once more to have attention called to the past errors of the Board of Superintendence, it was not his duty to defend that body, although he must observe that the hon. Members had culled from the reports only those passages which pointed out the deficiencies and irregularities of the administration of the Board, and not any of those many passages which were of a more favourable character. As neither the Inspector General nor the Government had been attacked, neither required defence, and as the hon. Members had spoken of the past, he would say something of the present and of the future; and he thought he should be able to show that there was now a fair prospect of improvement in the management of the Dublin prisons in those respects in which it had hitherto been wanting. The catastrophe of last November had brought deficiencies to light and had caused remedies to be applied. Since that event neither the Government nor the Board of Superintendence had been idle. The Lord Lieutenant had thought it his duty to remove
  38
  the Governor of Richmond Bridewell, who, although originally a highly respectable official, with a character for fidelity beyond all taint of suspicion, had, as they all knew, lost his head upon the occasion referred to. The Lord Lieutenant had also determined to resume the power he possessed by statute of appointing all the internal officers of the city of Dublin prisons. Within the last few months the present Board of Superintendence had made a very searching inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the escape of Mr. Stephens, and the general deficiencies of the Richmond prison, and they had issued a Report which contained some very candid statements and valuable recommendations of improvement. He fully agreed in the condemnation passed upon the vicious mode of appointing the members of the Board. Not only had it been a body varying from year to year, and therefore incapable of acquiring a proper knowledge of or interest in the management of the prisons, but there was also a strange arrangement under which the members were chosen by lot—that is to say, by a chance selection from among the members of the Town Council. That state of things, however, had already been to a certain extent remedied. The present rule of the Council provided that at least four members of the outgoing Board should continue in office, and thus so much of permanence at least was secured in the constitution of the Board. But the remaining members were still selected among the Council by lot—a proceeding of which the Government highly disapproved. He might say that in the Bill upon the subject of Irish prisons which the Government proposed to lay upon the table—not in the hope of passing it during the present Session, but for the information of Parliament and for the public in Ireland, a clause would be introduced providing that the members of the Board should for the future be elected, and not chosen by lot. As he had said, the Report of the Board contained some valuable recommendations affecting the internal management of the prison. One was that married officers and their families should cease to reside in the gaol—a practice subversive of good discipline. That recommendation had been carried into effect. Provision was also made for a more regular inspection of the Dublin prisons by allotting the duty every week to certain members of the Board. Again,

  39
  certain fixed rules were laid down for the selection of prison officers, depending upon the acquisition of marks testifying to their good conduct, thus freeing the members of the Board from those perpetual solicitations which were addressed to them, and of which this Report most feelingly complained. The Board had the advantage of possessing a most able Governor, selected for his capacity, and were also about to appoint a new local inspector in the room of a gentleman who had become unfit for his duties; and if they would only act upon the principles laid down in the Report, and would carry into effect the recommendations which it contained, he believed that a great change for the better would be seen in the management of the Dublin prisons, and that this House need not be anxious for the result.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he could bear testimony to the excellence of the appointment made by the Lord Lieutenant in the case of the new Governor of Richmond prison; but he thought that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member by whom this subject was brought under notice. When they recollected how very serious had been the consequences of these bad regulations, culminating as they did in the escape of Stephens, it would have been highly improper if this question had been passed over without discussion. He hoped that the whole subject, a most important one, would be considered, and that sufficient time having now elapsed to allow political feeling to subside, the Government would look seriously into all the regulations affecting gaols, and would endeavour to introduce some useful legislation. To one point he would call attention, and that was the insufficient nature of the diet often given to prisoners. He was not an advocate of over-feeding in gaols, but it had been represented to him that prisoners suffered seriously from the diet upon which they were put; and, if this were found to be the case, a different system should be introduced.

SCOTLAND—LORD LYON KING-AT-ARMS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid, he wished to call attention to the recent Returns relating to the office of Lord Lyon King-at-Arms in Scotland; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before advising Her
  40
  Majesty to fill up that vacant office, he will consider the recommendations made by the Commissioners for inquiring into the Courts in Scotland in their Tenth Report, ordered to be printed on the 10th of June, 1822, and take such other steps as may be necessary for the purpose of placing the Lyon Court under improved regulations? In calling the attention of the House to returns from the office of the Lord Lyon in Scotland, I may take the liberty of informing the House that the Lord Lyon, in spite of being dignified with a more sounding appellation than his brother heralds in England, is nothing more nor less than the principal herald of Her Majesty in Scotland. By the return which I hold in my hand, the House will see that the duty of this office is to deal judicially and ministerially with all questions of coat armour in Scotland. The staff attached to the office has consisted during the last ten years of the following officers:—The Lord Lyon himself, the Lyon Depute, the Lyon Clerk, his Depute, six Heralds, six Pursuivants (who, I understand, are heralds in an imperfect stage of development), and a Herald Painter. Their emoluments amount to something less than £2,000 a year, which is distributed among them as follows:—The Lord Lyon, £1,076; the Lyon Depute, £88; the Lyon Clerk, £214; the Lyon Clerk Depute, £142; the Heralds, £250 among six; the Pursuivants, £164 among the six; and the Herald Painter, £54. The duties of the principal officers—the Lord Lyon and the Lyon Clerk—have been for a great many years always performed by their deputies. The duties of the heralds, I believe, are restricted to appearing on certain rare occasions and making royal proclamations; and the duties of the herald painter are to emblazon the arms granted by the office. Of the annual revenue, about £900 a year comes out of the Consolidated Fund, and about £1,100 a year arises from fees. These fees are of two kinds, those received in respect of titles of honour granted by the Crown, and those derived from the issue of armorial bearings. The patronage of the office is entirely, I believe, in the hands of the Lord Lyon. There seems to be reason to believe that the practice of selling the higher posts in the office prevailed some years ago but was discontinued by the late Lord Lyon. The only offices no w sold are the six heraldships and the six pursuivantships. The return explains that

  41
  the sum paid for these offices may be assumed to be merely an equitable mode of transferring from officers who perform no duties a part of their salaries to those who carry on the business of the Lyon Court. The sum paid appears to be £315 for the office of herald, while £210 is paid for the office of pursuivant. The practice is consecrated by usage; the sum paid is fixed by custom; and it is impossible to impute any blame to the existing staff in respect of it. The messengers-at-arms also pay a certain sum for their places, but the sum paid is too small to be considered on anything more than an admission fee. The office of Lord Lyon was the subject of a very elaborate Report by a Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of Scotland in the reign of George III., and I beg to call the attention of the Government to that Report as a document of much historical interest and value. It appears that at that time many abuses prevailed in the office. A large portion of the Report is occupied in explaining the nature of those abuses, especially in connection with the office of Lyon Messenger-at-Arms. The Commissioners recommend certain reforms in that department, and they also state that the fees demanded from persons applying for arms had been raised to an excessive amount, and seemed to have been imposed in an arbitrary manner. They further suggest that all fees received by the officers be paid into the Exchequer, that the officers be placed on fixed salaries, and that the sale of heraldships should be discontinued. It is possible that many of the abuses noticed by the Commissioners have been corrected; indeed, from what I know of the character of the honourable and intelligent persons who have long been the acting officials of the department, it is most likely that the greater part of the defects complained of have been remedied. I am bound to say that I have heard no complaint as to the manner in which the duties have been discharged graver than this—that on the occasion of Her Majesty's last proclamation, when the late Parliament was dissolved, the heralds appeared at the Cross in Edinburgh with the white horse of Hanover emblazoned on their tabards. As Her Majesty asserts no claim to the crown nor arms of Hanover, it would appear that her Scotch heralds, whose duty is supposed to be the administration and interpretation of the laws of heraldry,
  42
  were by the use of the Hanoverian arms committing a breach of their own laws. And now I have a word or two to say with regard to the appointment to the office which is now vacant. The last occasion on which this appointment was made was in 1796, when the Earl of Kinnoul was appointed Lord Lyon King-at-Arms, and the succession to it was granted to his eldest son, then a child. The consequence was that these two noble Lords held the office for the long period of seventy years. Up to the date of 1796 the salary of the Lord Lyon was £300 a year, but it was increased to £600 at the date on which the appointment was conferred on Lord Kinnoul. The reason assigned in a Report presented to Parliament in 1798 for that increase was that the office having hitherto been held by a commoner was then for the first time conferred upon a nobleman of high rank, In an account of the Order of the Thistle, by Sir Harris Nicholas, written in 1832 from the best sources of information, I find it stated that the same reason, which appeared to the Government of the day a sufficient reason for doubling the salary, was also a sufficient reason for almost extinguishing the duties. The Lord Lyon was excused from attendance at all ceremonials in connection with the Order of the Thistle, the chief public duty of the office, in consideration of his high rank. Of this transaction it may be sufficient to say that the habits of thought and ways of 1866 are not exactly those of 1796. There seem to be sound reasons why a Peer should not perform the duties of a Herald. The Knights of the Thistle are always Peers, and the attendance of a noble Lord upon them in that capacity is hardly consistent with the idea of equality which the word peerage implies. If a Peer ought not to attend the Knights of the Thistle, still less ought a noble Lord, who may perhaps at other times represent Her Majesty or lord-lieutenant of a county, to go into the streets of Edinburgh to make public proclamations. But if he ought not to do these things, neither ought be to accept of this post. An office should never be offered to, or accepted by, any person who is not prepared to perform the duties attached to it, whatever they may be. No English Peer would accept a similar office in England. As a Scotch-man, I should be very sorry to see one of our aristocracy holding a place that would be considered beneath the dignity of a Peer

  43
  in England. Being unwilling, however, to rely on my own opinion on this point, I thought it right to consult a noble Duke whose opinion is justly entitled to great weight on any public question—the Duke of Buccleuch. That noble Duke at once said that he quite agreed with me that it is an office which ought not to be held by a Peer, and he expressed a hope that it would not again be conferred on a Peer. In making these remarks, I would not have it supposed for a moment that I cast any reflection upon the late Lord Kinnoul. He succeeded to the office by hereditary succession, and he enjoyed the office as part of his patrimony. As to the abuses which were brought under the notice of the public by the Report of the Commissioners in 1822, there is little doubt that that Report first informed the noble Lord of their existence. Even before that Report was issued, it appears that he had himself begun to check the traffic in the posts of the Lyon Court, I am further bound to say that the persons who now compose that court do the highest credit to the judgment of Lord Kinnoul. Mr. Burnett, the Lyon Depute, is probably known to this House as the author of several contributions to historical literature. I may mention that one of his works, which appeared a few years ago, called The Art of Pedigree Making, is one of the most entertaining books on antiquarian subjects which has appeared for a long time. Another of the officers is Professor Lorimer, whose name is well known to hon. Members in this House. If any man in Scotland or anywhere else need not feel ashamed of holding a sinecure, it is Professor Lorimer, who fills, in the most distinguished manner, one of the chairs in the University of Edinburgh. Public law, the subject of his teaching, does not afford large emolument, but the ability and value of his lectures are generally acknowledged; and he is the author of several able works on moral and political science. He was one of the earliest and most strenuous advocates of Scotch University Reform. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of this House will, in due time, propose that the Scotch Universities send a Member to Parliament, I have ventured to give notice of an Amendment to enable them to send two Members. If either he or I shall be able to justify our proposition, it will be upon arguments based upon a condition of things which has been mainly brought about by
  44
  the able, unwearied, and hitherto unrequited exertions of Professor Lorimer. With the other gentleman connected with the office I am not personally acquainted, but I understand that the direction of his studies qualifies him in a special manner to perform his duties. I trust, therefore, that Government, in disposing of the patronage placed in their hands by Lord Kinnoul's death, will use it as well as it was used by that noble Earl. But I hope no appointment will be made until due consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Report of 1822. I have heard, and I hope it is true, that the fixed salary is going to be withdrawn. I venture also to think that the salaries of the heralds, so far as they are derived from the Treasury, might also be saved. It is surely an absurd anachronism, in these days of various better means of publication, to pay several gentlemen £50 a year each for going into the streets to announce by word of mouth the proclamations of Her Majesty. Supposing these fixed salaries all to be withdrawn, there will still be a revenue accruing to the office of £1,100 a year. I am informed that certain arrangements in regard to Messengers-at-Arms are under consideration, which may somewhat affect this revenue, but I believe I shall not overestimate it if I call it in any case £1,000. There is a considerable amount of fees derived from patents of honour, which there is no reason to expect will be diminished. In that portion of the revenue of the Lyon Court, more especially affected by its own activity and aptitude, and which is derived from grants of arms, there has of late years been a very marked improvement. The fees from this source were, in the year ending 1st January, 1864, £962; and though in 1865 they fell to £712, yet in 1866 they rose again to £926. I hope the Government will pay some regard to these figures, and will see that the office is one well worth looking after. While I am aware that it may be considered not within my province to make suggestions as to the disposal of Government patronage, I cannot help venturing to express a hope that this post will be conferred upon some gentleman who has distinguished himself in the walks of historical literature. We have in Scotland a fair array of eminent historical writers. But since the middle of last century, when David Hume was glad to accept what he called "a genteel office of mall revenue"—the

  45
  keepership of the Advocate's Library with £40 a year—I am not aware that there has been any increase in the number of public posts which offer a man of letters a decent competence, with some leisure for the prosecution of his studies. The office of Lord Lyon appears to be a post of that kind. The Lyon is in some degree a keeper of public and historical records, and it is certain that his duties cannot be worthily or reasonably discharged unless he possesses ample historical knowledge. In addressing the present Government I am addressing several gentlemen who are themselves distinguished men of letters, and who may be supposed to take an interest in the well-being of the literary profession. I may therefore hope that in this appointment the claims of that profession will be considered, and that it will be conferred on some one who, possessing the necessary qualifications as a man of business, has also signalized himself by contributions to the historical literature of his country.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I agree with the hon. Member that if this office is to be continued, it is hardly fit that it should be continued in the hands of great noblemen. On the other hand, all who are acquainted with the history of our antiquities are aware that we have a large number of persons in Scotland who have devoted themselves to this subject. Any one who doubts this may be satisfied if he will look at the books published by the Bannatyne, the Spalding, and other clubs. Now, as we have in Scotland so few offices that are considered suitable rewards for literary men, I think the Government would do a graceful and a popular, as well as a useful act, if they would agree to the suggestion which has been so well made by my hon. Friend.

FISHERIES (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  GENERAL DUNNErose to call attention to the nonpayment of £5,000 granted for the building and repairing of fishery piers in Ireland, and the assistance of poor fishermen, under the Act of 59 Geo. III. c. 59, and said, that he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Blake) when he expressed the opinion that it was desirable to postpone Irish questions for the convenience of the Government. The interests of his country demanded his first attention. He submitted, then, that until the year 1819, very little notice had been
  46
  taken by Parliament of the Irish fisheries, and very little assistance had been afforded them either before or after the Union up to that period; but, in that year, public attention was directed to the subject, and it was considered that the construction of piers and harbours and the granting of means to fishermen for the purchase of tackle would enable the country eventually to derive large profits from their increased industry. Accordingly, the Act of Geo. III. was passed, and it was resolved to set apart £5,000 a year, Irish, or somewhat over £4,600, English, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of fishery piers in Ireland, and of affording assistance to poor fishermen in that country, while a sum of money, £2,000, was by the same Act granted for similar purposes to Scotland. That Act was only to remain in force for five years, but in four years from the time of its having been passed, another Act confirmed the annual grant, and ordered that it should be paid from year to year until the Act was repealed. An impression prevailed in some quarters that the grant had ceased in 1830, because the former Act had been repealed by lapse of time. This, however, was an erroneous impression, and an Irish Taxation Committee which sat last year, being continued from the former year, which considered the subject called the attention of the Government to the fact that payment of the grant had not been made, and requested that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown should be obtained as to the truth of the assertion that the Act had been repealed by virtue of certain provisions in subsequent Acts. He contended that the Act of 59 Geo. III. was not abrogated by any subsequent Acts, and that the Board of Works had neglected their duty in this matter. They had succeeded to the functions of the old Fishery Board and should have demanded this grant. When application was made to that Board, the answer had invariably been that there were no funds applicable to the objects contemplated by the Act of Geo. III. It was very singular, however, that large sums of money had been granted to Scotland, while the allowance was refused to Ireland, although the former grant was found on the provisions of the very same Act as that which gave it to Ireland. There could be no doubt that the law under which the money was formerly granted to Ireland had not been repealed; the opinion of the most eminent counsel

  47
  had been taken on this point, and he would continue to hold this view of the case till the contrary was proved by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Indeed, the Board of Works did not seem to be at all decided upon this question, and they had, however, taken very little trouble to inquire into the matter. It was exceedingly unfair that while the grant to Ireland had been discontinued, it was still made to Scotland, a richer country than Ireland. There could not possibly have been any circumstances to justify the course which had been pursued. He was convinced that it was chiefly owing to negligence in the Board of Works not demanding it that the grant had been discontinued. In former times, and at two periods, this money had fallen into arrears, and was not paid until gentlemen anxious for the welfare of the country had pressed for an inquiry into the subject. £444,000 were granted during the same period to the Scotch fisheries —and the provisions of the Scotch Act of Union had always been observed more faithfully than those of the Union with Ireland—and £1,500,000 had also, in the same period, been granted for the English fisheries. Whether the practice of granting such assistance to fisheries was advisable or not he would not stop to argue; but if the money was granted to Scotland or England, there was no reason why it should not be granted to Ireland. Opinions, he believed, had been obtained from the highest legal authorities in Ireland to the effect that the Acts said to have been repealed were not repealed at all, and that the money properly was still payable. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving for the case and opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject upon which he had requested explanations from the Government; and asked why (if they had not been) they were not now submitted to the legal advisers of the Government according to the recommendation of the Taxation Committee, as expressed in the Report written by Sir Stafford Northcote last year?
  MR. S. B. MILLER,in seconding the Motion, said, that he considered a very good case had been made out by his hon. and gallant Friend. He contended that the provisions of the various Acts of Parliament bearing upon these grants contained no limitation of time whatever; and that, on the contrary, the Act of 1842 contained an express saving of the many rights and claims said to have been extinguished.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copy of the Case and Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown relative to the non-payment of a sum of £5,000 granted for the building and repairing of Fishery Piers in Ireland and assistance of poor fishermen under the Act of 59 Geo. 3, c. 59, s. 106,"—(General Dunne,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that before replying to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County, he wished to say, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Perthshire, that it was quite true the Report of the Committee or Commission of 1822 had not been carried out as regarded the office of Lord Lyon King-at-Arms in Scotland. For some time the office of Lord Lyon had been a sinecure, the duties being conducted by deputy. On the death of Lord Kinnoul, the subject had been brought by the Treasury under the notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his right hon. Friend had it under consideration whether the office of Lord Lyon might not be made purely honorary, the fees to be given to those who discharged the duties, or whether the office might cease to be a sinecure, the Lyon King discharging some of the duties now performed by deputies and the latter reduced in number. In any case the salary would disappear from the Estimates, and the fees would be redistributed. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Queen's County, and the observations of the hon. and learned Member, which were the ipsissima verba of his (General Dunne's) speech, he had to remark that two Acts were passed for a limited number of years, creating a charge on the Consolidated Fund to the extent of £5,000 a year. Those Acts were supposed by all the world, Irishmen included, to have come to an end thirty years ago, and until last year no one thought of making an application for the £5,000. More than that, the House, believing the Act to have expired, on two occasions passed Votes amounting to £30,000 or £40,000 for Irish piers, without the smallest intimation of a suspicion on the part of anyone that any Act existed charging the Consolidated Fund

  49
  with £5,000 a year. Last year, however, an ingenious gentleman—not his hon. and gallant Friend—imagined that by reason of a technicality in one of the Irish Acts, the charge of £5,000 was still in existence. He raised that question before the Committee of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was Chairman, but that Committee, very prudently, arrived at no conclusion on the question. They contented themselves with suggesting that a legal opinion should be taken on the subject. In accordance with that recommendation, Her Majesty's Government took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown—the English Attorney and Solicitor Generals—some months ago, and those learned Gentlemen gave a decided opinion that the charge did not exist. He had since brought in a Bill founded on that opinion. As a general rule, there was a well-founded objection to producing opinions of the Law Officers; but as in this case the opinion had been asked for by a Committee of the House, it was one given for the House rather than the Government, and as therefore the ordinary objection did not lie against producing it, the Government would consent to lay it on the table. This consent was not, however, to be taken as a precedent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE "GREAT NORTHERN" STEAMSHIP.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose to put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade as to the circumstances which led to the Great Northern going ashore on the Lancashire coast, with 600 human beings on board, on her voyage from Dublin to Liverpool. It appeared from a letter published by a person who did not sign his name to the document, but who evidently was conversant with maritime affairs, that he was a passenger on board the ship when she left Dublin for Liverpool on the evening of the 19th of May. He stated that there were fifteen cabin and between 400 and 500 steerage passengers on board, besides the crew. There were also cattle and other cargo aboard. The writer did full justice to the captain and the chief mate, who, he said, were competent men and anxious to do their duty; but he described in strong terms the disorder of the steerage passengers, and the drunken state of the crew. It appeared
  50
  that three persons in succession were dismissed from the wheel, owing to their being in a state of intoxication. On being asked for his ticket in the morning, the writer inquired whether the steamer had arrived at Liverpool; but he was informed that she was ashore on the Lancashire coast, thirty miles from that port. There she remained twelve hours, during which time the passengers were landed and conveyed by railway to Liverpool. The fact of these 600 human beings on board having been saved was attributable solely to the providential circumstance of the weather being fine at the time. The persons whose duty it was to steer the ship were drunk, and there was no power to keep even the steerage passengers in order. Instead of arriving at Liverpool at the proper time the vessel ran ashore during the night on the coast of Lancashire, thirty miles to the north of Liverpool, and if the weather had chanced to be stormy in all probability the 600 persons on board would have perished. Now that was a state of affairs which required explanation, for it ought not to be tolerated that the lives of Her Majesty's subjects should be the sport of such circumstances as he had mentioned. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention had been called to those circumstances otherwise than by himself when he forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman the letter to which he had referred; and also, in the event of the case having been brought under his notice, what steps he had taken with respect to it? Above all, he wished to know whether this was or was not another proof of the defective state of our law with regard to passenger ships? In this case the ship was not injured, and, because the weather was fine, the lives of those on board were saved. Now, he had been told that, in addition to the defects of the law which he had pointed out on a former occasion in reference to the case of the London, so defective was the law for the protection of passenger ships that, as this vessel was not injured, and because these poor people were not drowned, therefore these shameful proceedings he had referred to were not noticeable by the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was powerless to inflict punishment on the offenders, and to take steps to insure the safety of the public.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it appeared from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this ship went ashore on

  51
  the coast of Lancashire under circumstances which were very remarkable. Beyond that statement he had received no information on the subject. Inasmuch as the ship had been got off without any material damage, and there had been no loss of life, the Merchant Shipping Act did not enable the Government to institute an inquiry into the cause of that stranding; but the Government had been making inquiries with a view to ascertain whether this occurrence took place through the misconduct of the master or of the officers of the ship, and if the inquiry should justify such a course, proceedings might be taken against them by the Local Marine Board, and they would be liable to serious consequences if it were shown that their misconduct had led to the stranding of the vessel. Beyond stating this, he really had nothing to say. The case, which was a grave one, had been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade before the communication was received from the right hon. Gentleman, and the inquiry as to the conduct of the master and officers had commenced; but, as the ship herself had been got off without any material damage, and as there had been no loss of life, there was no ground for the inquiry which took place in the case of wrecks. If it were true that the accident occurred by reason of neglect of duty on the part of the officers, he could not imagine any conduct which deserved to be visited with a more severe punishment; but he really could not say whether the newspaper statements were correct, nor could he express any opinion as to the accuracy of the statements contained in the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The cause of the accident would be investigated, and if it were due to the misconduct of those who were in charge of the ship, such proceedings would be taken against them as the law authorized.

SITE OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,on rising to put a Question as to the future site of the Royal Academy, said, he need make no apology for bringing the subject under the notice of the House. We had passed the 4th of June, formerly the traditional day for closing the Session, the sun was getting rather hot and the nights short, and the Session was already approaching its close; but still there were many important, but, withal, subsidiary questions relating to the
  52
  instruction, amusement, and education of the people remaining to be dealt with. If he did not call attention to the question at that time, he would probably have to do so some night in the middle of July, when a supplementary Estimate was being smuggled through, and when, perhaps, not more than a dozen Members on his side would be present, to subject the Government proposals to an independent criticism. Fewer questions of general utility had been brought before the House this Session than at any previous period within his recollection. Therefore, he contended that he was strictly patriotic, and was advancing the public business by bringing this question forward to-night, although there was another subject of very general interest waiting to be disposed of. The future of the Royal Academy had not been much thought of hitherto, simply because public attention had not been directed to the matter. A paper on the subject had been laid before the House, and ordered to be printed on the 1st of May, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Public Works. That contained the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Royal Academy, and it appeared that on the 5th of June, 1865, the right hon. Gentleman after stating that the whole of the building in Trafalgar Square was required for the National Gallery, offered to give a site for the Royal Academy at Burlington House, either on the southern side of the court fronting Piccadilly, or on the northern side of the Gardens. The Royal Academy were willing at that time to accept the site in the line of Piccadilly. There had been a series of negotiations, with which the House had been already bored, and probably would be often bored again, respecting these two ill matched institutions, the Royal Academy and the National Gallery. They were placed in the same building in Trafalgar Square in the old pre-artistic days, when it was thought a fine stroke of public policy to hand over the second-hand columns of Carlton House to the architects for the purpose of constructing a National Gallery. No sooner were they hitched into the building than it was found to be perfectly inadequate for its double use; and for the last eighteen years there had been a series of plans and counter-plans, schemes and anti-schemes, manœuvres and antimanœuvres on the part of the governing bodies of both, and of a certain mysterious

  53
  power that seemed to loom over both, and which had its habitation somewhere in the salubrious suburb of Brompton. The problem was just like one of those questions put in competitive examinations for the honorary A.S. up and down the country:—Given a Royal Academy and a National Gallery, and one plot of land at Brompton, one in Burlington Gardens, and a third in Trafalgar Square, how to place the Academy and how the National Gallery, and, finally, how to content the public. When his noble Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) was Minister of Works, a scheme was prepared which might have been better than some other schemes, but which was not perfect. It was to remove the Royal Academy to Burlington Gardens, and to leave the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square; but although the scheme was propounded with an intention of meeting difficulties, it was not satisfactory in itself. Its effect would have been, that whereas there was an existing building, an existing vacuity of site, and two institutions, while the existing building was big enough for one institution and the existing vacuity was big enough for the other, it was proposed to move the smaller institution to the big vacuity, and to leave the larger institution in the small building. Another more common-sense scheme was started in opposition by the Royal Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the whole condition of the Royal Academy, and that was to construct a National Gallery in Burlington House Gardens on an oblong site of more than two acres, admirably adapted for galleries, which might have any amount of head-light and which wanted no side-light. The existing courtyard would have been the vestibule, and the present building the portal of the Gallery, which would have had more wall-space than any of the most famous existing galleries of Europe, with the one exception of Paris, and would accordingly have exhibited the national pictures to the utmost advantage. It was part of that plan to have left the Royal Academy in possession of the obnoxious and offensive building which Wilkins erected with the secondhand columns of Carlton House for its portico now standing on what Sir Robert Peel called the finest site in Europe. So that if the Royal Academy had not taken the building in hand, and improved its façade in accordance with the developed taste of the day, the blame would have rested upon the Royal Academy alone. This plan was
  54
  started, but it was not taken up by the House in a manner worthy of so advantageous a proposition. Thus the question got, step by step, into straits and difficulties. At last, an effort was made to increase the accommodation in the National Gallery, and so the only thing which the building could boast—the pearl in the swine's snout—the really fine double staircase branching right and left, was sacrificed, there being substituted a little trumpery entrance like that of a minor theatre, with a similar one for the Royal Academy. Next, two years since the House came to a decision which he could not but call unfortunate, which dealt a heavy discouragement to the Commissioners proposal by reversing the proposal to construct the Gallery in Burlington House Gardens, and laying down that it was to be chained to Trafalgar Square. So the matter stood up to the time of this correspondence. This very Session the Government pledged itself by a Vote to enlarge the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, and a Bill to carry out that pledge had gone through most of its stages. That Bill authorized the purchase of a site to the rear of the present building for the new Gallery, at a price which showed that the country could be sometimes as reckless in its expenditure as a semi-insolvent joint-stock bank. Of the projected competition he could only speak well; he only wished it had been larger, or unlimited; but they dared not, he supposed, be so courageous as to entertain any notion of unlimited competition after exposing themselves as they had done in the matter of the public offices. At least, however, they might have called in twenty-four architects between the Law Courts and the National Gallery; they had, indeed, twelve names down for each, but there were duplicates on the two lists. The Royal Academy, having to be turned out of Trafalgar Square, was offered a site on the area of Burlington House, which was to be swept away. Dawdling along Piccadilly, admiring the old curiosity shops, and the new photographic productions, after lounging in the Burlington Arcade to see what new French books had been published, they might see a heavy brick wall, and, had they the curiosity to ask what the place was, they would be told it was Burlington House. With that sort of rough-and-ready and generally injudicious judgment which people formed upon things about which they knew nothing at all, the self-sufficient public had

  55
  voted that Burlington House, of which they only knew the outside wall, was ugly, obstructive, and ought to be cleared off the surface of the earth. Now, what was Burlington House—which the noble family of Cavendish sold to the nation ten years ago? Those who cared not merely to study the history of England in its broad aspects of changes in dynasties and of great European wars, but in the useful and interesting history which dealt with the personal relations of different classes of society, and with those great social, literary, and artistic movements which stamped the age, must know that Boyle Earl of Burlington in the last century, the collateral ancestor of the present Earl of Cork and of the Duke of Devonshire, was no common character. In those times Supply nights in the House of Commons were very dry affairs; there were no Members for the Fine Arts; and yet the Earl of Burlington was the pioneer in the aristocratic cultivation of the fine arts, and particularly of architecture. He built Burlington House from his own designs, and also built, the well-known villa at Chiswick, while his name is enshrined in the verses of Pope and of Gay. Inside the court-yard was a semi-circular colonnade spreading on either side, then a range of buildings beyond that, and, in front, the main house, designed in a very graceful form of Italian architecture. Now, to whatever public use Burlington House might be devoted a court-yard was essentially necessary, for, whether it were National Gallery or Royal Academy, you could not expect the carriages and cabs of visitors to stand in Piccadilly. What with underground railways and railways above ground, and improvements in general, the traditions of old historic London were every day being swept away; so that when you had a building eminently adapted for the practical uses to which the rest of the ground might be devoted, it was something like a sacrilege to have offered it to the Academy as a site to be razed and then built over, instead of preserving Burlington House itself, and leaving the Royal Academy to build its galleries on the space behind. If it had been offered to the National Gallery on like terms, he should have said the same thing. He believed that Messrs. Banks and Barry, then architects to the Board of Works, had prepared an able and ingenious scheme for building a National Gallery in that place, preserving Burlington House and its court-yard, and putting the Gallery on the old garden behind, so as to
  56
  fill the whole ground, with a faœade to the street called Burlington Gardens to the north. A short time ago the House passed a rapid and unwise Vote in Supply, against which he had vainly protested, towards covering part of that ground with a building for the use of the London University —an institution which, no doubt, required a public building, but which need not be planted on a site long since devoted to the arts. No doubt that subject would come before the House again, and when it did he hoped they would overhaul it thoroughly; not with any view of shutting out the University, which had a claim to be housed at the public expense, but so as to preserve a site which was fit for galleries and not examination rooms. There was a rumour that the negotiations with the Royal Academy had come to a premature end; that the Royal Academy, whether sacred by the Vandalism of pulling down Burlington House or from any other reason, had taken a rural fit, and, feeling that their pictures would be better appreciated, more visited, and would lie more in the perpetual current of the millions who visit the metropolis, meant to go out of London and locate themselves somewhere in the pleasant village of Brompton. There was a certain site on which three years ago hon. Members might have studied the marvels of green-house building—the eastern annex of the Great Exhibition, which, since that time, had been converted into a brilliant rhododendron valley—and rumour said that the Royal Academy was to be there. If so, that was their business. No doubt, a large site would be granted to them on the most liberal terms, and those who granted it would be very glad to receive such tenants. No doubt, when the great Hall of Science and Art was constructed, the shareholders in that phenomenon would not be sorry that another institution came as neighbours into the same sequestered regions. No doubt, the debenture holders of the Horticultural Gardens would be glad to welcome those who loved to drink in the pleasures of art, and would be glad to afford them access to their cool shades and purling streams. For himself he had no objection to the change, for the few curiosities he had were on loan at the Kensington Museum, and perhaps more visitors would go to look at them. The Royal Academy might be well advised—perhaps the casual foreigners who came to England and put up at the Charing Cross Hotel, hon. Mem-

  57
  bers running down to the Committees, the lawyers who moved backwards and forwards between their clubs and the Inns of Court, would be much more likely to drop in at the Royal Academy in the Cromwell Road than at Charing Cross. That was their affair. He did not suppose that the question of Royal Academy or no Royal Academy would in any way affect the decision of the House when they came to consider what was to be done with that large waste of ground, which in a moment of unreasoning enthusiasm was bought for the nation, and on which Captain Fowke's brick and glass domes used to frown. But he wanted to know whether if the negotiations with the Royal Academy with respect to Burlington House were broken off, the Government would give some assurance that the question of saving this building from being pulled down would be put fairly before the House. A short time ago the Institute of Architects passed a resolution deprecating that demolition; and he was sure that any attempt to pull down Burlington House would be as unpopular as it would be unwise. With that view, and wishing to know where they stood at a period of the Session when the House might still do something, he begged to move for any further correspondence which might have taken place between the Board of Works and the Royal Academy.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copy of any further Correspondence relative to the refusal by the Royal Academy of a site at Burlington House,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COWPERsaid, he regretted that the electors of Stoke had not returned the hon. Gentleman to the late Parliament, because about a year and a half ago he would have found an opportunity of making a great impression on the Benches opposite, and of diminishing the following of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire from that part of the House by the speech which he had just delivered. If the proposition then made had been adopted, and the National Gallery had been commenced on the Gardens of Burlington House, we should at this moment have had a building very near completion,
  58
  for the reception of those pictures which at present could scarcely be seen in the Gallery in Trafalgar Square, for want of space, and we should have attained that object at a moderate cost, and without interfering with Burlington House, which his hon. Friend had praised so highly. But as the House on that occasion seemed to set an exaggerated importance upon retaining the site in Trafalgar Square, it became necessary for the Government to consider what other arrangements should be made, and accordingly they offered the Royal Academy some portion of the site of Burlington House to build upon. The Government made that proposition on public grounds. The Royal Academy having always been lodged in Royal palaces or public buildings from the beginning of their existence, the Government thought it was not right to ask them to withdraw from Trafalgar Square without giving them another building or a site for one. It was suggested to the Academy on that occasion that it would perhaps be well that they should have a little Reform Bill of their own, so that the distribution of their honours might be less open to the reproach of narrowness and exclusion. The Council of the Royal Academy took the subject into consideration, and came to the same conclusion as the Government had done, that it was desirable that the Associates of that body should have the same elective franchise as the Academicians. And then upon looking into their constitution, the advantages of bit-by-bit reform became evident; and the Council were fired by the noble ambition of enlarging the sphere of their action. They had recently found that the space which could be afforded them at Burlington House was not sufficient for their purposes. Their ideas of expanding were of so extensive a character that they could not be content with less than three acres of ground at present. The Royal Academy had made no official communication to him since they had notified their intention of accepting the site at Burlington House, but the rumour to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded had reached him, and he believed it was well founded. He understood it was probable that the Council of the Academy would not accept the site at Burlington House, and if that were so the House of Commons would have no reason for entering into the affairs of the Academy. The Royal Academy received no public money whatever, they were not bound to

  59
  the State, and they had the same right of managing their affairs as any other body, scientific or learned, in the country had. But he could state the grounds upon which the Academy questioned the sufficiency of the site of Burlington House. They were obliged at present to reject so many pictures of merit that they wished to double the amount of space they had for ordinary exhibition. They wished to have a more extensive sculpture-room, and to have space for the pictures of foreign artists who might have obtained the honorary title of Associates, and who might be expected in some years to send as many as fifty or sixty pictures from abroad. Then they were desirous of being no longer crippled in their teaching for want of space. At present the schools were closed during the time of the annual exhibition. At present the diploma pictures could not be exhibited for want of space, and these pictures in the course of time would probably form a most interesting collection of works of art. They had also a number of marbles locked up in their rooms, which they were desirous of showing to the public. Then they were bound by the terms of the bequest of Mr. Gibson to erect a gallery for his works; and another gallery would have to be erected by the bequest of the sculptor Chantrey. They also wished to have a library of art, and space for the exhibition of engravings and riginal drawings. Attracted by this career of extended usefulness, he had been informed that the Royal Academy, instead of accepting the space at Burlington House, were tempted to accept three acres of ground at South Kensington, which had been offered to them by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. That was a body who might be supposed to understand their own affairs, and whose first object was to attract as many visitors as possible to their exhibition. The Academy had probably good reason for believing that their galleries would be as crowded at South Kensington as where they now were. But that was a question for themselves, and one with which the House had no concern. He would, therefore, say in reply to the hon. Member that there was no correspondence on the subject other than had been already presented to the House, nor had he received any further notification of the intention of the Academy. The Government had offered a piece of ground at Burlington
  60
  House, and the Academy had the right to accept or refuse as they pleased; but whatever decision they might come to would be arrived at without any influence or action whatever on the part of Her Majesty's Government. One result of the refusal of the Academy to accept the portion of the Burlington House site which had been offered to them would be, that it would no longer be required for any present service, and therefore that court-yard, of which his hon. Friend had spoken in such high, but he could not help thinking exaggerated terms, would be still spared. It would be desirable to retain Burlington House for its historical interest, and as a good specimen of an Italian dwelling-house, but it could not rank as a public building, and a sacrifice must be made to retain it. He should be glad that that graceful colonnade and building should be retained as long as possible.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he regretted that this discussion must come to an end without such a clear statement of the relations between the Government and the Royal Academy as could be desired. He hoped at a later period of the Session the negotiations between the Government and the Academy might come to a conclusion, and that the House might have the result laid before it. He rejoiced greatly that the Royal Academy should have risen to a higher conception of their position as a British school of painting. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Stoke in the eulogy which he had pronounced upon Burlington House. For his own part, he had much more reliance upon our indigenous school of Gothic than upon any school of pseudo-Italian art. He did not feel surprised at finding that the Royal Academy had been elevated by a grander view of their mission to desire the more ample space which they could obtain at South Kensington. He believed he might add that a great mistake had been made in the refusal to sanction the removal of the National Gallery to Burlington House, and the country would, he felt assured, learn at some future day to regard the cry which had been raised in favour of "the noblest site in Europe" as simply a trading on a mere phrase. The past could not, however, be recalled; but if the Royal Academy were to take up a position at South Kensington, he believed it would rise in a few years to be—he did not mean technically—a great university of painting and art. Without laying himself open

  61
  to the charge of being, to use an American phrase, influenced by South Kensington "proclivities," he must say that he regarded the abuse which had been heaped on that part of London as altogether undeserved. The crowds which flocked to the Museum at South Kensington proved that it could not fairly be looked upon as being situated in that isolated and remote spot which some persons supposed. If any Member of the House were to visit it that evening he would find his fellow-citizens deriving from the works of art there exhibited at once instruction and amusement, and gathered in numbers which compare very favourably with those frequenting the British Museum and the National Gallery. He could not, therefore, help regarding with some satisfaction the proposal that the Royal Academy would make South Kensington the scene of their future operations, and he had no doubt that as the number of railways increased it would be found to be year by year more accessible and better fitted to become a centre for the study of art.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had never been one of those who had taken a part in condemning the conduct or management of the Royal Academy. So far as he had been able to form an opinion of their motives and course of action, he had always thought that, as a body, they had discharged their duties with fidelity, and with an honest desire and intention of promoting the improvement of art—for which object the Academy was originally established. He was glad to learn from the First Commissioner of Works that the Government were satisfied with the course which was proposed to be taken by that institution with reference to the reform of its constitution, as indicated in the correspondence to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. If the proposals which had been made were carried into effect, either by means of the scheme in which the co-operation of the Academy was invited a year or two ago, or by means of the plan which had been shadowed out that evening, his confident belief was that, animated by the spirit which had hitherto dictated their conduct, and with a new and improved field of operations, they would be found to conciliate to a greater extent than ever the public sympathy and approbation, and would become the medium of spreading year by year more and more that knowledge of art which the House must regard as one of the most important
  62
  and influential instruments for educating the minds and cultivating the tastes of the great body of the people of this country. The Royal Academy would thus, he hoped, be enabled to make a great start, the influence of which would be felt, not in England only, but in Scotland and Ireland, inducing similar societies in Dublin and Edinburgh to take steps to render themselves more efficient agents in promoting a love of the fine arts. If the House, as he believed it would, acted liberally (not in a pecuniary sense) and fairly, in allowing the Royal Academy to carry out the proposed scheme, without any attempt to fetter its free action, he felt assured it would before long occupy a higher and a more popular position with respect to art than it had hitherto done. He considered that his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had done great service in bringing this important question before the House.
  LORD ELCHOexpressed his cordial concurrence in all that had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works and his noble Friend who had just spoken in reference to the position which had of late been taken up by the Royal Academy. Under the rule of Sir Charles Eastlake great improvements had been introduced into that institution, and from all he could learn he was happy to find that its new President, Sir Francis Grant, was not only disposed to tread the same path as his predecessor, but to tread it with a longer stride and greater vigour, with a view to place the Royal Academy in that position which it ought to occupy, and to render it at once a thoroughly popular and useful institution. The late Parliament had, he thought, made a mistake in rejecting the proposal which had been made by the First Commissioner of Works for removing the National Gallery to Burlington House, and leaving the Royal Academy in possession of the whole of the building in Trafalgar Square. He was of that opinion, because he had served as a Member of the Royal Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the whole constitution of the Royal Academy, and which had been led by the evidence given before it to the unanimous conclusion that the best way out of all the difficulties by which the question was beset was the transference of the pictures embraced in the national collection to a new gallery to be built in the rear of Burlington House, and the handing over of the space now occupied by the National Gal-

  63
  lery to the Royal Academy. Such a plan offered, in his opinion, many advantages. A building might be erected at the back of Burlington House on the most approved plan; a wall space might have been secured more extensive than was to be found in any foreign gallery, while the place would be comparatively quiet, with the advantage of a double access from Piccadilly and from Cork Street. There would, besides, have been no necessity for incurring anything beyond a comparatively trifling expense in the formation of architectural elevations. All that would be required would be to erect a new front on the side of Cork Street. Whether they looked to convenience of access, to convenience in exhibiting the pictures, to the time which was necessary for re-lodging the pictures—everything, in fact, was in favour of Burlington House; and none of these reasons were in favour of the present site. What, then, was the alternative plan? The estimate for adapting the new buildings at Burlington House for the purposes of a picture gallery was £140,000; and they were about to give for the increased site in the rear of the present National Gallery a sum nearly equivalent to that amount. The feeling of the House of Commons would no doubt be, that if they intended to keep the pictures in Trafalgar Square, it would be unworthy of the nation to go on botching the present building, which was not fire-proof. He imagined that the plan of his right hon. Friend, which had been submitted to these architects, contemplated the sweeping away of the whole of that building and the erection of a new one. What, therefore, with the purchase of land, the expense of erecting the new building, the cost of removing the pictures, and other items of expense, he might say that while in one case their expenditure would be £140,000, and the work could be completed in two years, in the other case, taking the land, the buildings, and other items, there would probably be an expenditure of half a million, and a period of some five or six years would be required for the purpose of re-lodging their pictures, instead of two years as would have been the case if Burlington House had been adopted. There was this further advantage attending the plan proposed in the late Parliament, that the Royal Academy were anxious to obtain the remainder of the building where they had heretofore been; and there was no doubt that if the choice was between going
  64
  to Brompton, and taking the whole of the building, they would prefer the latter alternative. If the building of the present National Gallery were handed over by the nation to the Royal Academy, they would have to expend a large sum of money in improving it and giving it a new façade and in otherwise embellishing and beautifying the building. Therefore the nation would be in this position, that it would not only save a large outlay in what it did for itself, but it would also benefit by the improvements effected at the expense of other people. The hon. Member for Cambridge had referred to the saying of somebody that Trafalgar Square was the finest site in Europe. That saying had been attributed, by mistake, to the late Sir Robert Peel; its real author, he believed, being the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). That hon. Gentleman was much in favour of that site, and perhaps he would give them his reasons for thinking it the finest in Europe. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope) had dilated upon the merits of Burlington House, and was very anxious that it might not be destroyed. He rather shared his hon. Friend's view on that point, and thought it would be a pity that Burlington House should be swept away. About two years since, Mr. Norton, the architect, drew a finished plan of Burlington House, which was placed in the library, which proposed the piercing of the front in Piccadilly, throwing down the wall at the back of the colonnade, so as to give a clear view into the yard and gardens. That alteration was estimated might be effected at a cost of only from £2,000 to £2,500. It might, perhaps, be too much to expect the House suddenly to adopt such an idea, but he knew that a great number of hon. Members shared in that view, and he hoped they would endeavour to enforce it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the character of the debate altogether. This question was discussed a year or two ago, when the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) said the same things that he had said that night. The House upon that occasion heard everything that could be alleged in favour of giving up a portion of Burlington House for the use of the Royal Academy. They heard elaborate accounts of the cost and convenience of the scheme from the Chief Commissioner of Works, but these irrepressible Members who were on that occasion completely beaten by a large majority, now took

  65
  advantage of the empty state of the House to reproduce their opinions and endeavour to persuade the House and the country to adopt a scheme which had already been condemned. He agreed with the truism uttered some years ago by a distinguished statesman, that Trafalgar Square was an admirable site, and he believed that instead of having deteriorated, it was of greater value than ever, now that the centre of railway communication in London had been established at Charing Cross. He trusted that the House would not reopen a question which had been so completely settled and determined in accordance with the general opinion of the House and the country. Some gentlemen thought that the court-yard in front of Burlington House was equal to the area in front of St. Peter's at Rome, but for himself he never could understand why it was so much admired. It seemed that the external architecture was of a style that was thought peculiarly suited to Piccadilly. He would admit they owed to the same family two of the finest brick walls in London. First, there was Burlington House, and then Devonshire House; and then a little further on there was Cambridge House with another fine brick wall. He, for one, regretted that the Members of the Royal Academy had not accepted the site offered to them by the Government. Something had been said about the Royal Academy going to South Kensington. If they liked to go there it would be a question of finance with them, and they would soon find out by their receipts whether they had acted wisely or not. He had always condemned that site, because a site there had been offered to all the learned and scientific societies, and they all rejected it on the ground that they would lose their subscriptions, and be ruined if they were located there. It was surrounded by public parks, and it was the most inconvenient site that could be found in London. He trusted that the ground at Kensington would not be given too lavishly to the Royal Academy by the Commissioners in whom it was vested, and who held it for the benefit of the country. Although it would be a fair appropriation of the ground to devote a reasonable space for the use of the Royal Academy; it would, in his opinion, be most unwise to give the Council more ground than was necessary. He concluded by again protesting against the proceedings of a very small minority, who had in the
  66
  course of the evening taken advantage of the state of the House to reproduce arguments in support of a suppositious opinion which had no real existence either in the House or the country.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that he had often heard it urged that the Royal Academy sought to suppress young talent. In his opinion that was not the case. He had had the pleasure of the late Sir Charles Eastlake's society and he could name no one of his acquaintance who was more liberal in his views, more desirous of aiding students, or more anxious to make the Royal Academy an efficient exposition of the art of the country. He believed that the feelings and desires of the present President of the Academy might be described in precisely the same terms. He had recently had several conversations with Sir Francis Grant, and he had found him just as anxious as his predecessor to popularize the Royal Academy. It was want of space, and that alone, which obstructed the Royal Academy in its progress and endeavours to do good. The chief charges made against the institution by the press and general society were that it was jealous of rising talent, and that it caused the pictures of young artists to be hung badly if it did not reject them altogether; that it never admitted the works of foreign artists, and that it did not give as much attention to teaching as was desirable. The whole of these charges would be met by the reply that the Academy had not sufficient space. The number of pictures rejected simply from want of space to hang them was 180 per annum. Foreign pictures would be gladly admitted if the Council had space to hang them; and teaching would be proceeded with to a much greater extent if the difficulty of want of space were removed. At present, however, teaching had to be suspended entirely during the time the exhibition remained open. Notwithstanding the protest of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he must say that he cordially agreed with the suggestion that it was desirable to submit a substantive Motion—that the House preferred the site of Burlington House to the present one—and was very much inclined to think that if the question were again put, the decision of 1864 would be reversed.
  MR. BENTINCKbelieved he expressed the opinion of those who voted with him in 1864 when he said that he should be

  67
  glad to see another vote of the House taken upon the subject. But if the subject were revived at all, it ought to be revived in a proper manner, and if the previous decision were reversed, substantial grounds for reversing it ought to be given before that step was adopted. He endorsed the opinion expressed by the last speaker with regard to the zeal displayed by the late Sir Charles Eastlake in the interests of art; and from what he knew of Sir Francis Grant, he believed he was equally desirous to assist young artists and increase the usefulness of the Royal Academy. Burlington House was considered by architectural authorities as a building of the highest class, and such structures, he contended, ought to be preserved. He had never had great confidence in the architectural taste and qualifications of the First Commissioner of Works; and he thought it would be a very advantageous course to pursue if the right hon. Gentleman were associated with a number of gentlemen experts in architecture, and thoroughly competent to form an opinion on the various works undertaken by the Government. That course would have a very beneficial effect upon such questions as the building of the new Law Courts and the new National Gallery. The Chief Commissioner of Works had not at present done much credit to the Government in the erection of new buildings, his principal achievements hitherto having consisted of the erection of a few drinking fountains here and there, and the removal of the Duke of Wellington's funeral car from Marlborough House to St. Paul's, where hon. Members might see it for the small charge of 6d. per head.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he did not wish to continue this debate, but, as a trustee of the National Gallery, he begged to make one or two observations on the subject under the consideration of the House. He might say for himself, and the majority, at least, of his colleagues, that they were all desirous that the Government should reconsider the decision arrived at about two years ago. They were firmly impressed with the conviction that the difficulties of erecting a suitable building at Charing Cross were so great that it was of the utmost importance for the country that they should recur to the scheme of the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, and build a National Gallery at Burlington House, leaving the present National Gallery for the purposes of the Royal Academy. After the very conclusive
  68
  speech of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, there was no need for going over the various reasons for having the National Gallery at Burlington House, instead of Charing Cross. He would, however, advert to one consideration which had not been mentioned that evening, though it was of great importance. The National Gallery comprised a collection of works of art of the greatest value, which when once destroyed could never be replaced. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that it should be placed in a building removed from all chances of injury or attack. The present National Gallery at Charing Cross was in a building which formed a screen to the barracks in the most central part of London, and access to those barracks was partly through the building itself. Many persons believed that it was essential to the peace and security of the metropolis that these barracks should remain where they now are. He did not say whether the opinion was or was not well founded, but it was said to have been expressed by the Duke of Wellington. If the barracks at Charing Cross were essential to the peace of the metropolis; in case of an outbreak—which, he trusted, would never happen—the National Gallery might be the first building attacked. In 1848 these barracks were the first place that was placed in a state of defence from an apprehension of the peace of the metropolis being disturbed at that time. If a new National Gallery were built upon the present site there must necessarily be access through it to the barracks. Under such circumstances he thought such a site would be most insecure and inconvenient for such a building. The difficulties also to be encountered in erecting another edifice upon the site of the present building were very great, and additional ground would have to be taken in order to construct an edifice sufficiently large for a national collection. It was, however, only possible to build on the east side as the barrack-yard and building could not be obtained, and the result would be anything but satisfactory. All these considerations had weighed with the Trustees of the National Gallery, and they were most desirous, as he had before stated, that the former decision of the House should be reconsidered. Had the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works been accepted, the country would by this time have had one of the finest National Galleries in Europe. The building at the present time would have been in

  69
  an advanced state, and the question of the Royal Academy would have been settled. He could not sit down without adverting to some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House; for he had spoken of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works in a way entirely undeserved. He believed that there was not a man in this great metropolis, whether rich or poor, who did not owe a debt of gratitude to his right hon. Friend for the wonderful improvements he had made in the metropolis. The great improvements in the parks, making them a place of public resort and an ornament to London, exceeding anything of the kind to be found in any city of the world, were due to his right hon. Friend. When the hon. Gentleman cast the slurs he had upon the First Commissioner of Works, he must have forgotten all that the right hon. Gentleman had done in beautifying the metropolis, and contributing to the comfort and enjoyment of the working classes.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he regretted to hear that Her Majesty's Government again contemplated the destruction of Burlington House. When this course was recommended to Lord Palmerston, a strong protest was made against it, and the noble Premier agreed that to pull down Burlington House would be simply an act of vandalism. The Government now seemed to disregard the good sense and wisdom of Lord Palmerston in this as in weightier matters. Burlington House was a building of great architectural merit, and, as few such buildings existed in the metropolis, the country could not afford to lose it. As far as his recollection went, excepting churches and the Banquetting House at Whitehall, there was no really beautiful and perfect building of the character of Burlington House. He should have no confidence as to anything the Government might erect in its place. He might point to the new Foreign Offices, in which any one acquainted with architecture would be able to point out a number of gross anomalies by no means creditable to the taste of the country. There was simply a strip of pavement in the place where the frieze ought to be; he would much prefer to have had a plain stone. Then there were the columns, which were neither Corinthian, Ionic, nor Doric; it was difficult to tell what they were. If anything could be invented better than the productions of the great masters, he would throw no obstacle in the way; but till that
  70
  was achieved it would be better to stick to the old proportions and to the old rules. Architects of the present time seemed to be too much influenced by vanity, and if they could produce anything singular, although characterized by great deformity, they were pleased. The Government originally wanted to spend an enormous sum at South Kensington, but the House would not allow them to do so. He trusted it would show itself equally resolute with regard to the proposal to pull down Burlington House; for if picture galleries were to be erected in the rear of Burlington House, they must not only be buildings of a hybrid character, but defective also in the essential conditions of space and light. Trafalgar Square was said to be the finest site in the world; but he hoped the Government, if they decided to build there, would pull down the present National Gallery, and not attempt to tinker with it, If the communication with the barracks behind was so essential as was represented, there could be no real difficulty on that point. What was required was first a handsome basement story in which the collection of the Royal Academy, and possibly the overflowing of accumulations at the British Museum and elsewhere, might be accommodated; and above this should be erected a building worthy of the object to which it was to be devoted, and of commanding height, for without this the advantages of the site would be thrown away. The Under Secretary of State told them that the building at Kensington, if the Government had been allowed to carry it out, would have been a beautiful structure. He did not believe it; they had never yet erected a beautiful building. By the manner in which they had dealt with it, they had ruined the new Foreign Office. They compelled a Gothic architect to produce a palace in the Italian style. They might as well send for a blacksmith to mend a chest of drawers. Now that it approached completion, it was found to be sufficiently Italian to displease all lovers of the Gothic style, and not Italian enough to please the admirers of Italian architecture. Externally it was a hideous building, and he had little doubt that the internal arrangements would be found quite in harmony.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was desirous of knowing what measures were really in contemplation to obtain the additional room that was now required for our National pictures. It seemed that many Gentlemen who had taken part in the former division by which it was settled

  71
  that the site for the new building should not be at Kensington had declared their remorse for the course which they then adopted. Under such circumstances as those stated, he thought it was far better to take again the opinion of the House as to the site and mode on which the National Gallery was to be constructed. To lay out large sums of money on the site of the present National Gallery was certain to end in disappointment. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk argued the question in a very contradictory way. It would be barbarism, he thought, to pull down Burlington House, but he was eager to destroy the National Gallery. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Because it is ugly.] Well, but tastes differed as to what was beautiful; and Burlington House, whatever its merits, was enclosed by an impervious screen, and whatever beauties it might possess were entirely hidden from the public eye. Its preservation, he did not think, was to be regarded when they were considering the question of the accommodation for our pictures. Laying aside for the moment the question of architecture, he would say with respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitehaven that remembering what Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens were only a few years ago, no Chief Commissioner of Works, he thought, more deserved the gratitude of the country than the right hon. Gentlemen who now filled that office. At that time Hyde Park was a dry, dusty space. Now, its perpetual verdure, graceful slopes, gay parterres, and luxuriant flowering shrubs afforded pleasure to thousands who, perhaps, would not be so well qualified to appreciate the merits of architectural designs. If a statue were to be raised in the present day to any man who had deserved well of the people, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be selected.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought the time had come when the members of the Royal Academy ought to be ashamed to occupy a space which was so much needed for our great National collection of pictures. If the academicians themselves would not take the initiative in the matter, and if they would not accept the sites that had been offered to them, it appeared to him that the Government ought to employ something like coercion for the purpose of obtaining their removal from the National Gallery. He agreed with hon. Members who had spoken in thinking that the National Gallery as a building was mean and quite unworthy
  72
  of the position which it occupied; but it was not worse than many other public buildings in London, to inspect which, one after the other, would really be a day of humiliation to any Englishman. He had hoped at one time that the erection of the new Foreign Office might form an exception to that unfortunate display of our artistic taste; but for some reason or another the effect of the work seemed wholly frittered away, and he could not help regarding it as an entire failure in an architectural point of view. If they had adopted the Roman or the Grecian style of architecture, they would have had an opportunity of having a fine façade, but this opportunity had unfortunately been lost probably through the building having been erected upon some Gothic or similar foundation. With regard to the National pictures he would ask, as he had done before, whether there was any chance during the next seven years of the whole of the gallery being devoted to the purposes for which it was constructed? He should be glad to receive an assurance from some Member of the Government that the whole of the matter would receive the consideration to which it was entitled.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, he thought the discussion of such matters in that House appeared to have a most depressing effect on every one who was not initiated in the mysteries of the subject; and were calculated to produce in the mind a general and a deplorable scepticism. Such discussions, indeed, reminded him of the opinion expressed by the late Sir George Lewis, who stated that it was always possible when a scientific man was brought forward to prove anything to produce another scientific man of equal celebrity to prove under the same conditions the exact reverse. He himself, though a humble learner, and always desirous of sitting at the feet of those who were capable of teaching, had been unable to make up his mind owing to the conflict of opinion as to whether Burlington House was beautiful or not. There was the Member for the Tower Hamlets—a great authority upon such a question—whose imagination seemed peculiarly impressed with that high wall which separated the building from Piccadilly, and which, perhaps, might be regarded emblematical of that dead level of equality to which the leading Members of the great House of Cavendish were at present prepared to reduce the political Constitution of this country. But his hon. Friend the Mem-

  73
  ber for Dundalk was positively enthusiastic in his admiration of Burlington House, and in language apparently affected by the late debate he entreated the House to stand by the ancient path, and not to abandon what was old and good unless they could devise something better in its place. He trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would, in the future discussion of political questions, entertain views as sound and as just as those he had thus expressed on the subject of architecture. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets censured the discussion of such subjects in the House as being useless, but in such an opinion he could not concur when he remembered the large amount expended by the country in connection with this subject. The subject of art expenditure, too, had been denounced in strong and felicitous terms by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after employing a series of epithets too copious and numerous to repeat, said that nothing short of a revolutionary reform was needed. Five years certainly constituted a long period in the consistency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose opinions, like certain electro-plated goods, appeared to be made more for the purpose of shining brightly than of lasting for any length of time. Those opinions, however, were recorded, and the fact remained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had apparently made no effectual attempt to bring into rule that expenditure which he described as so irregular, or to carry out that revolutionary reform which he had designated as so necessary. He did not intend to enter into a consideration of the site which it was desirable to adopt for our art treasures; but he felt bound to protest against the opinion expressed by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who founded this predilection for Piccadilly on the ground that owing to the presence of the barracks in the rear of the Royal Academy the pictures, if kept in the latter building, might be subject in times of danger to injury from cannon balls. That appeared to be a very remote contingency, but it was, of course, desirable to be prepared for every accident that might arise. It seemed, however, that there would be no great difficulty in taking ample precautions against the danger to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the first collections in Europe—he referred to that at Dresden—was kept in a place which, though undoubtedly dan-
  74
  gerous, was extremely convenient for purposes of inspection. Visitors to that collection were shown the places where cannon balls had formerly fallen, and on the slightest anticipation of danger the pictures were always removed to places of safety. If, therefore, the Royal Academy was open to no other objection than its exposed situation in cases of riot and insurrection, he thought they might reasonably ignore such considerations, and trust to Providence and the care of the guardians of these treasures, who would, he believed, see that they were in such an emergency removed to a place of safety. He rose, however, to observe that the National Gallery did not constitute the only collection of pictures which they had to take into their consideration. He had heard something from one hon. Gentleman about removing all the National collections to Kensington. As a trustee of the National Historical Portrait Collection, which, though small, was prosperous, and increasing in size and popularity every year, he desired to say that the guardians of that collection were continually in apprehension lest the treasures consigned to their care should be banished to the dreadful wilderness at South Kensington, lest their pictures should be drawn to the so-called centre by the gravitation which appeared to have had so much influence in other directions. He was anxious not to let that opportunity pass of protesting on behalf of the managers of the National Gallery against a removal to that quarter. It was not the collection at South Kensington, but the collectors, to whom they objected; it was not the things which people went to see there, but the self-assertion, the self-aggrandisement, and the spirit of intrigue which appeared to animate the managers at South Kensington, and which filled with terror the guardians of other collections. It was easy to say that that was the best centre for artistic objects; but a centre must have a radius; it must be the middle of something; and it was well known that South Kensington was placed at one extremity of the metropolis, and could not in any just sense be regarded as a central position. It was useless to cite the number of visitors to South Kensington as an argument in its favour, because, before such an argument could be accepted as worth anything, it must be shown that the visitors belonged to that class for whom these collections were intended. If these collections were to be merely the luxurious

  75
  resort of the rich, of those who from their wealth and position were able, if they pleased, to set up galleries and create collections for themselves, they gave to the people no adequate return for the taxation which was imposed upon them. He knew that such a doctrine was not popular in that House. They had constantly witnessed the most extravagant expenditure on objects of art which could afford pleasure and gratification to none but those who from their circumstances and position might easily obtain such gratification and pleasure at their own expense. The only thing resembling an octroi in our taxation was the coal tax. It was raised from one of the necessaries of life, and yet it had been selected as a source out of which payments were to be made for objects which, practically, were enjoyed by the wealthy classes only. It appeared to him that there was great injustice in such a system; and he thought the House ought to take into consideration the question whether it was right to expend in mere luxuries money much of which was raised from a class which did not participate in the enjoyment of those luxuries. The principle which he was advocating applied very cogently to South Kensington. If these collections were for the people at large, they ought to be placed among the people, where the people could see, enjoy, and study them; because if such collections were to be only for the benefit of the wealthier and more educated classes, and if they were removed with that view, the Government would not be able to defend them long in the face of the public who were taxed for them. He especially protested against the removal under such circumstances of the National Portrait Gallery, and he could not conclude without expressing a hope that the House would hear a satisfactory statement from the Government as to what their policy was likely to be. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had favoured the House with his views, but as that hon. Gentleman had spoken rather as the representative of art, they were no doubt anxious to hear some observation from the leader of the House as to what was intended to be done in the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DANUBIAN PROVINCES.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked the
  76
  Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, What course the Conference on the Danubian Provinces were taking in reference to the expressed wishes of the Moldo-Wallachian population? and added that he was quite aware of the difficulties of dealing with the matter. The elements of the subject were so various that no Government appeared to be able to look at them in such a light as would afford fair hope of a settlement. In ancient times the provinces were a mere appanage of the Porte, but by the intervention of the European Powers that state of things had been altered, and they had become more or less European in their character. The maxims, however, which were applied to them in the present day seemed to suit neither their old character nor their new one. They were not considered as actually subject to the Porte nor as actually independent. The Treaty of 1856 assumed to settle the position of the provinces, but soon afterwards it was found that its provisions would not be tolerated in the country; and therefore the provision that required the separation of the provinces was abrogated, and the union of the two countries was allowed. If this part of the treaty was so easily abrogated by the consent of the Powers, in what particular was the other part of the treaty as to their not being governed by a foreign prince, entitled to a greater amount of respect? No doubt the inhabitants had excellent reasons for selecting a foreign Prince, and especially that one which was founded upon the existence of internal jealousies. The state of feeling there was accurately described by the present leader of the House (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) eight years ago, when he said that—
  "If the rule of a foreign Prince is thought to be desirable, depend upon it such a choice is made as a means of avoiding internal jealousies. No people in their senses ever preferred the rule of a foreign Prince, except as a means of preventing internal dissensions."
  If the people of Wallachia and Moldavia were now acting on that principle, why should we interfere to prevent them from doing so? This was not a mere caprice on their part, for the very same jealousy existed in this country, as appeared by the Royal Marriage Act, the object of which was to avoid the possibility of internal dissensions, by preventing members of the Royal family from contracting marriages with English subjects. The first attempt had been made in Belgium to obtain a prince, and that having failed, the

  77
  people had looked elsewhere. But it had been said that the interests of the Porte were affected and perhaps injured by this election. He altogether denied it. The only object these provinces had in view was to obtain their reasonable independence. It was the true interest of the Porte to consult all the reasonable wishes of the people in the Danubian Principalities, just as it was the interest of England to do the same with respect to her colonies. The Principalities were quite aware of the value of their nominal suzerainty to the Porte, just as the colonists of England were conscious of the benefits they derived from their nominal dependence upon us; but in the one case as in the other, it was felt to be desirable that the dependence should be nominal, and that it should not be made the excuse for an injudicious and unnecessary interference with the privileges and desires of the people. The reason why the provinces were valuable to the Porte was because they were a bulwark against any other Power. There could be no doubt that the real policy to be recommended to the Porte was to acquiesce in the wish of the people. In Belgium, under circumstances substantially similar, no objection was made to the election of Prince Leopold, nor were the consequences of that exercise of the popular will such as to inspire them with any feeling of regret that it had taken place. The relations between Holland and Belgium had grown more intimate in consequence, and the result was that those two countries would cordially assist each other, if any common enemy should menace them. He believed it was wrong to prefer any policy of any other Continental Power in the East to that pursued by France. That policy was the best for the preservation of the peace of the world, though he did not deny that there might be a certain amount of ambition in it, and an occasional hankering after an extension of territory. At all events, the policy of France was based upon some kind of principle, and showed consideration for the rights and the habits of other people; and it was a great mistake to depart from the policy of France without having a paramount reason for doing so. Now, the Emperor of the French either avowedly or tacitly had given his countenance to the election of the Hospodar, and England could not do better than follow the example thus set. He was afraid that unless some steps were speedily taken in the matter, a serious col-
  78
  lision would occur between Turkey and Russia. He did not wish to make Her Majesty's Government responsible for what might happen, but it was not sufficient that the intentions of a Government should be good, their conduct should be wise, and of this wisdom success might be taken as a test. He wished to ask, what was the present state of the negotiations, and especially whether the Turkish troops had entered these provinces? And he also begged to move for any papers that there might be relating to the subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of any Correspondence relative to the Conference on the Danubian Principalities,"—(Mr. Darby Griffith,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would not detain the House at greater length than he could help; but, at the same time, he wished to say a few words in order that the whole matter might be correctly understood. His hon. Friend said the subject to which his question related had been very much misunderstood in this country and still more so abroad, and he was not sorry to have an opportunity of placing the matter before the House in a proper light. The hon. Gentleman, however, had altogether misstated the history of the Danubian provinces. He had spoken of them as though they had long been conquered and governed by the Turks; whereas, in truth, those provinces at a distant period of time, for reasons of their own, voluntarily placed themselves under the suzerainty of the Porte. Turkey was then a strong Power, and they considered that she was then enabled to protect them. At first the Turkish Sultan was in the habit of sending as Hospodars or Governors of the provinces Turkish subjects; but, after a time, the provinces became dissatisfied with that arrangement, and claimed the right of electing their own Princes. That right was conceded to them by the Porte, and the two provinces had for a long course of years themselves through their Assemblies selected their Hospodars. The Russian Government who always felt or professed to feel a great interest in those Princi-

  79
  palities interfered on various occasions in consequence of what they considered to be the improper conduct of the Turks towards the Principalities. It was, however, but fair and just to the Turks to say that during the whole of their long connection with Moldavia and Wallachia, on no occasion had they interfered with the internal self-government of those provinces. No Turks ever lived there, nor, except in case of war, were ever seen there, and he believed that no two provinces were ever more independent and self-administered than Moldavia and Wallachia. There existed in Moldavia and Wallachia a Christian aristocracy, which was not the case in the other Christian provinces belonging to the Turks, where the land was almost entirely in the hands of Mahommedans. While in nearly all the other provinces of Turkey the landholders and chief persons were Mussulmans, in the Principalities they were all Christians, and the population was purely Christian. In no other provinces of the Turkish Empire was there a Christian aristocracy, which stood between the power of the Hospodar and the people at large. It was the want of such an aristocracy that he believed had been the cause of the great misfortunes that had befallen Greece since its severance from Turkey. In consequence of the presence of that Christian landed aristocracy, the provinces were far advanced in civilization, and were the richest and most prosperous of any of the Sultan's dominions. By the treaties of Adrianople and Bucharest, the Russian Government had obtained from the Porte a right of protectorate over the provinces, and a right to interfere in their internal affairs. The Crimean War arose in consequence of the Russian troops crossing the frontier of the province. At the termination of that war by the Treaty of Paris the suzerainty of the Sultan over the provinces was solemnly recorded, although it was especially stipulated that the Hospodars should be elected from among the natives of the provinces, and that treaty further declared that the exclusive right of protectorate over the provinces claimed by Russia should be transferred to the great Powers jointly who were parties to that treaty. As the interests of Moldavia and Wallachia were not well understood in Western Europe, a sort of joint Diplomatic Commission, of which Sir Henry Bulwer was a member, was sent by the
  80
  great Powers who were parties to the treaty to inquire into the affairs of those provinces. Eventually, in consequence of the Report of that Commission, an additional convention was entered into between the great Powers, whereby it was stipulated that while the suzerainty of Turkey over the provinces was fully recognized, the inhabitants should have power to elect as Hospodar of each province a native not less than thirty-five years of age, whose father was also a native of the province. No doubt there had existed a party in Moldavia and Wallachia who were anxious for the separation of the provinces from Turkey. The first object of the party in endeavouring to carry out that design, was to induce Turkey to allow them to elect a foreign Prince as Hospodar. That design did not succeed, and then they sought for a union of the provinces, and to have one prince, and Moldavia having elected Prince Couza, the object was that the Wallachians should also become subjects of the same prince. By taking this step they had not violated the Paris Convention, although it was certainly an infringement of the spirit of the treaty, and the parties to that arrangement represented to the Turkish Government that it would not be worth while to insist upon the provinces electing separate Hospodars. The Porte voluntarily accepted the recommendations of the Great Powers, but made this reservation, that in case of Prince Couza's death or deposition, the two Assemblies should be convened, and the people should have the opportunity of deciding freely whether union or separation was most conducive to their interests. The Porte made this stipulation from no interested motive, but because it entertained a firm opinion that the supporters of the union and of a foreign Prince formed a small minority, and that the greater portion of the population were in favour of separation of the Principalities. Whether that opinion was right or wrong he would not discuss, but many persons acquainted with the Principalities still believed that separation would be more conducive to their prosperity, and there was undoubtedly a very large party in Moldavia who objected to that principality being merged into Wallachia, which was what the union really amounted to. The reservation of the Porte was accepted by all the Great Powers. He would not go into the events of Prince Couza's, reign, but one of his first

  81
  acts was to destroy the landed aristocracy, by taking away their lands and dividing them among the people. After a few years, as they all knew, he raised loans and did other things which excited a popular rising; and he was forced to leave the country. Upon this the Porte desired that the reservation which it had insisted on should be carried out, and that the Assembly should be called together to declare whether the provinces should be separated or remain intact. The great Powers assembled in Conference at Paris resolved to wait until the Porte had, with the advice of the Great Powers, declared what steps should be taken for the future government of the provinces. But at this juncture the extreme democratic party that had deposed Prince Couza called upon the people to declare by plébiscite who should reign over them, without any reference to treaty engagements with the Porte and the Great Powers. He had heard with astonishment his hon. Friend's remark against what he called a priggish adherence to treaties, which he seemed to think was characteristic of some Members of the Government. This was a very dangerous doctrine, and one, he was afraid, that had too much prevailed of late years in Europe. If ever a time came when nations were to have no respect for treaties there would be the utmost danger to civilization and liberty. The present dreadful state of Europe, the muster of 2,500,000 of armed men ready to go to war, and the horrible slaughter which, before many days, might take place, were entirely owing to the disregard of what his hon. Friend termed a priggish adherence to treaties. His hon. Friend seemed to think that every Power had a right to deal with a treaty as it chose, except the Power specially affected, for he left altogether out of consideration the position of the Sultan, and seemed to forget that the Treaty of Paris and the Convention of 1858 solemnly ratified the suzerainty of the Sultan, and prescribed the manner in which the Hospodar should be elected. Whether, however, we might think it advisable for the Principalities to be separate or united was not the question, for we were bound by this treaty, and if it was to be set aside only ten years after being solemnly entered into, what treaty, he would ask, could be regarded as binding? What, then, had the Powers done? On the supposed election of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern by the Moldavians and Wallachians their representatives assem-
  82
  bled in Conference at Paris, and conjointly—for France, contrary to what his hon. Friend supposed, acted with us—issued directions to their Consuls in the Principalities not to take any step which might commit them to the recognition of Prince Charles. The Powers were bound by treaty to take this step, and they could not honestly have acted otherwise. Now, his hon. Friend seemed to think that the Porte had no right to interfere without the consent of the other Powers; but in that he was quite mistaken. It was true that an article in the treaty stipulated that, in case of the disturbance of internal order in the Principalities, the Turkish Government should not interfere except with the consent of the other Powers. This, however, was not a question of internal order, but was an infringement of the sovereign rights of the Sultan. Suppose, for instance, Austria or Russia should send troops into either of the provinces, did his hon. Friend think that the Porte could not defend its rights without the sanction of all the parties to the treaty? [Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH: It cannot interfere alone.] His hon. Friend was entirely mistaken with regard to the interpretation of that article, for what it laid down was that the Porte should not interfere in case of any internal revolution, whereas in the present case the inhabitants had acted in defiance of the treaty and had violated the sovereign rights of the Porte. Undoubtedly, therefore, the Porte had a right to interfere; but then came the question whether it was advisable or prudent to exercise its right, and the British Government, so far from having advised the Turkish Government to insist upon their right, had advised them to act with the utmost moderation, and not to endanger the peace of the Principalities by a military intervention. His hon. Friend asked whether the Government had received any information with reference to the entry of Turkish troops into the Principalities. His reply was that, though he saw rumours in the public press that Turkish troops were about to cross the Danube, they had received no official information to that effect, and he earnestly hoped that the Porte would not at the present time take a step which might have the effect at that moment of exposing them to serious inconvenience, and of lighting up the flames of war in the Eastern parts of Europe. The British Government did not deny the undoubted right of the Porte to interfere, but while

  83
  recognizing the provisions of the treaty, they espoused the side of prudence and conciliation by advising the Turkish Government not to take any measure which might add an additional complication to the present lamentable state of Europe.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, it would appear from the able statement of the Under Secretary that they ought to look upon Wallachia and Moldavia as the Venetia of Turkey. He hoped the Government would give the best advice in their power to the Porte, but all experience demonstrated the mischievous effects of interference with the relations of distant countries, and he trusted that our treaty obligations would not involve us in anything beyond advice. He quite agreed with the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that it would be a lamentable thing if, in addition to all the serious complications which menaced Europe with a general conflagration, these provinces should be also the scene of hostilities. If that result could be prevented he should be glad. He was anxious to urge upon the Under Secretary and upon the House that we should be careful and refrain from involving ourselves in any treaty obligations, as on former occasions these had led us into awkward complications, from which we had retired with some loss of national credit.
  Amendment and Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [BILL 68], AND RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Villiers.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said: There has been an understanding in the House that eleven o'clock should be the limit beyond which we should not proceed with these Bills. We have endeavoured to bring these measures on, but the fates have been against us. I am sorry that we have just passed that hour, and I have only to move that the order be postponed until Monday.
  MR. BOVILLasked whether any further information was likely to be laid on the table of the House with respect to the
  84
  franchise portion of the Reform Bill and also with reference to the enfranchisement and disfranchisement clauses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not aware that there was any intention on the part of the Government to present any further information. The Returns moved for by hon. Members were not prepared in his Department. The question of the hon. Member might be addressed to the heads of the Departments who would produce those Returns, or if a specific question were addressed to himself he would cause inquires to be made.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  [BILL 19.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. WHITESIDEsuggested that, as it would not be necessary to trouble the House much upon this question, seeing that an arrangement was likely to be come to, the further consideration of the Bill should for the present be postponed. It was his intention to assist in passing the Bill, and in making it as useful as possible.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  MR. WHITESIDEagain offered, if the Committee were not now troubled with details, to facilitate business on another night.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARA TION ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 82.]
  (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Sir John Gray, Mr. Cogan.)
  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Committee—Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in the temporary absence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had a Motion on the paper relative to this Bill, he thought it inconvenient to proceed with it. A Commission had been properly issued by the Government to inquire into the tests and oaths that were taken in addition to those that had just been disposed of by Parliament, and he thought that legislation should be deferred until that Commission had reported. The peculiarity of the Bill was that the promoters of it, as far as concerned the Roman Catholic Members, fancied that they were labouring under a grievance, but found that in fact they were labouring under no grievance, and were much affected by that circumstance. He was stating the case fairly, for those hon. Members had discovered that they had no grievance on their own part nor on the part of their people, and the grievance they sought the power of redressing was borne by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. For a variety of good reasons, such as that he disposed of Church patronage and recommended Bishops, the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to declare that he belonged to the Church of England, and the hon. Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) objected to the manner in which this declaration was made. In the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire he (Mr. Whiteside) was endeavouring to support this declaration. No doubt if this was the first time it was proposed it might be put in a more inoffensive form; but neither the hon. and learned Member for Kildare nor the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would be asked to take the test, and it was for the Protestants from whom it was required to object to its forms if they entertained objections to it. He expressed a hope that this question might be referred to the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into various tests and oaths that were now taken, and that the hon. Member for Kildare would not beforehand spoil the matter by rash legislation on the subject.
  Ma. NEWDEGATEapologized to the Committee for his absence when the Order of the Day was called, but stated that it was owing to a misunderstanding, inasmuch as he had supposed that the Bill
  86
  would not be pressed that evening. This Bill comprised one of the objects proposed at a meeting of the Dublin corporation a year ago, that was in fact a meeting of that which designated itself the Irish National Association, which was under the patronage of Legate Cullen. At that meeting it was stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), that the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland felt it to be against their consciences to take this declaration before entering on their offices. On what authority he made that statement had never appeared. The relations between the inhabitants of Great Britain and the Sovereign had been arranged in the Act of Settlement, which secured that the Sovereign should be a Protestant, and it was but reasonable that the direct Representatives of the Sovereign in Ireland should be of the same religion. While anxious to retain this security he was at the same time willing to consider every plea of offence being given by the form of the Declaration so far as it was possible; and the proposal of which he had given notice would show that he had no desire to give offence. With this view he proposed to move the following declaration in lieu of that proposed to be repealed:—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do agree in the true, usual, and literal meaning of the twenty-second and twenty-eighth articles of religion, which articles are received and held by the United Church of England and Ireland, and that I do assent to, and do hold the said articles, as truly setting forth my belief with respect to the doctrines contained in the said articles."
  The late Lord Lyndhurst, who had proved that upon religious subjects he was far from an illiberal politician, had declared in the House of Lords, when moving the second reading of a Bill for the admission of Jews to Parliament, that he could conceive no greater misfortune to this Protestant community than that the Throne should be filled by a Roman Catholic. Now the declaration—the repeal of which was suggested—was one of the outworks of the great settlement which secures that the Sovereign should be a Protestant, and by that Bill it was proposed, not that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should cease to be a Protestant, and Lord Chancellor for Ireland, but that they should cease to declare themselves to be Protestants. One of the characteristics of the legislation of this country

  87
  was, that a person accepting office, which could only be filled by a Protestant, should declare his religious belief, and should be accepted upon his own declaration. But, it was said that the form of the declaration was offensive to Roman Catholics. It was odd that this should be first discovered by Protestants, for until the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who declared himself to be a Protestant (Sir John Gray), complained of it before the Dublin corporation, no Roman Catholic took it up as a grievance. Now, however, since this Declaration had been represented a grievance he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to remove the shadow of complaint and proposed the Amendment of which he had given notice. He thought the clauses agreed to by Sir Robert Peel in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 should not be swept away as now proposed. He would be glad to know from the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Commission appointed to inquire into oaths and tests should not also inquire into this Declaration. He knew that those securities were now described by hon. Members chiefly of the Roman Catholic persuasion either as offensive or as idle. But Count Montalembert had declared that there was no country in the world in which the Catholics enjoyed greater freedom than in this country, and the late Archbishop Murray sent Dr. Ennis to Rome to state the same thing to the Pope. It was with the view of preserving the supremacy of the Constitution as Protestant, and the freedom thus ensured, that the declaration now sought to be abolished was of use. The Articles of the Church of England were carefully drawn up soon after the period of the Reformation in the most inoffensive terms compatible with a clear enunciation of principle, and it was in those terms assented to by the Church of England, and by a great body of the Protestants, that he should propose to substitute the declaration that now stood on the paper. He considered that some declaration of their religious convictions on the part of these two officers as necessary, since one was the direct representative of the Crown in Ireland, while the Lord Chancellor exercised patronage in the Church, and connected with education, and in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs. In this view he was supported by the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel. He should conclude by asking the Government why
  88
  it declined to permit the Commissioners on Oaths to consider this subject. If the Government refused this, he should oppose the Bill in its present stage, and if it was afterwards proceeded with, move the Amendment of which he had given notice in Committee. It seemed the Government had not confidence in the Commissioners.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was surprised to hear it alleged that no grievance existed because the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, who took this declaration, were Protestants. But there was a great difference between the expression of a man's own views and his condemning the views of other people. The grievance was that the Lord Lieutenant had to appear before the Privy Council, the members of which were Roman Catholics, in a country in which the greater part of the population were Roman Catholics, and to condemn in most unmeasured and offensive terms one of the fundamental articles of the Roman Catholic faith. What possible good could this do? He was surprised that anybody should object to remove this grievance. Assuming that the terms of the Commission on Oaths allowed it to consider this subject, the House did not want a Commission to tell them that which any sensible man ought to know of himself. The Bill took away no security from the Protestant Church; it left the law untouched which provided that the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor should not be Roman Catholics; it merely removed what was offensive to Roman Catholics, and what, he thought, must be equally offensive to right-minded Protestants, who must surely feel uncomfortable in being compelled to make such a declaration.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that the declaration was of no use, and afforded no security to the Protestant religion. It only affirmed—
  "The right of each to do his best To damn and perjure all the rest."
  And a right-minded Protestant should be more in favour of repealing this declaration than a Roman Catholic. But if it was the wish of the Protestants to damn and perjure their Roman Catholic brethren, they might at least do it in the most offensive way by compelling the Lord Lieutenant, presiding over a Roman Catholic country, to condemn the faith of its people.
  SIR GEORGE GREYwished that his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill had allowed this subject to be considered

  89
  by the Commission; but as he had declined to take that course, and pressed for the decision of the House, he (Sir George Grey) entirely concurred in the expediency of removing from the statute book a declaration of this kind, necessarily offensive as it must be to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENstated that two years ago a Commission consisting of several archbishops and bishops, and Members of both Houses, and also the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was appointed in Ireland to inquire respecting certain tests, among which was this most offensive declaration, which were required to be taken by clergymen of the Church of England in that country; and that Commission unanimously reported that the declaration should be repealed, and last Session an Act was passed to effect that object.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that the recommendation of the Commission was, that the Oath required by the Statute of Henry VIII., and the Declaration required by the Statute of William and Mary be discontinued; not that one thing should be substituted for another, but that the old law should be repealed.
  MR. WHITESIDEobserved, that the question of tests was under the consideration of the Commission recently appointed, and the present occasion afforded a most painful example of the mode in which the Administration were ready to yield to suggestions against their own reason and judgment.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved a new clause, substituting a new declaration for that repealed by the Bill. He observed that the two Articles named referred to Transubstantiation and Purgatory; and though the hon. Member for Dundalk characterized the declaration proposed to be repealed by the Bill as nonsense, it was very singular that the House of Commons, which was supposed to contain some sensible men, and the House of Lords, had very recently declared it was necessary that the Sovereign of this realm should make that very declaration.
  New Clause (The following Declaration shall be substituted for the Declaration hereby repealed—
  I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that
  90
  I do agree in the true, usual, and literal meaning of the twenty-second and twenty-eighth Articles of Religion, which Articles are received and held by the United Church of England and Ireland, and that I do assent to, and do hold the said Articles, as truly setting forth my belief with respect to the doctrines contained in the said Articles)—(Mr. Newdegate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. COGANsaid, that the principle of the Bill had been unanimously accepted by the House. Even the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had withdrawn his opposition, because the Bill had received the sanction both of the leader of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, speaking on the part of several hon. Members of the Opposition. A new limitation would be imposed by the clause of the hon. Gentleman, because it would exclude every person who did not accept the Thirty-nine Articles. He therefore trusted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would be rejected.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that nothing could be more undesirable than to continue to make use of such solemn words upon sacred and mysterious dogmas, according to the practice of our forefathers, who prostituted the dogmas of religion by applying them to such purposes. He hoped at this hour of the day we were not going to continue the practice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, by his proposal, was actually extending the test imposed by the old declaration, because the new declaration dealt with the doctrine of purgatory—that was dragging a new question into the arena. It would be most undesirable to require a high officer, including the Lord High Commissioner for Scotland, to adopt the Thirty-nine Articles. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: It is only two of them.] That made no difference in point of fact. There was no occasion to wait for the Report of the Commission, because every one must be satisfied that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bill.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he desired to know whom did the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill represent? Was it the Protestant portion of the population? Where was the grievance to Roman Catholics? There was none whatever. It was entirely unprecedented that solemn declarations should be altered, not because they were offensive to the consciences of those who took them, but because they were disagreeable to other

  91
  persons, who need not be present when the declarations were made. He could not see any objection whatever to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose, but being met with loud cries of "Divide!" he resumed his seat.
  MR. WHITESIDEexpressed his wonder that in a matter of this kind hon. Gentlemen on the other side below the gangway should try to prevent others from expressing their opinions. If hon. Gentlemen who talked so much about freedom of discussion on the platform thought to put it down in that way, they would find themselves very much mistaken.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would have a perfectly fair hearing.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved, that when he rose to speak he was prevented from doing so by cries of "Divide, divide!" from the Opposition side, whereupon he had desisted.
  MR. VERNERmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Verner.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 78: Majority 38.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had no wish to oppose the progress of business in pressing a division, but simply to uphold the right of free discussion. In accordance with the law of this country the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland must be a Protestant. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk would, no doubt, deem it a perfectly reasonable course to bring in a Bill to alter that law, nor should he be surprised to find him proposing a measure to alter the succession to the Throne, a proposition to which, if it were made on the eve of a critical division, Her Majesty's Government would, in all probability, give their assent. He, at all events, should be sorry to trust them on that point after twelve o'clock at night. It mattered not, of course, to many hon. Gentlemen to what religion the Lord Lieutenant might belong. Some would not object to see the office held by a Quaker, but he should, because a Quaker would possibly be opposed to the use of armed force to repress conspiracies or to defend the country. The law, however, declared that the Lord Lieutenant
  92
  should be a Protestant, because, among other things, he had church patronage to dispense, and he thought a more tolerant or simple test than that suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire to affect a rational and legitimate object could not well be devised. It was, at all events, a perfectly reasonable demand to ask the House to await the Report of the Commission under whose consideration the subject now was before proceeding to legislate with regard to it.
  MR. O'BEIRNEmust say he thought the Committee was extremely tolerant in listening to four lectures from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) on the subject of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to give any reason which could satisfy any sensible man why they should refuse to pass that measure; and he was sorry to find him introducing something like Nisi Prius practice into their discussions. The right hon. Gentleman addressed the House on almost every question that came before it, and, although he always sought to amuse them, he seldom instructed them. The declaration which that Bill sought to repeal was most offensive.
  MR. WHITESIDE: That is not the question. He appealed to the Chairman to state what was the question before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question was that the clause of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire be now read a second time.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that if, as a young Member of the House, he had transgressed the rules, he begged pardon; but he could only repeat that not a single sound argument had been adduced against that Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that Roman Catholic Members below the gangway would not promote their object, or induce people out of doors to believe that Roman Catholics were free from the charge of intolerance, by their attempts to stifle discussion in that House. His reason for proposing that test was the same as had actuated the Legislature of England for the last 300 years. He had taken every means in his power to eliminate from the declaration every word which could be deemed offensive by those who entertained different religious opinions from himself. But it was only prudent to insist that those who were made the depositories of great powers by virtue of their being supposed to be of the Protestant faith should declare

  93
  that they were so in terms which could not be offensive.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he repelled the charge of intolerance against Roman Catholic Members, which came with an ill grace from an hon. Gentleman who had himself always spoken and voted for the maintenance of civil disabilities upon persons of a different religious persuasion from his own. The Roman Catholics did not wish to interfere with the existing law; all they desired to do was to take off the statute-books phrases which had for years been creating bad feeling in Ireland.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 71: Majority 35.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — Thomas Blackborne Thoroton Hildyard, esquire, for Nottingham County (Southern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Land Drainage Supplemental * [125].
Committee—Representation of the People [68], and Redistribution of Seats [138] [R.P.] Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [71]; Waterworks* [137]; Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)* [182]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * (188); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [191].
Report—Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings* [194]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [71]; Waterworks* [195]; Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)* [182]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.)* [188]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [191].
Third Reading—National Gallery Enlargement* [124]; Dogs* [181], and passed.

IRELAND—DAUNT'S ROCK,

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, to remove from Daunt's Rock the wreck of the steamship City of New York?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, it has not been represented to the Board of Trade that the removal of the wreck from Daunt's Rock is of such importance to navigation generally as to justify an application of public money to the purpose; we are communicating with the owners of the steamship City of New York, and if through their instrumentality, or by the means of salvors and the offer of liberal salvage, the wreck can be removed, the Board of Trade will be glad to give any assistance in its power.

ELECTORAL RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has sent any instructions to the Boards of Guardians for the purpose of recommending a scale of payment to the clerks for the additional trouble and expense they have incurred in preparing the Electoral Returns laid upon the table of the House?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in reply, said, the President of the Poor Law Board had not sent any instructions to the Boards of Guardians for the purpose of recommending a scale of payment to the clerks for the preparation of the Electoral Returns; but the Poor Law Board had intimated to the clerks of Guardians that "a reasonable remuneration would be made for the trouble and expense incident to the preparation" of the Returns referred to. The remuneration would be paid by the Government, and not by the Guardians out of the local rates.

  TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Government to proceed with the Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill, so as to afford an opportunity for its being legislated on during the present Session; and, if so, whether he will also state what day Government will give for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the second reading?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that the Government are extremely anxious to proceed with the Bill; but at present it is impossible for them to fix a day for it with the prospect of closing the debate on the second reading, inasmuch as they cannot make sure of doing that at a morning sitting. They are unable, therefore, to fix a time for this Bill until further progress is made with the Reform Bill. I may take the opportunity of mentioning that Government propose to take Supply to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—CAST-IRON GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will have any objection to produce a Copy of the Correspondence between the War Department and Mr. Parsons from May, 1860, to the present time, relative to the plan of that gentleman for strengthening cast-iron guns, together with all drawings, tracings, descriptions, specifications, calculations, and other documents, or Copies of the same, furnished by Mr. Parsons during that time, and also the Reports made by the Ordnance Select Committee on Mr. Parsons' inventions;
  532
  and whether the Secretary of State for War will have any objection to furnish a statement of all the cast-iron guns that have been altered or strengthened by order of the War Department during the last ten years, in a tabulated form, giving the nature and sizes of the guns, the methods adopted in altering or strengthening them, the tests to which they were subjected, including the number of rounds fired, with the charge of powder and weight of shot, and the total quantity of powder burnt and metal thrown by, together with the observed effects of the firing upon each gun respectively?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that on a former occasion he explained, or attempted to explain, that he thought it would be most objectionable, as a general rule, to produce the correspondence between the War Office and inventors; because to do so really meant nothing more than to publish full details of the inventions, with all the statements made by the inventors in reply to objections. He did not mean to say that there were not cases in which the rule of not producing such correspondence might be departed from; but the hon. Member for Brighton had stated no special grounds in this instance. There was not the same objection to the Return referred to in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question; and it would be for him (Mr. White) to determine whether — the War Office declining to produce the correspondence—he would move for that Return. Probably it would take a good deal of time and much trouble; but if the hon. Member should move for it, he would consider whether it could be granted or not.

  METROPOLIS—ST. PANCRAS BURIAL GROUND.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Midland Railway Company, having obtained an Act in 1863 for passing a bridge over the additional burial-ground of St. Pancras, has, in excess of its powers, taken a portion of the ancient churchyard of St. Pancras for such bridge, and is causing desecration thereby, the destruction of tombs, and the removal of the dead; whether he is aware that the Midland Railway Company, in working out the tunnel allowed them by their Act of 1864, will have to cut through a mass of dead

  533
  from corner to corner of the cemetery; and, whether, the whole of the churchyard being closed under the Metropolitan Burial Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, he will interfere to protect the place from profanation, so injurious to public health and to the sacredness of the ground?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that in consequence of the notice placed on the paper by the hon. Member, he had directed an inspector, under the Burial Act, to proceed to the spot and see what the proceedings were.

  INFECTION FROM THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council (First Report, Cattle Plague Commission, p. 46)—
  "We constantly see in our practice that the physician carries home scarlet fever to his children without taking it himself, carrying the infection in his dress or about his person;"
  and what measures are contemplated to arrest this source of danger to the public health?
  MR. BRUCEreplied that the Government did not see their way to legislation on the subject.

CANADA—THE FENIAN RAID.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEEL-DAWSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, since the House rose on Friday, he has received any further despatches from Canada conveying information as to the suppression of the Fenian raid upon British Territory, or the means taken to effect that object?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have to-day received a despatch, of which I hold a copy in my hand, dated the 4th of June. It is from the Governor General of Canada, and the following is its substance:—
  "A body of Fenians, between 800 and 900 men, well armed, crossed the frontier from Buffalo to Fort Erie on the morning of the 1st of June. Major General Napier pushed on to Chippewa, about nineteen miles from Fort Erie, a force of artillery and regular troops, under Colonel Peacocke, of the 16th Regiment. On the morning of Saturday, the 2nd, the Volunteers stationed at Port Colborne went to Ridgway, intending to
  534
  unite with Colonel Peacocke. They came, however, on the Fenians encamped in the bush, and immediately attacked them, but were outnumbered and compelled to retire on Fort Colborne. The Fenians did not wait the arrival of Colonel Peacocke, but recrossed the river in the night between the 2nd and 3rd, to the number of about 750, when they were immediately arrested by the authorities of the United States. The United States not only exerted themselves to prevent the invaders from obtaining any assistance, but also hired vessels to enable them to patrol the river. General Grant had placed General Barry, of the United States Artillery, in command from Erie to Oswego, with thirteen companies under his command, and instructions to act according to emergencies. We have sixty-five prisoners who have been committed to the Toronto Gaol."
  Lord Monck was not yet in receipt of the official military despatches. His own despatch of the 4th was written on the receipt of telegrams.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he wished to know whether the statement published in the newspapers to the effect that the President of the United States had issued a proclamation, and that Colonel Sweeny and Roberts had been arrested, was authentic? He wished to ask, also, whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information on the subject of the second attempt which it was said the Fenians were about to make by St. Alban's and St. John's in the direction of Montreal?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have already stated the whole substance of the despatch received from the Governor General of Canada; but I have received a telegraphic despatch stating that the President had issued such a Proclamation.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which notice was given for Friday last, but, the House having been counted out on that day, he was unable to put it. It was whether, in the despatches which had recently been received from Canada in reference to the invasion of the Fenians, any information was given as to the nature of such movement as far as it might have been originated or sustained by persons professing the Roman Catholic religion; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to lay such despatches on the table?
  MR. CARDWELL: I cannot answer that Question without first entering a protest against such a Question being put. Before an hon. Member asks a question imputing disloyalty or treason, or anything akin to it, to any class of Her Majesty's subjects, he ought to ascertain whether there be any foundation for such an impu-

  535
  tation. As, however, the Question has been put, I have great pleasure in saying that the accounts we have received with regard to all classes of society in our North-American Provinces are in the highest degree satisfactory.

  MORNING SITTINGS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that as the first of the morning sittings was to be held the next day, a doubt had arisen in the minds of several hon. Members as to whether a Motion ought to be made to the House on the subject, or whether it was simply necessary to make an intimation across the table, as had been done in the present instance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he believed it was not usual to make a formal Motion on the subject of morning sittings, but, as a doubt had been raised on that point, he would now move that the House do at twelve o'clock tomorrow resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, it was usual to give notice on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had just given notice that Supply would be taken.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply at Twelve o'clock to-morrow.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to know whether the Estimates for National Education in Ireland will be taken tomorrow?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must repeat what he had stated some time ago—namely, that the Estimates for Education in Ireland would not be taken until the other Education Estimates had been disposed of. Class IV., which comprised the Education Estimates, would be taken to-morrow, with the exception of those relating to Education in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, he wished to know what other class of Votes would be taken to-morrow?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he proposed to take to-morrow the Estimates relating to Education, the Revenue Departments, and the Packet Service.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee To-morrow at Twelve of the clock.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [BILL 68.], AND RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Villiers.)
  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson, I now rise for the purpose of proposing the 5th clause of this Bill. [Clause 5 (Occupation Franchise for Voters in Boroughs).]
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise to order. I understand that it is the part of the Chairman to propose that the clause stand part of the Bill, and I apprehend, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is not in order in making a Motion of that kind.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had called the clause in the usual manner.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When I rose to propose the 5th clause of the Bill I did not mean to make a formal Motion, but to speak on the clause. ["Order!"]
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Mr. Dodson, I now rise to order. There are Amendments to be proposed to this clause, and I apprehend that the proper course—subject to your decision—is to take those Amendments in the order proposed, and when they have been disposed of, and not till then, to put the Question that the clause do stand part of the Bill. The test is this—"What should we vote for?" There is no Question before the Committee until either an Amendment is proposed, or, in the absence of any Amendment, you, Sir, put the Question from the Chair that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The regular course in going through a Bill in Committee is for the Chairman to call from the Chair the clause at which we have arrived, and then to call upon the Member who first rises to address the Committee. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: Upon what Question?] The Member who rises to speak may be about to propose some Question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There must, I think, have been some misapprehension. My object in rising was not to propose this clause of the Bill, but to explain its general object.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I again rise to order. If the right hon. Gentleman is

  537
  going to conclude with a Motion, I apprehend he may be perfectly in order; but the Motion with which he must conclude is either a verbal Amendment in the clause, or else a Motion that you report Progress. It will be impossible to propose the general Question that the clause stand part of the Bill until the Amendments shall have been proposed and disposed of.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I called upon the right hon. Gentleman on the assumption that he would conclude with a Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson, I speak subject to your authority, but I believe it is an agreeable usage, and one eminently for the convenience of the Committee, that when a clause of great importance is proposed in a Bill, the person who is responsible for that Bill on the part of the Government should state to the House the sense in which the clause is proposed. ["No, no!"] That was the course I myself pursued in regard to the 4th clause, and not without convenience. [Mr. DISRAELI: I rise to order.] I am on a point of order. I was about to say that otherwise I should have no power of discussing the clause until we have arrived at the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. I believe it is a perfectly regular thing to have a discussion on a clause anterior to the proposal of the Amendments. ["No, no!"]
  MR. DISRAELI: What I understand is this. There are certain rules by which our business in Committee is regulated, and if the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the House speaks on the whole clause it leads, of course, to a debate upon the whole clause, and we make no progress whatever. In Committee those who address the Committee direct their remarks to Amendments only, of which notice ought to have been given; and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to propose an Amendment, as he has not given notice of his intention to do so. The precedent created by misconduct, when the right hon. Gentleman moved the 4th clause, is a precedent which we cannot admit. Many grave objections were taken to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, but of course where a Minister of the Crown is concerned one does not wish to construe with too great strictness the rules which are necessary for the conduct of business. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the 4th clause was, in reality, a speech
  538
  suited to the second reading of the Franchise Bill. Grave objections were raised, and I do not think that the irregular conduct of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion can be now adduced as a precedent, for it was contrary to all the rules and regulations by which business in Committee is regulated.
  MR. HORSMAN: I apprehend that we had better proceed according to the usual and established rules in Committee. I have never in my experience known an instance of a Minister of the Crown or any other Member, when the House was in Committee, rising to propose a particular clause. I was astonished when I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer take that course the other day. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech for an hour, no Question being before the House, and in proposing the clause was directly at variance with the established course of procedure. The course taken on that occasion gave rise to much discussion and remark; and although, owing to the respect which we all show to the Leader of the House, no one was disposed to call my right hon. Friend to order, we felt that it was extremely inconvenient for a Minister of the Crown to get up in the middle of a Committee and say that he was about to propose a clause, and in proposing it to anticipate Amendments before they bad been put from the Chair. With perfect respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I venture to suggest that it would be better if you, Sir, exercising your authority in the Chair—I will not say impartially to Ministers of the Crown and other Members, but at the same time not allowing the rules of the House to be transgressed beyond a certain point—were to take care that when we get into Committee the rules for conducting the business should be strictly adhered to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out what is the regular course of procedure. The clause is called by the Chairman, and the Member who first rises is called on by the Chairman on the assumption that he has a Motion to bring before the House. Reference has been made to what took place on the 4th clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to speak first, and as he proceeded the assumption on my part was that he was about to conclude with a Motion. He could either have moved an Amendment, or he could have made a Motion such as that the

  539
  clause stand part of the Bill; this Motion would have excluded, if put however, Amendments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understood you, Sir, to say that it is in my power to point out the nature of the clause, and to conclude with the Motion that it stand part of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I believe that to be a course I have taken myself upon a great number of clauses in a great number of Bills without interruption on a single occasion. Nevertheless, on the present occasion, great objection being taken, and this being a controverted matter, I will not exasperate discussion by proceeding further.
  MR. SANDFORD,who had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words "a borough," and insert "any borough with a population of not less than 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Census of 1861," said, he would for the present postpone moving his Amendment, as he thought it would be better to make the alteration he desired in the shape of a proviso added to the end of the clause.
  LORD DUNKELLINrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, the effect of which would be to substitute the principle of a rating franchise for that of net rental, and said, that before he proceeded to state the grounds upon which he had placed this Amendment upon the paper he thought it would be convenient, and indeed necessary, to state the precise object which his Amendment had in view, so as to place the matter in its clear and proper light before the Committee. He proposed to invite the Committee to consider the question whether rating was not the proper and most convenient basis for the borough franchise. Beyond that he did not intend to go. He did not intend to ask the Committee to decide on any particular figure at which the franchise ought to placed; he had no wish to decide how the exact value at which tenements or land should be rated to the poor to enable their occupiers to exercise the franchise—he did not wish in any way to connect the principle with the figure. If he could persuade the Committee to admit the principle of a rating franchise, it would be the duty of the Committee itself afterward to fix the figure at which the occupier should be rated. Speaking for himself, he freely owned that he did not think that £7 would be the proper figure to insert in the clause; he was himself prepared to consider a lower figure: and he
  540
  thought it would be more consistent with the principle of the Bill, and more in accordance with the wishes of those who were anxious to settle the question of Reform, that a lower figure should be adopted. The reasons inducing him to bring forward this Amendment were that he believed rating to be an easy, convenient, and constitutional mode of fixing the basis of the borough franchise; and he was glad to think in pursuing his present course, that he could not be charged, as the proposers of other Amendments had been, with introducing matter which had no reference to the question before the House, and which was merely introduced to delay discussion and to retard the progress of the Bill. On the contrary, he was advocating a strictly constitutional and a practically important principle. Neither did his proposal rest on any unestablished theory, but it was done with the working of which he had had practical experience in the operation of the rating franchise in Ireland. That franchise worked in an admirable manner, and was perfectly uniform in its operation. He could appeal with confidence to the experience of Irish Members during the two years that the rating franchise had been in operation for testimony to its utility and simplicity. The rating franchise was an easy franchise; it was easy for any one who was qualified to get upon the register, and, indeed, the difficulty would be to get off, because the rate book was the register, and by the rate book being the register the trouble, expense, and annoyance of registration were avoided. The rate book not only afforded a ready and handy means of ascertaining who were qualified to vote, but it was a self-acting and self-adjusting register; it was a register free from the operation of political influence, and it was one which it was the interest of every one in a borough to keep correct, because it was the interest of every man to see that he himself was not rated too highly to the relief of the poor, and at the same time that his neighbour was not rated at too low a figure, but was rated fairly so as to bear a due share of taxation. When he read in the newspapers the contradictory evidence given, and the interminable squabbles and curious disputes that took place annually before the Revising Barristers, he was more and more impressed with the advantage of the easy, simple, and uniform method which had been adopted for Ireland. The consideration of this question

  541
  could not be objected to as retarding Reform. He would not say now whether it was necessary to bring forward a Reform Bill this year or not, nor would he say, if the course was necessary, whether it was necessary to bring in a Bill in so hurried a manner and in so incomplete a form; but he would say that the question having been brought before them no Reform ought to be regarded as satisfactory, cautious, final, or, he might say, as even sensible, which did not deal in the first instance with the principle on which the franchise was to be based. That, indeed, was the first basis and element of Reform. What he understood to be meant by Parliamentary Reform with regard to the constituents was that the greatest number of fit and qualified persons should be admitted to the constituencies, having a due regard to their fitness and to the interest they had in the country to make them exercise the privilege of voting with caution and discretion. These ends, he maintained, would be secured by a rating franchise, and he did not know of any other means by which they could be accomplished. It was easy for any one to get upon the rate book, all that was required being the payment of the rate up to a certain date. There was an old dogma which they often heard, and always received, that taxation and representation should go together, and that was a good and sound principle; but he would suggest to those hon. Members who had been fond of repeating that dogma, that those who accepted that principle, and connected taxation with representation, ought on the other hand to associate representation with taxation. It was not too much to ask that those who voted for imposing taxation upon others should in some degree contribute towards that taxation themselves. What, then, was the simplest and best way of securing that taxation? He believed through the poor rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had dwelt with some force on the propriety of admitting the working classes to the franchise in consequence of the amount paid by them to the Excise in proportion to their incomes; but he (Lord Dunkellin) did not think the amount raised by indirect taxation on exciseable articles was so good a test of the propriety of giving a man a vote as was the fact that he contributed to the direct taxation. He desired the Committee to remember what the poor rate meant. It no longer meant simply payment for the relief of the poor, but in many bo-
  542
  roughs it included public works, buildings, improvements, roads—in fact, all those things which promoted the welfare and affected the condition of a borough were now charged to the poor rates. A man who contributed to these expenses was directly interested in sending the best representative of a place to Parliament; and he would think twice before throwing his vote away. Again, there was no test of the prosperity of the country so sensitive and delicate as that afforded by the Poor Law; when the country was prosperous the poor rates were low, but when commerce failed and times of difficulty and danger arose, the poor rates rose too; and when the poor rates rose he who paid them would criticize the more keenly the conduct of his Parliamentary representative. All these things, he thought, tended to show that a rating register was the most convenient that could be adopted. Another reason in its favour was that it was formed on the basis of the old scot and lot franchise, the scot and lot having merged into the poor rate. That old franchise not only commended itself to them by its antiquity, but it was supported by a number of eminent authorities, all of whom were more or less worthy of attention. It was a source of great satisfaction to him to find that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was in favour of it, and he expected the hon. Gentleman would go into the same lobby with him when they came to vote upon this Amendment. Speaking at Rochdale in 1859, the hon. Member for Birmingham used these words—
  "It may be asked, why keep up the conditions as to the six months, or why take only those who during that or some other period shall pay their rates? I put to every man, whatever be his theoretical notions, whether he believes it would be beneficial for the constituencies to include some score in a small borough, or some hundreds in others, of a class of which there are unhappily so many among us. I mean the exceedingly poor, some of them intemperate, some profligate, some naturally incapable, but all of them in a condition of dependence, which gives us no reasonable expectation that they would be able to resist the temptations which rich and unscrupulous men would offer them."
  He heard it said that this speech was made in favour of household rating suffrage. Very likely; but he (Lord Dunkellin) had not attempted to fix any figure at which the rating franchise should begin; he merely advocated the principle of a rating suffrage—the principle that those rated to the poor should be entitled to this privilege

  543
  of citizenship. One advantage of the rating franchise, and by no means a small advantage, was that it by no means shut the door against a large extension of the franchise, but, on the contrary, opened the door to the intelligent, hard-working, cautious mechanic in every town. A £6 rating franchise would let in as many as would become entitled to vote under a £7 rental franchise. ["No, no!"] This might be matter of opinion, but he believed that the £6 rating would be about equivalent to a £7 5s. rental qualification; and you would then have some guarantee that the voter would be one who would give his vote with due deliberation and caution. Not only did the hon. Member for Birmingham give a rating franchise the weight of his good opinion, but at the end of the last century the principle was advocated by Mr. Fox, who said it was the safest and most proper principle on which the franchise could be based. It was also advocated by one whose authority to speak on the question would not be disputed. In the Reform Bills of 1852 and 1854 Lord John Russell admitted the rating principle; and though those Bills came to nothing, he (Lord Dunkellin) had not heard that their rejection had anything to do with their adoption of the rating principle. In the Bill of 1852 a £5 rating franchise was adopted, and a rating franchise was also adopted in the Bill of 1854, and on that occasion Earl Russell said—
  "According to the old doctrine of representation, wherever the right is known in a borough, every person paying scot and lot had the right to vote, and that right, extending down to the very lowest class of householders, was accompanied by no other check than the payment of what in the ancient laws came under the general definition of "scot and lot," which in modern times has merged into the poor rate, payment of which is always insisted upon before the voter can exercise his right."—[3 Hansard, cxxx. 506.]
  Those were the views of Earl Russell in 1854, and it was not easy to see why they were not equally applicable now. In the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835, rating was made the basis of the franchise; that was also the case in Sturges Bourne's Act, and in the London Corporation Amendment Act passed a few years ago. He therefore felt that this franchise came before the House with all the weight of authority and constitutional precedent; and also that a rating register would be found to be simple, self-acting, self-controlling, easy, cheap, and convenient. It was difficult, therefore, to understand by what
  544
  argument he would be met by those who opposed his Amendment. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), when he proposed a county rating franchise, was met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the objection that it was an attempt to introduce a new principle into the county franchise. It was true that there always had been some difference between the franchise for boroughs and that for counties; but in boroughs there had always been a rating franchise, and therefore that objection would not apply to his (Lord Dunkellin's) Amendment. If a new principle had been introduced at all, it had been introduced by the framers of the Bill and not by him. Another objection which would probably be urged to his proposal was the variety and inequality of the rating franchise. But in 1852 and 1854, when Earl Russell advocated a rating franchise, parish rating existed; there was not the same uniformity of rating then as existed now, but in spite of this the rating principle then found no objectors. It might be true that a rating valuation differed in different places; but a rental valuation differed a great deal more. The object of legislation of late years had been to substitute union for parish rating—that was as far as possible to equalize rating all over the country and to make it as nearly the same in every place as the different conditions of different districts would admit. But no such step was possible with regard to rental. In parts of the same parish—even on opposite sides of the same street—there might be great varieties of rental. The houses on one side of a road might, from a variety of circumstances, be rented much more heavily than those just opposite to them upon the other side. One owner might be indisposed to disturb old tenants and might let them continue at the same rent, while close by another owner might try to get as much rent as could be got. It was no argument to say that because in some large boroughs different unions might assess houses at different rates, the difference was so great as to make it dangerous to fix the franchise on that basis. On the contrary, he believed that that was the simplest and the most correct course that could be pursued. But though the late course of legislation with respect to union rating had done much to exemplify and equalize it, yet it would be said that there was not one universal system of rating throughout

  545
  England. But why should there not be? He did not suppose for a moment that when a question of such importance as that affecting the franchise was involved it would be considered a valid excuse that the thing could not be done because there would be some trouble in making the assessments. For his own part, he hoped the necessary arrangements were already made, or nearly so, because on the occasion of the Highways Act Amendment Bill being brought on in Committee in 1864, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board stated that the whole question of deductions and exemptions would receive his attentive consideration with a view to legislation in the following Session. Well, they had not yet seen the result of that attentive consideration; but for all that he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to smooth every obstacle that might present itself in the way of a rating franchise scheme. There was another objection that might be advanced against his present proposal, and that was that it would interpose a barrier, steady and fixed, to the descent to universal suffrage. Whether that might be considered a valid objection by anyhow. Gentleman sitting near him he did not know, but he owned that to him it was one of the greatest recommendations of his proposal. The assessment principle would not prevent any honest, industrious, thrifty man of the poorer classes from getting on the register, but it would prevent the idle, intemperate, careless man, whom they could not answer for, from doing so, That was a sound and intelligible ground upon which to make a stand against universal suffrage, and it was one of the reasons which should recommend the adoption of the principle to the Committee. He did not know of any other objection which could be raised to the proposal. If, therefore, he was correct in his estimate of a rating franchise—if it shut the door against no one who was deserving to enter, if it opened it to all that ought to have votes, if it was easily managed, if it would save expense, contradictions, and bad blood; if from his experience of its working in his own country he could state that it had been so successful that no one there wished to see it altered—and, in fact, the only question it suggested to Irish Members was, "What on earth do they bring in an Irish Reform Bill for?"—if it had all these advantages it would, in his opinion, be wise to extend
  546
  the principle to England. Believing, as he did, that all these advantages would be immediately felt, and that any difficulties which might stand in the way could be easily overcome, he begged to move, as an Amendment, to leave out in Clause 5, line 13, the words "clear yearly value," in order to insert in their place "rateable value."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he rose to second the Amendment of the noble Lord, and he felt that his task would be a brief one after the able speech of the noble Lord, and the excellent letter of Mr. Baxter in The Times that morning, which seemed to have exhausted the subject. It was argued when a similar proposition was brought forward in regard to counties, and therefore they might expect that it would be argued again, that, though rateable value might be a good standard in voting for local purposes, because every one was treated alike, it was bad for enlarged areas of Parliamentary representation, because in them the formation of rateable value was made on varying principles, and one man might be enfranchised and another deprived of the franchise, though occupying houses of similar value. But that was an argument which would apply in great measure to gross estimated rental, which varied in every degree from rack rent to 20 and 25 per cent below. Again, it was an objection the force of which recent legislation had very much diminished. Assessments were, or ought to be, made on one principle throughout a union, and they knew that many Parliamentary boroughs were conterminous with unions, while still more formed part of one union, and were wholly included in it. In these the objection at once fell to the ground. Moreover, the fact that county rates, highway rates, and others extending beyond the limits of unions, were levied according to union assessment, and the necessity, since the Union Chargeability Act, of reconstructing unions throughout the country, showed that at no distant date the principle of assessment would be assimilated in a still greater degree, and probably be identical as to all property within the county boundaries. And it might be well supposed that, were the Parliamentary franchise dependent on rateable value, the desire of each side to secure their fair share would react upon the rate books, improve the principle of assessment, and get rid of many inequalities which still deformed them. A great deal, and not too much,

  547
  had been said about the expenses of elections, but there were other expenses connected with registration before the election took place which were often onerous to sitting Members. These, he believed, would be much lessened by making the rate book the basis of the list of voters. In that way a self-acting registration would be secured, and there would be fewer squabbles before Revising Barristers, fewer objections to votes made on the chance of their not being defended, or on the chance of the Revising Barrister being unfit for his work. There would be fewer of those struggles with which all were familiar on the eve of general elections, to appoint overseers of particular political bias, the result of which sometimes appeared in the registration lists. Nothing secured accuracy so much as making a list depend upon actual payment, or liability to be called upon for payment of money. When the franchise was an incident of the rate book, it was more likely to be correctly fixed than when rental valuations were given in for the express purpose of acquiring it. There were, indeed, some advanced Reformers who desired to see votes multiplied according to taxation, and the Government had adopted the principle in their Redistribution Bill by multiplying Members of large constituencies. Without expressing an opinion upon the point as to whether this system which prevailed in local should be extended to Imperial matters, he might take it as an indication of the general feeling that the rating basis of the franchise commended itself both to those who appealed to precedent and those who advocated progress. He thought a £6 rating would be preferable to a £7 rental, not because, as had been said, the franchise would then be 5s. higher, but because the rating principle was the right one, and the municipal and Parliamentary franchise would thus be uniform. But he should not be candid did he not confess that he should prefer a £7 rating because it was higher. He did plead guilty to the opinion that the Government were reducing the borough franchise too low. Without going deeply into figures, which were, as the noble Lord had said, so difficult to follow, he might simply instance his own constituency, where, according to Government Returns—and if they were wrong they formed the only basis both for their arguments and for the Bill, and he had no reason to doubt their being substantially correct in this instance—he found
  548
  that the working class formed more than 23 per cent of the electors, and if the Government Bill passed, they would be nearly 40 per cent, while on the opposite page Sheffield showed 26 per cent at present, and would show more than 50 per cent in future. The working classes on the borough register of all England would be raised from 128,600, or 26 per cent, to 335,000, or nearly one-half of all the electors. These results had, it was well known, taken the country by surprise, and were so little expected by Her Majesty's Government, that they had ever since been trying to discredit their own witness. Indeed, the House found itself in something like the position of the Royal Society investigating the question propounded by Charles II., according to the well-known story; and while they had been arguing why the working man should not be excluded, it turned out that he was already present in considerable force. He had never expressed an opinion in that House, though he had twice opposed the £6 franchise of the hon. Member for Leeds, that there were not people in even lower ranks than they now proposed to admit who were quite worthy of the franchise; much more so, indeed, than many of those far above them. He could fancy even paupers in the Strand Union with more correct views of public duty than some of those guardians who had lately made themselves notorious; but he viewed with apprehension the preponderance of any class, especially of the least independent. He heard the other day of carpenters striking for an advance of wages, who told their employers they were well paid and well satisfied, but were bound by their union to demand more. It seemed to him mere begging the question to talk of the various opinions of working men when they submitted to dictation like that in what were to them the most essential concerns of life. The hon. Member for Bradford, now Under Secretary for the Colonies, had said in 1863 that he could bring forward working men of Bradford who were quite capable of discussing politics, and holding their own against himself (Mr. Cave). He had no doubt he could; nay, more, although he had naturally a much higher opinion of his hon. Friend's powers than he had of his (Mr. Cave's), he had little doubt that some might be found there and elsewhere who would be no mean match for him. But one swallow did not make a summer. If they could get these men within the

  549
  pale, as it was called, they would be proud of them. Most of them, he supposed, were there already, and certainly they would not be excluded by a £7 rating. He was quite aware that no one on that (the Opposition) side of the House could support even such a moderate modification as the present without being called an enemy to Reform. The hon. Member for Birmingham had already told the country that the whole House hated Reform. If so, what power must not the masses have already to make the House swallow what it so much disliked! But if they took certain portions of the Government scheme, and especially the great lowering of the borough franchise, he supposed he was pretty nearly right. The opinions one heard in the lobbies and elsewhere—aye, in other clubs besides the Carlton—contrasted remarkably with the votes on divisions, and showed what a number of delegates there must already be in what ought to be a House of independent representatives. He readily believed that three-fourths of hon. Members opposite would gladly get rid of the whole question if they could only avoid the odium and fix it upon the Opposition. They would slay the Reform Bill, but it must be with the sword of the children of Ammon. There were two kinds of Reformers—Radical and Conservative. The Conservative wished to admit the working classes to a larger share in the government of the country without destroying the balance of power, which had, even according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, worked so well. The Radical would admit them for the purpose of destroying that balance. To use a homely similitude, the Conservative thought the proof of the pudding was in the eating; the Radical thought its excellence consisted in the multitude of cooks. What chance did this £7 franchise give of settling the question? It had been said that £14 was taken for the counties because it was twice £7; but he might with equal reason say that £7 was chosen because it was half £14, or, perhaps, because it was not £6. He confessed he would take a £6 rating, though he had said he considered it too low, if he thought it would settle the question at least for our time. But what chance was there of this? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in his opinion—and they knew how rapidly his opinions formed the ground of action—they might safely go further. The whole Government three times voted for the £6 rental of
  550
  the hon. Member for Leeds, and by so doing they did not merely, in the language of the Secretary for the Home Department, "affirm a principle;" they committed themselves to a figure. But the hon. Member for Leeds himself had already been knocked down and run over in his own borough, for the son of the head of the Government, that veteran statesman who, in Oriental phrase, would be called the grandfather of Reform Bills, refused to support his Colleague that was to be because he was not advanced enough, and yet at that very time the municipal elections of Leeds were giving an instructive lesson, which those who ran might read, though the hon. Member for Montrose had failed to read it—perhaps because he ran too fast. It was proved before the County Court of Leeds—the story would be found in The Times of March 8, 1865—that the Conservatives had purchased votes at 4s. each, while the other side were more liberal in practice as well as in name, for they gave 5s., and had begun to do so the year before. He wished to avoid arguments which more properly belonged to the debate on the second reading of the Bill, though it was somewhat difficult to do so. He supported this Amendment on two grounds. He supported it because he thought rating a more convenient and more certain standard than rental, more consistent with all recent legislation, as well as with ancient usage; and he supported it on the ground that he wished to admit to the franchise those of the working classes who had by the exercise of prudence and self-restraint placed themselves in a respectable position. If the present limit proved a barrier, he was quite ready to lower it; but he feared they would only create an undue preponderance of one class by consenting to reduce the qualification to the extent proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, to leave out the words "clear yearly," in order to insert the word "rateable,"—(Lord Dunkellin,)—instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has undisguisedly argued for the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Dunkellin) on the ground that it has a tendency to restrict the suffrage. My noble Friend has, indeed, said that he does not now propose to fix the franchise at the figure at which it is to stand;

  551
  but for the present I merely note the argument of the hon. Gentleman as indicating the tendency of the Amendment. And I further observe that my noble Friend himself, while disclaiming any intention to bind the House by his Motion, appeared to express his readiness to adopt as the standard of the franchise the rateable value of £6, which would materially curtail the plan of the Government.
  Now, Sir, I wish to point out to my noble Friend and to the hon. Gentleman that in all they have said bearing properly on the merits of the Motion a fallacy runs through their speeches. They make a comparison between their proposed system of rateable value, and the system that now exists of a perfectly independent judicial examination before the Revising Barrister without the aid of the rate book. All through the speech of my noble Friend there was not a word to show he was cognizant of the great changes introduced by the Bill in this respect. I am not sure that my noble Friend has so much as examined the table on which the rating is to be fixed, and seen whether there is or is not in that table a column of gross estimated rental. If he is aware of the column of gross estimated rental in that table, and of the place it occupies in this Bill, it is only the more surprising that he should draw his contrast all along between the system of rateable value and the system that now prevails, and should have failed to notice the important change which we propose. My noble Friend says he has drawn his Amendment from the Irish system. What the Irish system is I leave to be explained in detail by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. In the meantime I will only say that it is totally different from the system proposed to be introduced by my noble Friend. It is different, because it is entirely uniform throughout the whole country. It is different, because it is administered by Government officers. It is different, because it depends upon a basis of rating which partakes in some degree of the system of rateable value, and in some degree of the column of gross estimated rental, but corresponds with neither. The Scotch system, as I understand it, does very nearly correspond with the column of gross estimated rental, and that system gives as much satisfaction in Scotland
  552
  as the Irish system gives in Ireland. I do not find fault with the system that prevails in Ireland, but while in its entirety it is plainly inapplicable to England, I contend that it has quite as much affinity with the system we propose as it has with the system of rateable value. That may be mere matter of opinion; I only allude to it for the sake of collateral illustration. It is secondary in its bearing on the present question, for the method proposed by the Amendment is not the Irish method. I will now go to the merits of the question.
  After hearing the speech of my noble Friend I could not help feeling that I might have saved him trouble if I could have been permitted to state distinctly at the outset the issue involved in this portion of the clause. My noble Friend, in his speech, has mingled together three or four questions that are in reality entirely distinct. He has apparently assumed that he is producing by the Motion he makes a variety of results, and all these he combines one with another, but in regard to some of them it appears doubtful whether his Motion would have the effect he desires or not. One portion of the clause which he proposes to amend relates to the moderate amount of enfranchisement which the Government seek to effect—an amount which I stated at 144,000 — by the reduction of the £7 franchise, and a further estimated addition of 60,000 by the combined operation of the abolition of the ratepaying clauses and the new provisions relative to compound householders. From that moderate amount of enfranchisement we are not, under any circumstances or conditions, prepared to recede. By it we intend to stand. There are various propositions to be brought before the notice of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) proposes an £8 clause, and to substitute for the 144,000 proposed by the Government an enfranchisement of 79,000, thus striking off 65,000. The Small Tenements Act, which draws the line, not at £6, but at ratings over £6, gives an enfranchisement of 67,000 instead of 144,000. The £6 rating of my hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. Gaskell) would give an enfranchisement of about 105,000, falling short by 40,000 of the numbers we propose. That project which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has had the satisfaction of suggesting to the

  553
  House — namely, a £7 rating, would, thirty-four years after the Reform Bill, liberally conduce to introduce a new body of about 45,000 to the constituency. That is at a rate of enfranchisement including about 1,400 or 1,500 a year of the population of this country. And certainly, if the hon. Gentleman can establish such a rate of enfranchisement as that for the guidance of our own and of future times, he will, I think, be pretty secure at least against any error in the way of excess. But, Sir, whether it be 45,000 or 67,000, or 105,000, I embrace all in the same category, and I frankly state that to no one of them are we prepared to accede.
  The political part of this Motion is one thing, and the practical part of it is another. But on the political part of it I would say that although my noble Friend does not profess to fix the standard of the franchise by his Motion, he yet lays down principles in his speech that would strike off 60,000 from the numbers we propose to enfranchise. We propose to abolish the ratepaying clause and introduce provisions that will enable compound householders to be registered with facility, though they may not be rated individually. To both of these provisions my right hon. Friend objects. Therefore he begins by striking off 60,000 from the number that we propose to enfranchise, and as he spoke with great favour of a £6 rating instead of a £7 rental, he would in this way strike off 40,000 more; so that he exactly bisects the effects of our proposal. [Lord DUNKELLIN was understood to say that he did not touch the law relating to compound householders.] I do not speak of my noble Friend's intention; but if he would have the law respecting compound householders as it is, that means he would defeat the proposed alteration which brings in the compound householders. My noble Friend would leave the law as it is with respect to compound householders; but by the combined operation of what he says and what he proposes he would strike off 60,000, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. Gaskell) would strike off another 40,000 from our total enfranchisement, so that a deduction of one-half from the total enfranchisement in boroughs seems to be the aim of our more moderate opponents. But having spoken, I hope, plainly and intelligibly, on that part of the subject, I come now to the practical effect of the clause, and to
  554
  the argument raised by my noble Friend for a basis of reteable value in lieu of one of clear yearly value as proposed by the Government.
  And, differing and departing entirely from the method pursued in his argument by my noble Friend, who compared the thing he proposed with a thing which nobody proposed, I shall take the liberty of comparing his proposal with that proposal which we make to the House. Now, there are four questions that in this matter may be raised, which it is of vital consequence to keep separate and distinct, but which were hopelessly mingled in the speech of my noble Friend. The first is, shall the voter himself personally be rated as a condition of his obtaining the franchise? The next is, shall he before registration have to pay all rates which are at the time due from him? These two questions are absolutely and totally distinct from each other. You cannot, indeed, adopt the second provision without also adopting the first, but you may take the first without the second. Then the third question is, shall the franchise be ruled as it is ruled in this Bill—that is, upon the clear annual value, explained and presumptively ascertained by the column of gross estimated rental; or shall it be ruled by the column of rateable value? That is the third question; and that I take to be the proper object of my noble Friend's Motion. But he mixed these questions as if they had been one question all the way through his speech. ["No!"] Then, let the matter be quite understood. If I have mistaken him, I am very glad; but I speak after attentively listening to his argument. Let it be understood that we have nothing to do now with determining whether the man himself shall be rated or not, or shall have paid his rates, and that those two questions are reserved for some future period. Then, the question now is whether the value of the occupation in right of which he is to vote is to be calculated upon the column of rateable value. But there is a fourth question of very great importance, and which my noble Friend—he will correct me if I am wrong—also treated as involved in his Motion, and that is as distinct from the third question as the third is distinct from the second and first. It is the question whether the valuation made by the local authorities shall be final, or whether there shall be an appeal and a judicial process, if the voter desires it, before the Revising Barrister.

  555
  In his Motion he takes it that there is to be no appeal to the Revising Barrister. [Lord DUNKELLIN here observed that there is an appeal against the judgment of the assessment committee.] That I quite understand. My noble Friend proposes to leave the course of appeal as it is for the purposes of local taxation, but he proposes to do away with the power of appeal to the Revising Barrister for the defence of a political privilege. Then, the third and fourth of these questions are embraced in his speech and in the object of the noble Lord. I am bound to say I believe it to be at least doubtful whether they are embraced with equal effect in his Motion. That his Motion would have the effect of fixing upon rateable value as the primâ facie ground on which the occupation must be considered and estimated is perfectly clear; but I do not know whether the noble Lord has referred to the very strong language in which the Revising Barrister is authorized by the Reform Act to insert in the list of voters the name of every person who shall be proved to his satisfaction to be entitled on the last day of July then next preceding. [Mr. WALPOLE: That is, according to the value.] I apprehend it is very doubtful whether that might not be held to make the title of the voter still subject to review by the Revising Barrister, and the Revising Barrister not finding that there are any absolute words which make the rateable value as stated in the columns of the rate book decisive for the purposes of the Act, might say, I will take the case on the ground of the rateable value, but I will ascertain whether the rateable value has been rightly calculated by the local authorities. ["Oh!"] That I take to be an ambiguity, and if so it is an ambiguity in a matter which ought to be quite clear; I do not, however, take it to be more. But I had better deal with the Motion as it is intended by my noble Friend, and consider that we have now before us a Motion which does these two things—In the first place, it fixes that the occupation in right of which the man is to vote is to be estimated according to the column of rateable value; and, in the second place, the Revising Barrister is to be ousted altogether, and the course of appeal is to be that which is provided for the purposes of local taxation and no other. That is the intention with which the Motion is made by my noble Friend. Then so far, at any rate, we get upon clear ground; and we must put out of view
  556
  everything that has been said about the test of character afforded by the actual payment of rates and matters of that kind, which are not in any way touched by the Motion, with which at present we have no concern whatever. Therefore, Sir, I will address myself to these two questions. And, first, as to the question of rateable value which it is proposed for the first time in this country to make the basis of the political franchise. We have argued—and no person has been able to show the reverse—that rateable value is a test false in principle. Rateable value is intended to establish the net value of the property. Rateable value is the just, the obvious, the legitimate basis of any or of all operations having reference to local taxation. The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the clever letter of Mr. Baxter in The Times of this morning, informing us that there are eight or ten Acts of Parliament which take the rateable value as the basis and standard of the powers they confer. Certainly, and most properly, they do; for every one of them applies to local taxation. But who pays local taxation. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) spoke as if the tenant ultimately and really paid local taxation. Why, it is borne by the property, and, as it is borne by the property, the test of rateable value being that which enables you to ascertain the true or net value, the value to the landlord, it is of course made the basis of local taxation. And we should be as inconsistent and incongruous in our plans if we proposed a departure from the basis of rateable value for the purpose of taxing property as I say my noble Friend is inconsistent in taking rateable value as the basis of the law for fixing the political franchise. The proper basis of political franchise, dependent on occupation, is not the net value of the property to the landlord, but is the capacity of the occupier to pay. And whether the sum be £7, £10, £14, or any other amount that is paid as rent, it is an equally just and good test of the capacity of the voter to pay, whatever may be the rateable value that is set against his occupation. The rateable value has nothing whatever to do with the point we have now in view. It goes to a different end. It is constructed for a different purpose. And, if we are really to argue this, which, after all, ought to be a practical question, with reference to the reason of the case, and are not to be governed by the purposes of hon. Gentlemen opposite who may wish to accomplish

  557
  restriction under the name of enfranchisement, and may prefer, perhaps, a colourable Motion to one directly aiming at that object—let us really follow the true reason of the case, and take the rateable value for those things to which it is applicable, and not for those things with which it has no natural connection.
  But, then, I come to the question of inequalities. Now, those inequalities are of two descriptions—namely, inequalities arising from caprice or carelessness, and inequalities arising from necessity. It is not denied that both kinds of inequality exist. But, then, my noble Friend draws an ingenious comparison between the supposed owners of imaginary properties on two sides of a street. He naturally assigns to the old proprietor on the one side the graceful function of allowing his property to be let below its true value; and the new proprietor, who owns the houses on the other side, he describes on the other hand as divested of every human feeling, and intent only upon extorting from the tenants the last farthing they can pay. Well, Sir, let that pass. But my noble Friend thinks that his reference to two sides of a street makes against the gross estimated rental and in favour of the rateable value. But does it so make? He says, "Here is a man who is bent on extorting the last penny out of his fellow-creatures, and with his gigantic fortune he buys up all the houses on one side of a street." He put a case where on one side of the street the landlord is a gentleman descended from a long line of ancestors—a class, he says, always free from the slightest taint of avarice, and has a number of houses paying him £7 a year, and a gentleman owning the property on the other side of the street has tenants in houses which pay £10, or a still lower figure, while all the time the houses at £7 are as good as the houses at £10; and then, he says, observe how unequal in its operation is the gross estimated rental. Well, but precisely the same inequality which would thus be established in the case of gross estimated rental would also exist with regard to rateable value. But if, in addition to the inequality thus established, it happens that one side of the street is in one union and the other in another, different rates of deduction being fixed in the two unions, why, then I say the inequality would be not only reproduced, but aggravated. And I challenge any man confidently who may argue in this debate to point out any single source
  558
  of error which may come into the column of gross estimated rental which will not pass on unremedied in to the column of rateable value; whereas we can point out a number of errors in the column of rateable value, which are not to be found in the column of gross estimated rental at all. All this my noble Friend has wholly omitted to observe. Sir, I quoted some of these cases the other day. The hon. Member for Northampton was good enough, since the former debate, to give me a note which he had received, contradicting the statement which I made as to Bury St. Edmund's; but I quoted from official documents, in which the statement was given in detail (and it is open to the inspection of the hon. Gentleman) that from houses of the same value situate in two different towns, the deductions amounted in one case to one-tenth, and in the other to one-sixth. Now, that is a source of error in the rateable value column additional to, and independent of, any errors which may be found in the column of gross estimated rental. Does the same hold good in the Irish system? [Lord DUNKELLIN: No. There is only one column there.] Then, if there is only one column, my noble Friend has no right to argue from the Irish system. It is for every purpose a different system from ours; and the noble Lord has been led by the use of the word "rating" into supposing that it is the same system, when for the purposes of the present argument, the fact is entirely otherwise.
  Here, again, is the case of Oxford which Gentlemen may study for themselves. They have not indeed the verified documents before them, the essential particulars would have entailed a great deal of trouble; but I have taken this from the pages of the blue book, where they are given in summary. In St. John's, Oxford, the deductions are in one parish 20 per cent, and in another 33¼ and these are not made because in one parish the materials of the dwellings are good and durable, and in another flimsy and unsubstantial, for the rates I have named are applied to buildings of the same class in both parishes. If Gentlemen will study these most useful papers they will find that the inequalities there recorded are almost always inequalities in deductions upon houses of the same classes, and that they grow wholly or mainly out of the views taken by different assessment committees. Again, take the case of Liverpool. At Everton and Kirkdale

  559
  the deductions amount to 20 per cent; at Toxteth they reach 25 per cent; while in Liverpool itself there is an uniform deduction of 10 per cent—I mean in Liverpool, strictly so called; but Everton, Kirkdale, and Toxteth, are substantially parts of Liverpool. Hence, the Motion of the noble Lord is, I do not hesitate to affirm, a deliberate proposal to establish different political franchises in the same towns. Men whose circumstances are in every respect the same, who live in the same place and under the same local government, who associate together as towns. men, inhabiting houses for which they pay equal rents, will yet be placed at different amounts in the rate book, and consequently one will obtain while the other will be debarred from the franchise, simply because they happen to reside in different unions though in the same town. Then it is said, "Let the unions make their rates more equally." That is all very well to say, but the thing is not done, and it would be a very difficult thing to do. How are we to induce many hundreds of these local bodies to take precisely the same view of such a subject as the deductions to be made from gross estimated rental? We may make some further approximation to equality, but we shall never attain equality without introducing a central authority. If we are prepared to have a central authority, which we are not, going round from union to union, and fixing in each the basis upon which local taxation is to be paid, then, I grant, the thing may be done; but even then it could only be done in time. Even then, what would happen? You would not get rid of the second portion of the difficulty; for, though these inequalities which have reference to the different materials and durability and solidity of dwellings are objectionable with respect to the political franchise, for the purposes of local taxation they are inequalities that ought to be retained. If there are two rooms, the ordinary repairs of one of which amount to 5 per cent, and the other to 20 per cent, the effect will be, in the case of two men paying equal rates, that you will enfranchise one and disfranchise the other. If, on the other hand, to get over that difficulty and gross solecism, you compound in both cases and fix the deductions at 12½ per cent, you merely change the injustice from the right hand to the left, and you commit just as gross a wrong with a regard to the purposes of
  560
  local taxation as you committed before for the purposes of the political franchise.
  Again, Sir, I do not think my noble Friend remembered that there are certain descriptions of property in this country which are not rated at all. Under our Bill there is nothing to be done but to ascertain the clear annual value, and the owner would become at once enfranchised; but according to the proposal of my noble Friend the occupier of these premises, inasmuch as they have no rateable value, could not appear upon the rate book at all, and therefore the effect of his Amendment would be to disfranchise all the owners of mines in Cornwall, for I suppose, as matter of course, that my noble Friend will seek to apply to the counties the principle for which he contends, and at the proper season to remodel the clause that has already passed in accordance with his view.
  It is argued, indeed, by my noble Friend that the old precedent of scot and lot is in favour of his proposal; but the old precedent of scot and lot has nothing to do with his argument or his plan. So far as it really bears upon the present subject, it is an argument, it is in favour of household suffrage, and a good deal of my noble Friend's speech tended, whether with his own consciousness or not, in that direction. Scot and lot had no relation whatever to amount. It was perfectly insignificant whether your rateable value was correct or incorrect; whether you were rated at 1d. or at £100, was totally immaterial; it was the simple fact of paying a rate that constituted scot and lot. I will not go back upon the Acts, such as Local Government Acts, Health of Towns Acts and others, which have made such an impression on the mind of the hon. Member for Shoreham that he hardly knew what to say, and complained that the materials which ought to have formed his speech had been anticipated by the reference made in Mr. Baxter's printed letter to their provisions. I believe there is one single case, the Beerhouse Act—rather a narrow foundation for a Parliamentary Constitution — where rateable value is the test, and where the law is, notwithstanding, one that does not relate to taxation. The general rule is that the test of rateable value should in all cases be connected with local taxation and with the distribution of local power. That is a good and rational law, but good and rational because adapted to its end; and it would become bad and irrational if it were

  561
  carried to the purpose that is now proposed, and applied to an end to which it has no application whatever.
  I come to another question of great moment; the proposal to oust the Revising Barrister. I think it very much to be regretted that this question should be raised incidentally to another matter, quite difficult and complex enough in itself; but it was a point, apparently the main if not the only point, on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire dwelt the other night. He saw what I confess I had not seen at first, that the hon. Member for Northampton intended to oust the Revising Barrister, and to fix the matter upon a basis admitting of no appeal except to local authority.
  MR. HUNT: As regards the occupiers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly, as regards that class of voters who are to vote in respect of occupation, and not of property.
  MR. WHITESIDE: The value would determine the right to the franchise.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, but it would determine it in a different mode from the present, and from the mode proposed by the Bill. This question of the Revising Barrister is one of very great extent and difficulty. It is also one that I think it would be very desirable to discuss in a separate form, and not incidentally to this matter of rateable value. I admit that it would be a great object to get rid of the costs and the trouble of registration. But the benefits of that object, if you gained it, would be lost if you introduced the very same class of questions upon another arena to be decided by bodies less judicial and less competent. The effect of that would be that, though you would change the tribunal, you would increase the litigation. Again, it is a very serious matter—I do not know what precedent for it my hon. Friend has been able to find in our Parliamentary history—it is a very serious matter to propose that the political rights of the people in respect of admission to the franchise shall be placed in the hands of local government and of the local authorities. That is a very grave and most serious question, which ought to receive much more attention from us than it can receive while hopelessly mixed up with questions apparently as yet so little understood as that of rateable value. But, again, the large majority of the boroughs of this country
  562
  —of course I mean the small boroughs—are boroughs united to external parishes, united for Poor Law purposes with a great number of rural parishes in the neighbourhood. Those parishes are represented on the Board by Guardians. Every parish, however small, is represented by a Guardian. The consequence is that the Board is constituted, in an overwhelming proportion, of the Guardians of rural parishes; and the proposal is that these Guardians from rural parishes should practically fix the franchise for the boroughs. I am glad to see my noble Friend shake his head. It may be said that there is an appeal; but even if that be so, I must observe it is not enough to say you provide a good appeal. Your business is to provide a good tribunal in the first instance; but I believe I am correct in stating that in a large majority of the boroughs of this country the Guardians of the rural districts would fix the borough franchise if the Motion of my noble Friend were carried.
  MR. HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then how is the Poor Law assessment made?
  MR. HUNT: The assessment committee of the union and not the Guardians act in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The members of that committee are the representatives of the Board of Guardians.
  MR. HUNT: The Board of Guardians have to appoint them. They appoint a certain number of magistrates and a certain number of ratepayers, and therefore I should think the country parishes will not be able to override the town parishes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has at all improved the case; because the Boards of Guardians, which is empowered to choose the assessment committee, are composed in an overwhelming proportion of the Guardians of rural parishes. I find that by a clause in the Act of 1862 upon Parochial Assessments, it is provided that the Guardians shall appoint from among themselves a Committee of not less than six nor more than twelve members for the assessment of the union, and that one-third of such committee, at least, shall consist of ex officio Guardians.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Read the next

  563
  clause, which contains a provision for the appointment of an equal number by the Town Council.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, but only in those where the union has the same bounds as the borough; that is to say, in the cases to which I made no reference whatever. I am entitled to presume that I might take the meaning of the clause from the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance. If I had taken it from his assurance, I should have had reason to regret the consequences. I repeat then, Sir, that it would be a serious thing to give the fixing of the political franchise to local persons—persons connected, as, happily I think, the great bulk of Englishmen are, with political parties, and not restrained, as a Revising Barrister is restrained, from indulging their political proclivities by judicial habits and judicial knowledge.
  Now, I take another point. Supposing that, in a small borough, an assessment committee, with a view to political objects, underrated 100 voters, 100 voters would turn the scale in a small borough. Suppose an inhabitant of a borough ought to be rated at £7, but that, instead of rating him at that amount, the assessment committee put him down at £6 15 s.—which they might do if the Member for Shoreham has his way, and if he forms his Government for the purpose of carrying a £7 rating franchise into law—the effect would be that this inhabitant would not have a vote. Now, this might be done in 100 cases, and the cost would be very small. It would only amount to the loss of the rate on some £20, and would it not be worth incurring such a loss to disqualify 100 opponents? Nor is it of much avail that another ratepayer might appeal against this underrating of his neighbours. For the appeal would have but little chance where the divergence from the true amount was small. ["Oh, oh!"] Now, Sir, I am not saying that every man is a rogue. Suppose, however, that (as I fear we must suppose) persons are rogues, or suppose a man who, not being a rogue, is at all events an eager or even an unscrupulous partizan on one side or the other; and I ask whether there would not be afforded to such a person an opportunity of depriving a number of opponents of their votes at a very small cost? I may be told, perhaps, that the ratepayer might appeal and have his rate raised. I do not know whether it has been decided that a
  564
  person can appeal to have his rate raised; but I can imagine a case in which it might be desirable to procure a few votes by raising the assessment. Suppose a £7 rating franchise be adopted, and that 100 persons were rated at £6 15 s., you might increase their ratings to £7 5s., or even a smaller sum, thus making votes at a cost much the same as that to which I referred in connection with the contrary process. The whole amount of loss would be not more than £50 a year of the rateable value. I dare say that the assessment committee would take care not to overrate any one who would not be prepared to bear it, and 10 s. a year would not be much on the assessment. That might easily be arranged, for remember that no one else but the person rated could appeal against the assessment on the ground of excess. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast will correct me if I am wrong, and I will take his correction without a word; but I think I am correct in stating that no one else could appeal in such a case against the rate. It appears to me, therefore, that you would introduce in your assessments a number of elements, some of which, apparently, are of considerable danger. Whether it would be possible now or hereafter so to control those elements that you might venture to encounter the risk, I, for one, will not pretend to say. I admit the great value of a test, if it were good in itself, which would have the effect of getting rid of a great number of questions which are now raised before the Revising Barristers. But the goodness of the test is the very thing to be established. What we contend for is not that the local authorities as such are untrustworthy, but that the local authorities require to be kept under check, and that they should not be led into temptation by being carried without such check beyond their proper and accustomed province. Now, what is the test which we propose? The gross estimated rental; that is, in our judgment, the first thing to be got at. Where are the errors in the gross estimated rental which are not to be found in the rateable value? In looking for the basis which we require we called in aid the gross estimated rental. What does our Bill do? It adheres to the words of the Bill of 1832 in providing that the franchise shall be founded on the "clear yearly value;" but in the interpretation clause it states—
  "The clear yearly value as applied to any premises shall mean a sum equivalent in amount to

  565
  the rent a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay by the year for such premises if let to him, he undertaking to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation rentcharge (if any) but no deductions being made in respect of the probable annual average cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command such rent; and for the purposes of this Act the gross estimated rental for the time being of any premises as ascertained for the purposes of the poor rate shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the clear annual value of such premises."
  Now, the Committee will see by these words that we go straight to the rate-book, as straight as my noble Friend himself goes to it. The consideration which weighs on his mind weighs on ours. We are satisfied of the great advantage of getting the use and assistance of a public document made up from independent sources; but the difference between us and my noble Friend is this — we go to the right part of the rate book; he goes to the wrong part of it. We go to the point which is nearest to certainty, while the noble Lord goes to the point which is furthest from certainty. I wish seriously to call the attention of my noble Friend to the point I am now going to name, and I hope that in all I have said I have given him credit for every sincerity of purpose. I accused him, indeed, of confusing some points which should have been distinct; but, whether I was right in regard to that charge or not, at all events what he is now dealing with is the valuable principle of making use of the rate book. And I say we make use of it. If be says that he would use it more than we do, I admit the fact; but I say, and I think I have shown, that the true way of amending our procedure is not the way he proposes. Beyond this, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire desire to oust the Revising Barrister. Well, there are, I admit, two sides to that question, and it is one which may be fairly discussed. But the immediate question now before the House, however, is whether we should take the column of gross estimated rental, which is the column that contains the smallest risks and the fewest sources of error. Now, I put it to my noble Friend whether every object which he wishes to attain by resorting to the rateable value will not be attained much more largely and effectual by resorting to the gross estimated column. I put it to him that that, at all events, even on his own showing, must be doubtful. I put it to him and to the House that the
  566
  question as to the Revising Barrister is one which requires much consideration, and which ought to be made the subject of a separate discussion. But if my noble Friend is right, and if the time has come when we can safely oust the Revising Barrister—on which subject I give no opinion—and submit the final adjustment of this matter to the local authorities, then beyond all dispute the proper way is to refer to those authorities, not the rateable value column, but the column of gross estimated rental. For the gross estimated rental rests in the main on matters of fact, and where the law is obeyed, as it commonly is even now, and as we hope it would be universally with the aid of the provisions of our Bill, it comes close upon the exact truth. But rateable value, involving as it does many matters of opinion, and besides requiring in order to be good for its own purpose, conditions which are bad for our purpose, is a test of an inferior order which we cannot wisely or consistently adopt.
  On these grounds I hope the House will reject the Motion of my noble Friend. I am not at all surprised that on the former occasion the majority of hon. Members who supported the proposal of the Government was so small; because I know very well—and every one who has had much experience in such affairs must know—that it is extremely difficult in minute and complicated questions of this kind to bring large bodies of persons even in this House at once to a close and accurate knowledge of the facts. For the last twenty years, there has been a great and growing sense of the inconveniences and the great expenditure connected with registration. We share in that conviction, and we are ready to take every means to diminish the evil. The consequence of this feeling has been a great desire to resort to an external standard. But until within the last three years there was no external standard which even in the remotest degree approached to accuracy, except the standard of rateable value, and that standard was so defective that it was found unavailable. Then came in my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, and passed an important Act. And what was that important Act? It was a reform, not of the rateable value column, but of the important executory provisions relating to the column which gave the gross estimated rental. It laid down fixed rules for the formation of the column of gross estimated rental, and made it a

  567
  safe and secure basis for the column of rateable value. But we having long accustomed ourselves to speak of the advantage of making use of the aid which we derived from the rate book, I am not surprised, and I do not at all complain, that my noble Friend should have interpreted that to mean exclusively the column of rateable value. But I put it to him, as a candid man, that every advantage possessed by his proposition is possessed by ours, as far as the choice between the two columns is concerned; that the intrinsic superiority of the gross estimated rental column is indisputable, and in fact is almost indisputed in this House; and finally, that if he be right in saying that the decisions of the local authorities should be made final in this matter, those decisions ought to be founded, not upon the inferior test of rateable value, but on the superior criterion of gross estimated rental.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, in expressing my opinion on this matter I shall detain the House only for a few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now laid down to us very clearly that the question before us is narrowed to the choice of one of the two columns. That is really and simply the question before us, and it is not a question, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, as to whether the local authorities should fix the amount of the franchise. Any matter of that sort, if introduced into this discussion, could only be introduced on purpose to bewilder. When the right hon. Gentleman objected to the local authorities fixing the amount of the franchise, he could only have stated that with a view of bewildering, because the simple question is whether the rateable value column or the gross estimated rental column is the better test of the value of a tenement. That is the only matter we have to deal with, and what amount of franchise should be added to that is a matter for after consideration, as is clearly understood on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Union Assessment Act, which was passed a few years back, accurately defined this gross estimated rental column. Well, I differ from him somewhat in that respect. It certainly did give a definition; but what was it? Why, it confirmed the definition put into Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act, which was passed I do not know how many years ago. I prefer the rateable value column to the gross estimated rental
  568
  column, because, as everybody knows, anyone can appeal against the one, whereas nobody knows anything of the gross estimated rental. They are both only evidence of the value; and I confess I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that for every other purpose but this particular one the rateable value. column was the best mode of ascertaining it. Why it should not also be the best evidence in this case, I, for one, am totally at a loss to understand. Then I do not think it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to bring into his argument the supposition that people would be so corrupt—whether they live in towns or in the country—as for political purposes to disfranchise hundreds by putting a wrong value on their property. I had almost said that such an argument was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. For what is the process that must be gone through? In the first place the wrong act must be done, then valuation list must be published in every parish, and every ratepayer has an opportunity of going to complain, not only that he himself is put too low, but that his neighbour is put too low. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the valuation list can be acted upon it must be published in every parish in the union, and that any ratepayer in the union has the power to appeal against that list either on the ground that he himself is rated too low or on the ground that 100 of his neighbours are rated too low? If any injustice were attempted, do you think that that would not be done? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those who made out the list would be so blind to public opinion as to venture so to use their power that certain political purposes might be subserved? But even supposing they got through this ordeal, any man in the union can appeal again to the magistrates; and if he is not satisfied he can carry the matter to the Quarter Sessions. Now at one or other of these stages the thing must be blown to pieces. Things of this sort can hardly be argued. Do you think that any one would be hardy enough to try on such a corrupt, miserable dodge? I can hardly conceive why the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to make such a suggestion. As to the case of the beerhouse, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, even that is a matter of appeal; and every magistrate must know that people do appeal because they are rated too low. But, in the other

  569
  case, it is not only that a man can himself appeal, but any other man in the union can appeal if people are rated below what they ought to be. Then how will interest go in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman says that the rural population would be so corrupt that for some extraordinary political purpose they would underrate their neighbours in the boroughs for the sake of disfranchising them. Now, I do not think that rural Guardians are so uncommonly fond of underrating their neighbours for any purpose as to impose a higher burden upon themselves. My experience does not lead me to that conclusion. But the thing which makes me prefer the rateable column is this—It is what a man has actually paid upon. I believe that the payment of money is the best test of what is real, and in these cases people would take pretty good care to see that what they paid was just on one side and the other. An ingenious person in looking through the list might no doubt detect inequalities in the one column or the other. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted two broad facts—that it is most desirable there should be some document independent of political influence to fix the value, and that for every other purpose the rateable value is the best that can be used. Admitting these two points, he has not made out to my satisfaction that this arbitrary column of gross estimated rental is so superior as he thinks. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's mind is not so clear upon this as it is upon most points. He gave us the other night a very pretty calculation, showing how a £14 man spent £25 upon his house, and he multiplied that to show us what his income was; but, curiously enough, the right hon. Gentleman added to his gross estimated rental the cost of repairs, which the law says is to be deducted and paid by the landlord. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Rates and taxes.] But I was so struck with what the right hon. Gentleman said that I wrote it down, and it was—
  "When you come to add to the £14 annual value what is necessary for repairs, insurance, furniture, and the amount of rates and taxes, you will arrive at the conclusion that the man who lives in a £14 house spends £25 a year upon his house."
  Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman adds two distinct things, repairs and insurance, which are to be paid by the landlord. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I
  570
  ought to have said rates and taxes.] I merely named this to show that we are not any of us quite so clear as to what gross estimated rental and rateable value mean. The real actual amount paid upon is the surest test when you come into a Court of Justice to appeal; you can always make out a better case upon that than you can upon a fanciful thing which affects nobody, such as the gross estimated rental; and, therefore, I believe that the rating column is the best.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he should vote against the Amendment, regarding it as an attempt, in substance although not in form, to reverse the decision arrived at upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). Those who supported that Amendment avowed that it would necessarily involve a similar Amendment for the borough franchise; and the converse of that might be said with respect to this Amendment. Both Amendments were alike inconsistent with the new-born reverence for the Reform Act of 1832 professed by the Opposition, who had described it as a constitutional settlement which ought not to be lightly disturbed, while one hon. Member had gone so far as to speak of that Act as if it had existed for centuries. This new-born reverence had now evaporated, for the Opposition wanted to depart further from the Reform Act than the Government proposed to do. Although the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Dunkellin) said he would desire, if his Amendment were carried, and it should be thought to raise the franchise above a proper amount, to see £6 substituted for £7, what security would there be that the Opposition would entertain that desire? Indeed, the Seconder of the Amendment avowed that he desired to retain the £7, and no offer had even been made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) that, if the present Amendment were carried, he would withdraw his proposal for substituting £8 for £7. Where, then, would the Committee be if they adopted this Amendment? It was admitted that in counties, in respect of land, there was between rating and rental a difference of one sixth, and in boroughs, where houses formed the chief part of the qualification, the difference might be taken at one-fourth; so that to go from a £10 rental to a £7 rating franchise would be equal to proposing a rental franchise of £8 15 s. Considering that seven years ago the then

  571
  Ministry had been upset on the question of the borough franchise, it was ridiculous to suppose that the country would now be satisfied with an extension so illusory. The only plausible argument in favour of the Amendment was that its adoption would obviate the inconvenience caused by conflicting evidence in the Registration Courts, by allowing recourse to be had to the assessment column of the rate book, which was made independently of political influence; but it was forgotten that the moment this Amendment passed the assessment column would lose the very recommendation it now possessed. It was notorious that under the present law pains were often taken to collect the rates of the voters of one side in politics before the 21st of July, while their political opponents were not pressed for their rates until after that day. This clearly showed that as soon as there was mixed up with a thing not in its nature political anything connected with the Parliamentary franchise, from that moment political influences necessarily came into play. Suppose the rating franchise were fixed at £7, the assessment committee would, with respect to houses between £6 l0 s. and £7 10 s., have the strongest possible motive to rate the houses of their political opponents low, and those of their political friends high. It was not a great sacrifice to make. The assessment committee would put such of the houses of their political friends as were worth £6 l0 s. or £6 15 s. a little above £7; the occupiers would not appeal; no one else could appeal; and in this way the committee might add fifty or 100 of their own party to the register, and so decide the issue of an election. Then, again, we were told that if injustice were done, there might be an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Now, could anything be worse than to oust the jurisdiction of the Revising Barrister, and go to the Quarter Sessions in any of these cases? To do so would be to expose the Court of Quarter Sessions to the suspicion, just or unjust, of political partizanship. Goethe described the chase of a dragonfly by a man who, seeing the splendid and varying hues of its wings as it darted to and fro in the sun, caught it, that he might have the happiness of always contemplating this brilliancy—
  "And then he does the wings survey, And sees a dark and mournful gray."
  The converse of this held good in the
  572
  present instance. Hon. Gentlemen were charmed by the constant and neutral political tint of the assessment list, and desired to lay hold of that neutrality and constancy, and to apply them to the electoral register. But from the very instant when the register of electors and the assessment list were connected together, the list would lose its neutral political hue, and would assume as many colours as the dragonfly's wings. Instead of purifying and relieving of conflicting elements the electoral register, you would disturb and contaminate the assessment list by the introduction of political influences. For these reasons he trusted that the Committee would reject the Amendment by a decisive majority.
  MR. GOLDNEYbegged to remind the Committee that the basis of the assessment list was a valuation generally made by some independent man, who lived at a distance from the locality, and therefore was likely to do justice to all parties. That valuation was presented first to the parochial officers; then it went before the assessment committee, who based the rate upon it. That rate was laid open for the inspection of all the ratepayers, and was generally fixed after the observations which were made, as the result of this inspection. The duties of the assessment committee were to correct inequalities, adding to the values of improved property, and hearing appeals. From their decision there was an appeal to the Petty Sessions, again to the Quarter Sessions, and finally to the Court of Common Pleas—the same Court as that in which appeals were heard from the decisions of the Revising Barristers. That the Court of Quarter Sessions would be influenced by political bias was, in his opinion, an idle tale; such influences would not be likely to prevail if even the magistrates were base enough to be open to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Don't we go straight to the rate book?" But there was nothing in the Bill which required the overseer to go to the rate book at all; he was to make out, of his own mere motion, what he thought was the qualifying nature of the premises—namely, the extent of value; but it was not necessary, under the provisions of the Bill as now framed, that the intended voter should be rated at all. The great advantage of the noble Lord's Amendment was, that the overseer, if he went to the rate book, at once got there a clear, definite basis upon which to found

  573
  his list and make out the register. The question of gross estimated value was unknown until the year 1835, when it was introduced in the schedule of an Act brought in by the hon. Member for Stroud opposite (Mr. Poulett Scrope). But there was no more security for the fairness of that column than there was for the other; for he knew many cases of railways, canal companies, and others, where it was found practically impossible to fix the gross estimated value, and the usual course was to take the rateable value, and then add a certain proportion to it as the gross estimated value, merely to comply with the terms of the Act. He admitted that there might be great inequalities in the mode of rating between one borough and another, where they were grouped together, but the same inequality would be found to prevail also in the case of a rental qualification. Of two men earning the same wages one might be paying £7 or £8 rent in one place, and the other only £6 for a house of the same class in another. But there was this difference between the principles at issue—in the case of a rental qualification it would be very difficult to provide a remedy for the inequalities which might exist; but with respect to a rating qualification, with the facilities which were now open, and the tendency of feeling for a larger area of rating being adopted, it might be fairly expected that a remedy for the inequalities spoken of would very quickly be provided. Without any reference, therefore, to political objects, he believed that a rating basis was the best and simplest, and on that ground he should support it.
  MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, that when thirty years ago he introduced the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, he had two objects in view. The first was that there should be one uniform, fair, and accurate estimate of value on which the rating of all the property in the kingdom could be based; the other one of the greatest desiderata of this country—namely, that there should be something in the nature of a reliable public document accessible to all parties, which should be evidence of value in all public and private transactions in which the real property of the country was concerned. With that view he had introduced into the schedule in question a column setting forth the gross estimated rental of all property as the foundation on which property liable to the
  574
  poor rate might be assessed. Unfortunately it was determined to leave the making up of these returns in the hands of overseers and churchwardens. It was, however, soon afterwards discovered that the overseers and churchwardens were subject to no check whatever, whether on the part of the magistrates, or of any other authorities whatever, and that as long as the estimate of each parish proceeded upon the same principle, and affected all parties in it in the same manner, it was the interest of no one to object, and there was practically no check whatever. But when his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board was enabled to carry his Bill for union assessments, the power of making the assessments was placed in the hands of respectable and responsible bodies—the assessment committees—who acted in public, and who were of a higher class than churchwardens and overseers. That system was now in general operation, and it was producing something like an approximation to a document which might be relied upon for general reference, and the column of the gross estimated value was an approach to a real estimate of the value of property, and that upon which the rateable value of the property might be based. But, then, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned, to find the rateable value you must take a great many other circumstances besides the rental. The question of repairs was one of these, and it was well known that there was always a wide difference of opinion as to the cost of repairs. Therefore if the Committee took the rateable value it would be open to a great variety of causes of appeal. It was fair to assume that there would always be a certain number of partizans in the committee of assessment, and it was natural when a few shillings would make the difference between a man being on or off the register, the members of the committees would decide according to their political opinions. He was afraid, therefore, that if they made the rate book the rule for the franchise, it would introduce public animosities and disputes where they were not before known. No doubt parties would be feed on both sides to plead before the committee of assessment, just as they were now in the Revising Barristers' courts. Then appeals would be made to the Petty Sessions and Quarter Sessions, and political disputes would be introduced there also. He was therefore in favour of taking the first column of the rate book,

  575
  the gross estimated value, as that which afforded least margin for a difference of opinion. As to the Irish question, the reason why there was no such thing on the Irish rate books as clear annual value, was that as repairs in that country were not executed by the landlord, the rental and the rateable value were the same. [Mr. GOLDNEY: The words in the two Acts are exactly the same.] Generally speaking the Irish tenants executed all repairs, while in England the difference between the gross estimated value and the rateable value was between 5 and 25 per cent.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEwished to say a few words to explain the reason why he preferred a rateable value to gross estimated value. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down argued as if the rate must necessarily vary; but that the gross estimated value must in all cases be quite correct. Now, it had just been stated by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Goldney) that to his knowledge the gross estimated value was often a mere valuation taken from the rateable value, which was the fixed and certain sum, while the other was merely inserted in order to comply with the terms of the Act. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the whole case in favour of the Amendment, when he stated that for all purposes of local taxation the rating column was the real test. If that were so, then it was clear that every taxpayer had an interest in seeing that the rating column was as correct as it could possibly be made. They had every security, therefore, that the rating column was the more correct of the two, as it would undergo the greatest amount of supervision by those who would prove the sufferers if it were to prove incorrect. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had suggested a reason for not taking the rating assessment, which surprised him beyond everything. They were afraid that corruption would be practised in the assessment committees. They must know little of the assessment committees if they imagined that they would be influenced by such feelings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the county guardians would be more numerous, and would overbear the guardians of the boroughs. But how could that be, when, whatever the reductions were, they must be made equal in all parts of the union, and it was the interest of every one that it should be
  576
  correct? If there was reason to believe it incorrect, there was an appeal first to the Petty Session, then to the Quarter Session, and lastly to the Court of Common Pleas. In fact, all those suggestions of corruption on the part of the assessment committees only proved how much the right hon. Gentleman was in want of arguments to prove his case. If they were to have the aid of the whole community in keeping correct one particular column of the taxation, in which all were interested, was not that the best possible security for a uniform system? As to the gross estimated rental column, no one cared to supervise it. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the noble Lord (Lord Dunkellin) proposed by his Amendment to oust the Revising Barrister. He did not understand that that was the noble Lord's intention or the effect of his Amendment. In Ireland the Revising Barrister was not ousted. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes he is.] [Cries of "No, no!"] He maintained that in Ireland the Revising Barrister held his courts, that the lists were revised by him, and that litigation went on before him at great length. The Solicitor General was altogether mistaken in the matter. In his (Sir William Jollife's) opinion, whether they took the one column or the other, there would still be an appeal to the Revising Barrister. Believing that much greater uniformity and correctness would be secured by adopting the principle of rateable value, he should cordially support the Amendment.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he objected to the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, he objected to the principle of rateable value instead of annual value; and secondly, he opposed the Amendment because it was proposed with the idea of raising the amount of the franchise. The system of rateable value would be unfair, partial, and unjust, and there would be a different test in every town in the country. There were scarcely two places in which the deductions from the annual value in order to obtain the rateable value were the same. In Oldham a deduction of 33⅓ per cent was made from the gross estimated rental of all houses at and under £10. What would be the effect of the Amendment in Oldham? If the franchise were taken at a £7 rateable value it would not only not add to the number of voters, but would actually disfranchise the number of persons now in the possession of the franchise. It

  577
  would, in fact, require a rental of £10 10 s. to qualify for the franchise and would consequently disfranchise the £10 occupiers. A £6 rateable value in Oldham meant a £9 rental; and if that amount of rateable value were adopted it would only add 190 to the present town constituency in Oldham—an addition which would not be worth having; and, speaking on behalf of the working classes there, he would prefer having no Reform Bill at all to having one giving such a small instalment of enfranchisement. Such a limited proposal would be an insult to the classes interested. Not only in Oldham, but in Stockport, Ashton, Rochdale, Bolton, and all the large and growing towns of Lancashire, a £6 or £7 rating franchise would produce but an infinitesimal increase upon the existing constituency. The electoral statistics before the House showed that, so great was the discrepancy between the deductions made from the gross estimated rental in different towns, that it would be utterly impossible to arrive at any uniform system unless an Act of Parliament were passed to enforce it. In Ashton, for example, 30 per cent was deducted upon all houses under £10; In Birmingham 25 per cent was deducted on all houses at and under £10; in one part of Windsor the deduction was 25 per cent, and in other parts of the same borough it was 33½ per cent. In fact, however plausible the plan of taking the rateable value as a basis might look in theory, it would work most unfairly and unjustly in practice. He therefore trusted that the Amendment would be rejected by a very large majority, so as to prove that they were really in earnest in that question, and that they sincerely desired to admit within the Constitution those classes who, from his own knowledge, he could say were in every respect worthy of what the Government proposed to do for them.
  MR. GREENEsaid, that happily for himself, the town which he represented (Bury St. Edmund's) did not advocate Reform. Although it sent to that House an extreme Liberal, it objected to the reduction of the franchise. But, perhaps he was more reforming than many of the constituency, for he was desirous of seeing that question settled. He was convinced that by taking the rateable value as their basis they would arrive at the best mode of dealing with the subject. The anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred in connection
  578
  with that point at Bury St. Edmund's had already been in great measure corrected. The assessment committees could be relied upon to act fairly, because they included men representing all shades of opinion; and, moreover, there would be the power of appeal to Quarter Sessions and other tribunals against their decisions. For his own part, he should be very glad if, by adopting the principle of rating, they reduced the numbers which it was sought to add to the constituencies; and he meant to vote against that large increase of the electoral body which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed. He believed that a £6 rating franchise would bring the number of working class voters up to 300,000—if this Bill passed, there would be 15,000 more voters of the working class than of any other class of the constituency. Was the House prepared to hand over the Government of the country to the working classes? For his own part, he was opposed to giving them a preponderance over all other classes in the representation. Though himself one of the largest employers in the town with which he was connected, he had never had a difficulty with his workmen in his life: yet everybody knew that the working classes were not the men to be intrusted with the control of affairs, and that they acted better when they had a large infusion of other classes among them than when they were left to themselves. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had been much referred to in their late debates. That hon. Gentleman had laid down a theory about coal which, no doubt, was perfectly wrong, and yet the Leader of the House took him and the hon. Member for Birmingham as his guides. The hon. Member for Birmingham received credit for having influence with the working classes of this country; but he did not believe it — on the contrary, he believed that where that hon. Gentleman was best known he was least liked. The hon. Member for Westminster said that Gentlemen on that side were the stupidest party; but that reminded him of the farmer who had a horse, called Genius, which was the worst in his whole team. When they found a man of the hon. Member for Westminster's high character in that House advocating the admission of females to that assembly, and when they found that the hon. Member for Birmingham had never brought forward a practical measure in his life, why should the smallest attention be

  579
  paid to either of them? If there was a man in that House to whom a £7 rental franchise would give a seat in perpetuity, it was himself; but he would far rather forego the honour he enjoyed as a Member of that House than vote for a proposal which he conscientiously believed to be detrimental to the interests of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were, in their hearts, as dead against the proposals of the Government as he was, although they were not quite so outspoken. They desired to support their party, and were afraid to meet the £7 householders in the event of the Bill passing. The excess of liberty was the greatest tyranny, and never, in all history, had the democratic party shown itself really liberal towards those in their own station, or towards those below them. He should therefore support the Amendment, which would give an amount of liberty which he was sure they would not have, if they were governed by men of the class who sat below the gangway.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSreminded the House that a hundred days had already been spent in the present party campaign; it was the 18th of June, and they had come to their Waterloo. From the outset this question of the widening of the Borough Franchise had weighed heavily on the hearts of the opponents of the Bill; and throughout the whole controversy a tone of inflation had characterized every allusion to the increased enfranchisement of the working classes, which he must say did little credit to the prudence, the justice, or the generosity of the House. So far from acquiescing in the exaggerations which had been used regarding the effects of this Bill, he for one must say distinctly, though he said it reluctantly, that the measure was not received, and could not be received, as anything like an acquittance of the debt due by Parliament to the people. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), that the working classes were content to take this Bill as a settlement. He asked, was it credible under any circumstances to suppose that if the working classes of this country believed they were about to possess supreme power in directing the councils of this Empire that they would have remained quiescent for the last three or four months? The drums of acclamation could not be muffled in that way, and hon. Members could not believe in their hearts that millions of people would
  580
  have been induced to keep a secret like that for so long. What the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite feared was that if the working men had a preponderance, or even an equal share in the large constituencies of the kingdom, taxation would be directed against property, that a system of confiscation would ensue, and that the greatness of the country, based on its commercial and financial security, would be overthrown. One example was worth all the arguments that could be used. Let them turn for a moment to that country which more than any other resembled our own, and which was looked upon by hon. Gentlemen opposite with aversion and distrust—that country where every skilled artizan had a vote, and which recently had been involved in the greatest trial to which any modern society had been subjected. In the hour of victory had the Government of America misused its power? Had it misdirected taxation for class purposes, or directed it against the rich? Had an estate of the conquered been confiscated? Above all, let them look at what had happened within the last few days. He would ask the warmest worshipper of monarchy, the most implicit believer in aristocratic rule, the fondest idolater of the old institutions in Europe, to show him the conduct of any civilized Government which was better than had been that of the United States within the last three weeks with respect to the Fenians. Was that a Government predominantly or exclusively elected by middle class men? Of the aristocratic element there was none. [An hon. MEMBER: That is irrelevant.] He could not overlook that interruption. When they had cheered night after night the accusations, truthless and ruthless, that the working classes were violent, venal and vile, they must not be allowed to say without contradiction that this was irrelevant. The man who was at the head of the Government of that country, so just and tolerant between class and class and between nation and nation, was a man whose youth was spent in the avocations by which a working man was obliged to earn his bread. But it behoved them, not in any spirit of preference for the institutions of any other country, but for the sake of their own, to consider whether an infusion of the industrial element, such as they saw in America, would necessarily or directly tend to lessen the strength and stability of a free Government. With regard to

  581
  the clause before the House, he thought the preference of rent to rating in the Government Bill was just, and therefore he should vote for it. He had no irreconcilable dislike to rating as the foundation of the franchise, because with many hon. Gentlemen opposite, he voted in 1850 to make rating the basis of the franchise in Ireland. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, however, told them plainly that one reason why he supported the Amendment was that it would curtail the extent of the proposed enfranchisement. It was impossible for him to shut his eyes to the fact that it was a movement against the franchise, to curtail the narrow concession made by Her Majesty's Government, and he felt compelled to vote against it. Supposing it was carried, they would then have an Amendment from the hon. Member for Wenlock proposing a £6 rating instead of a £7 rental franchise. But no man would take the one as an equivalent for the other; a £6 rating franchise was much nearer an £8 than a £7 rental. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken loosely in the course of the discussion about the old scot and lot franchise. Scot and lot, as it originally existed, meant the liability to rating, and not rating at any particular value, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would now, at the eleventh hour, propose that they should go back to that, he was ready to vote with them. But they did not use scot and lot in the common-sense meaning of the term. They used the phrase in an ambiguous sense. With regard to the accusations which had been made against the working classes, he believed they gave them very little concern, or only caused them to feel a diminished respect for Parliament. The mass of the working people of this country were not men who deserved the miscellaneous charges brought against them, and hon. Members could not prove that they deserved them by exaggerating their fear of what the working classes might ultimately do. If Parliament were to make any fair and reasonable concession, without desiring to give any class a preponderance in the State, the best course would be to adopt this measure, and obtain relief from these discussions, which had prevented all other business being done in that House for many weeks. If they did not embrace the present opportunity — and he said it in no spirit of
  582
  resentment or threat — what would follow would be that they would yet have to discuss much wider measures than that which was now before the House.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he knew of no single acre in the wide continent of domestic affairs which had not been ploughed and re-ploughed, and ploughed again by the hon. Member who had just sat down, in the course of his speech. One observation he (Mr. Powell) could not pass over in silence, and that was, the complaint made of the language employed in that House with regard to the working classes. Members of that House, sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, cast reproaches at the various classes of the English community, from the highest to the lowest; but there was one class in the social scale against which reproaches were most rarely cast in that House, and that was the working class. The working men watched the discussions which took place in that House, and he was sure they themselves must feel that their interests were highly regarded and valued by those who took part in the legislation of that House; and that whenever allusion was made to them it was not in terms of reproach and blame, but, on the contrary, in terms of praise, of respect, and of esteem. He had heard with some surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that previous Reform Bills had never contained a rating suffrage for boroughs as part of their scheme. It would be remembered, however, that a rating suffrage formed part of the scheme of Lord Russell's Bill in 1852, and of the scheme of Lord Aberdeen in 1854. That scheme became eventually one of those skeletons—one of those abortions—the existence of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so much deplored, but for the creation of which he was in some degree responsible. In 1859 the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), circumstances having changed, departed from the proposal and desired a rental suffrage; but it was surely admissible for Governments to adapt themselves to altered circumstances. He agreed with the sentiment uttered by the hon. Member for Birmingham, that they should adhere to the ancient lines of the British Constitution. On that (the Conservative) side of the House they endeavoured to adhere to them, and they looked with some suspicion at hon. Members on the other side when they proclaimed in loud and vociferous tones the same adherence. Hon. Members opposite, when they professed

  583
  their desire to adhere to those ancient lines, carried back their minds to the period of English history when those lines were confused and not clearly defined. But whether they referred to the Constitution of this country or to the Constitution of any other country, it must be admitted that no lines of any Constitution had in any country maintained an isolated and insulated institution. The Throne could not be insulated, for if insulated from the people it must fall. The aristocracy could not be insulated, for if insulated the fate of that aristocracy could not be long suspended. The Church and the clergy could not be insulated, for if insulated the Church in her external relations must fail and her endowments must perish. If, then, the Crown itself could not stand alone—if the aristocracy could not exist by itself—if the Church and her clergy could not stand alone, neither in his belief could an isolated franchise long continue. We could not have a rental franchise for a Parliament, when we had a ratal franchise for everything else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made declarations in favour of a "flesh and blood" franchise; but it was consolatory to find that, after all, there was to be some kind of test added before a man was entitled to take a part in Parliamentary franchise. It was gratifying to know that there was to be a test of capacity. Whether the test was sound or unsound, he did not say; but it was a relief to know that there was at least to be an exception from universal suffrage—that there was to be some sort of test, and that that test was to be capacity of the voter to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer separated the nature of the property from the capacity to pay; but he doubted whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find a landlord in the kingdom of the same opinion. Landlords always fancied there was some relation between land and the payment of rent. Well, the capacity to pay must be placed on and tested by rental or ratal. He thought there were some advantages of a rating qualification as compared with a rental qualification. With a ratal franchise there could not be the mischievous collusion as to the amount of rent from which a rental qualification could not be exempt. There would be payments of rent which no examination or investigation, however careful, would enable us to analyze, to sift, and to test; and he believed that there were many agreements between
  584
  tenants and landlords which would, in a grave and serious degree, affect the desirability of adopting the principle of rental. There were, for instance, the arrangements which sometimes took place among landlords who were large employers of labour and possessed extensive house property. None of these disadvantages were connected with the ratal test. Some remarks had been offered as to the unequal character of the ratal suffrage. But note the difference between the rental and the ratal suffrages. The rental depended on an arrangement between one man and another man, in a series of contracts involving various minute details, which we could not follow, neither could we control those concerned in them. Even with an examination of the parties in open court we could not get at the reality of the transaction. But with regard to ratal, an Act had been passed adopting the union as the area of rating instead of the parish, and if inequalities in the rating existed they would be at once removed under the influence of the public opinion of the ratepayers of the union. It had been said on the other side that the Bill was a compromise. Those who had studied history were aware that what was called a political number had been discovered in the Constitutions of ancient States. In one case it might be three, in others ten. The only principle in this Bill that he had been able to discover was the adoption of the number seven—£;7 was to be the borough franchise, £14 was to be the county franchise, twenty-one was to be the full age of a voting man. But a compromise could not last not based on any principle or any figure which included, or, so to say, enshrined, a principle. How could the compromise stand when it was denounced by its supporters before it could be carried out? During the past thirty years we had seen the effect of compromises in the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act and various other Acts of the Legislature; but we had seen them short and feeble—so short and so feeble that they made the vows of lovers appear long and strong in comparison. He could not believe that any compromise to be found in this Bill could continue. We ought to deal with the Bill, from first to last, on its merits—with reference to its effect on the interests of the country, according as we thought the franchise would work for the good or the ill of the country. And it was because he felt convinced that the

  585
  compromise must fail, and that if it were carried out for a short time agitation must spring up, and that the Bill, instead of promoting a permanent settlement of the question of Representation, would, on the contrary, lead to a fresh unsettlement and renewed disturbance, that he should oppose the Bill to the full extent of his power.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought the serious nature of the alteration proposed by the Amendment of the noble Lord had not been sufficiently appreciated by the House. The question the Committee were called on to determine was whether, for the first time in the history of this country, the right of a man to the franchise should be determined by the amount at which he was rated, such amount being ascertained conclusively by the local authorities. The proposition of the noble Lord would oust the Revising Barrister from his present jurisdiction of determining as to the qualification of the voter; once the man's name appeared upon the book rated to a certain amount, the Revising Barrister would be precluded from inquiring any further. To such a change he, as a lawyer, entertained the strongest objections. The principle heretofore had been that the right of a man to the franchise should be determined not by local authorities, but left to the decision of a professional mind, unbiased by party politics, and ignorant of local squabbles. The Amendment would transfer this jurisdiction to persons from whom it would be impossible to expect the same impartiality of judgment. Let the Committee consider who were the local officers to whom the jurisdiction would be transferred? In some boroughs—as, for instance, in Lambeth—the Union Assessment Act had not been adopted, and in these the local authority would still be the overseer; in others, the Board of Guardians would be the parties to act. Would Parliament be satisfied that the overseers or Guardians should be the persons to determine finally whether a man had or had not a right to the franchise? The statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that overseers might be accused of partiality was regarded by some hon. Gentlemen opposite as a monstrous insinuation. But what had been said by their own Leader on this very subject? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire used these expressions—
  "For the purpose of securing the advantages of having the rate book the register, you must of
  586
  course leave perfect discretion to the overseer. The overseer has an interest in raising rates, people may say; or he may be a very hot political partizan."—[3 Hansard, clii. 982.]
  Is not this the very allegation which is thought so monstrous in the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? [Mr. HUNT: What is the date of that passage?] 1859. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "Are you prepared to leave to the overseer the absolute discretion of appointing those who are to exercise the suffrage?"
  And his Question was answered by the cheers of hon. Gentlemen behind him.
  "Some will say—we must have some check. But what is a check but an appeal? And if you appeal, you cannot do better than appeal to the Revising Barrister."
  He quoted these passages not for the purpose of taunting the right hon. Gentleman with inconsistency, but to avail himself of his high authority, for which he had the most unfeigned respect. That would be the cases to which the Union Assessment Act did not apply. In cases where the Act did apply comparatively few boroughs were entirely conterminous with unions. There were some cases where the borough, as compared with the union, bore a ratio of about one-fifth; but, taking the case of Abingdon, where the number of parishes within the borough was one, and parts of parishes three, and the number of parishes without the borough thirty-six, and parts of three other parishes—Abingdon would bear a proportion of one in thirty-seven of those who elected the rating committee—the Guardians of these thirty-six parishes, the country gentlemen and farmers of the surrounding district, in point of fact, would determine the right of voting for the borough of Abingdon — a state of things which, he ventured to say, would be perfectly intolerable. It was said there would be an appeal; but as the law now stood there would be no appeal at all, for an appeal was only given to a person aggrieved, and it had been judicially decided that the loss of franchise in consequence of a man's rating not having been placed sufficiently high was not such a grievance as would entitle him to a right of appeal. Although, therefore, a man might believe himself entitled to a vote, and might be willing on that account to pay additional rates, he would be absolutely without remedy if the overseer chose to disfranchise him. And if a man himself, being under-rated, could not appeal, much less could he do so if his neighbour were improperly enfranchised, because the extra rates paid

  587
  by the others were a relief, and not a burden to him. The overseer for Lambeth consequently, if the Amendment were carried, might, as the law now stood, enfranchise or disfranchise hundreds of voters for that borough, absolutely without appeal; on the other hand, by giving facilities for appeals, new courts of revision would be created less convenient than those now existing; for, instead of the single appeal to the court of the Revising Barrister, there would then be three. He ventured to submit that the borough justices—though he was quite willing to believe they would do their duty conscientiously — would not, he thought, be a satisfactory tribunal of appeal. Suppose a bench of Liberal justices decided all the appeals coming before them in favour of the Liberals. [An hon. MEMBER: So they would.] He did not go as far as the hon. Member; but the hon. Member's opinion only made his argument the stronger. What would be said of these decisions, or what would be said of the decisions of a bench of Conservative justices if they decided for the Conservatives? The administration of justice should be not only impartial but above suspicion. No doubt there would be a final appeal to the Quarter Sessions, but even that tribunal would not be as satisfactory as the one which the Government proposed in the first instance. Again, the multiplication of Courts of Appeal would very considerably increase instead of diminish expense. At present, all the Government proposed was that the rental column of the rate book should be taken as primâ facie evidence by the Revising Barrister They did not make the rate book conclusive. They provided a check, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire thought so important in 1859. Besides, if the rating valuation were not adopted for the franchise, the rate book would continue to be what it was now, a non-political document; but if they made it conclusive it would become political. It appeared to him on those grounds, if he went no further, that there was a complete answer to the proposition of the noble Lord. But no answer whatever had been given to the objection that the rating throughout the country was unequal. It might be said that it would be possible to make it equal hereafter; but every one admitted it was unequal now, and it was to be remembered that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House had protested against
  588
  leaving anything to the future—they said they must have the whole scheme before them. But he maintained that they were relying on the future—on an alteration in the law by which the system of rating in England should be assimilated to that which prevailed in Ireland. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would be endured for a moment in England that a system of centralization such as that which existed in Ireland in respect to rating should be adopted in England. Would they give his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board a direct control over the rating throughout England? In Ireland there was a Commissioner of Valuation, who made an assessment of all property in Ireland, excepting what was called "fluctuating property." The assessment so made by that office lasted for fourteen years; and in making it the average prices of corn and a variety of other articles were taken into account. In fact, he made the rate. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: No, no!] Well, he made the valuation, and it was that he was dealing with. Such a principle was unknown in this country. While it was desirable to assimilate the laws of the two countries as far as possible, he ventured to think that the assessment principle acted on in Ireland would not be admissible in England. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), in an able review of the working of the Union Assessment Act, showed incontestibly that there was great inequality in the assessments, owing to the different systems of deduction in operation. In Exeter there were no less than twenty-seven different principles of rating, in consequence of a question as to boundaries, and the variation ranged from 12½ up to as much as 40 and 50 per cent. It was proposed that a £7 rating franchise should be adopted in the Bill. If it were, a good many of the present £10 voters would be disfranchised. He had always supposed that the £10 voter was generally believed in; that even the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), if they believed in nothing else, believed in the £10 voters as the bulwark of the British Constitution; but if the £7 rating qualification were adopted, those bulwarks to a considerable extent would be undermined. They were not all lawyers in that House; and primâ facie the rateable value presented some advantages; but the more they came to examine it the

  589
  clearer would it appear that it would be impossible to adopt it. The present Government were at first inclined to adopt it, but they found it impossible to do so. The Government of Lord Derby in 1859 were at first disposed to adopt it, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had explained to the House, they found it impossible to make it the basis of the franchise which they proposed. So strong was his opinion on this subject that he could not help thinking that if a rating qualification were adopted, it would be found so inconvenient that it would be found impossible to maintain it for six months. He believed that it would give rise to the greatest discontent and inconvenience throughout the country; and he therefore hoped the Committee would not a gree to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, this was not, as many Members seemed to imagine, a question between rent and rateable value. [Laughter.] Well, he could assure hon. Gentleman that it was a question between gross estimated rental and rateable value; but all were aware that the gross estimated rental was very different from the rent which the landlord demanded and the occupier paid. The gross estimated rental was a mere estimate which had been made by the parochial surveyor or the assessment committee, and had nothing to do with the rent which was actually received. The assessment committee determined the gross estimated rental according to what they supposed would be a fair rent for the premises, on the supposition that the tenant would pay his own rates and taxes. The gross estimated rental was always lower than the real rent. It was sometimes as much as 50 or 60 per cent less; at least it used to be so, before the Act of 1862 had come into operation. The rateable value was arrived at by subtracting from the gross estimated rental the amount necessary to keep the occupation in repair, and also to defray the annual premium for the fire insurance. It might be supposed, from the language of the Bill, that the gross estimated rental was the proposed basis of the franchise. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer cast some doubt on that supposition; but it was not clear from that speech what was really to be the basis. The Solicitor General, however, had stated that the gross estimated rental was merely to be a primâ
  590
  facie evidence of the value of the premises, but that the "real value" was to be determined by the usual haggling and argument and cross-swearing before the Revising Barrister. To this point, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Bill, and the Opposition by the support which they gave to the noble Lord's Amendment, clearly went together. Both agreed to take the gross estimated rental as evidence of the value of the premises. But here arose the point at issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave the determination of the question to the Revising Barrister. Now, all knew that he devoted but one day in each year to the settling of all the various cases which might arise; the evidence was hurried; his decision on the evidence was hasty. A court of revision was not like a Court of Law. The facts of the case were not clearly brought out; the Judge did not take time to consider his decision; and the judgment was not of much value. The Opposition, on the other hand, would leave the determination of the question to the justices, who met four times a year to hear complaints, to sift evidence with all their local knowledge to guide them, and to determine accurately the rateable value of the premises. Then there was an appeal from their decision to the Quarter Sessions, and a further appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. This is what the Solicitor General had called, "leaving it to the parish overseer finally to determine whether a man should have a vote or not." The hon. and learned Gentleman had also quoted the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire; but since that speech was delivered great changes had taken place with respect to the electoral franchise. That speech was made on the 29th of March, 1859. Since that time the Lords' Committee on the Elective Franchise had sat, and collected most important evidence. The arguments in that speech were therefore not applicable to the present case. The hon. and learned Gentleman also seemed to forget that the Government of which he was a Member passed in 1862 the Assessment Act, which had altered the whole aspect of affairs. The hon. and learned Gentleman had argued that "a man omitted from the rate cannot appeal." It must be remembered, however, that the parish overseer or the assessment committee rated persons in order to meet the expenses for the poor; it was therefore their interest to rate every

  591
  one in the parish. It was the interest of every one in the parish to see that all were adequately rated, so that a heavier burden might not unjustly fall upon a few. And was it to be supposed that for the chance of turning the scale in an election six or seven years hence, they would every year pay higher rates than necessary, in order to omit a hundred of persons from the rate book? In the course of his argument the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that "the borough justices had a strong political bias," and that it was therefore likely that they would make a wrong assessment. But to establish his case it would be necessary to show that all the borough justices held the same political opinions; for if the justices differed in their political opinions they would not concur in a fraud to forward the interests of one political party. Nay, more, the Solicitor General must have assumed that all borough justices—that is, all the most respectable persons of every borough in England—were Tories; for he could not be supposed to resist so vigorously an Amendment which, on any other supposition, must tell for his own party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said a great deal about "ousting the Revising Barristers." There was, indeed, a shadow of ground for the expression, but no more. But that ground, slight as it was, was entirely in favour of the Amendment. It had been stated in evidence by a Revising Barrister of great experience, before the Lords' Committee of 1860, that the chief business of the Revising Barrister was to determine questions of value, because "very few legal points arise." All knew how expensive and how unsatisfactory was the business of registration. If, then, the value of property could be ascertained more readily and cheaply by the assessment committee than by the Revising Barrister, and if votes depended on the "rateable value" column in the rate book, then the only business of the Revising Barrister would be to decide the "very few legal questions" which might arise. A cheek would also he given to the power of the political associations which now existed throughout the country if the Amendment were adopted, for the elector would come on the register without any act of his own. On this point he would quote the testimony given before the Lords' Committee in 1860 by Mr. Sidney Smith, Secretary of the Liberal Registration Association of the City of London. Mr. Smith was asked—
  592
  "2,118.—If I understand you rightly, your opinion is that the best system of qualification is one by which the elector shall come upon the register without any agency of his own?—with the least possible trouble to himself."
  "2,119.—"Therefore a rating qualification, in your opinion, would be the best; taking it simply from the rate book?—Taking it simply from the rate book, and putting all upon public officers (who thoroughly understand the law, are responsible to the State for the faithful discharge of their duty, and are adequately remunerated for doing it); that, and leaving nothing to individual exertion, is the only way by which you can permanently secure the expression of the real state of the electoral opinion."
  It appeared, therefore, that the result of adopting the Amendment would be to secure permanently the expression of the real state of electoral opinion. It was proved also to the same Committee that parish rates were now kept down, in order to evade the Queen's taxes, and to reduce the county rates. By adopting the Amendment we should, therefore, be constructing a "compensation balance." The anxiety to obtain the franchise would effectually counteract the desire to defraud the taxes or reduce the county rates. In answer to Lord Llanover's question—
  "797.—At present, as you are aware, the franchise is based upon value, and great difficulties are found in the registration courts, in order to determine the amount of value. Do you think that the rate hook would be a better basis for the franchise than the value; do you think that, supposing the franchise were based upon rating, that would simplify the proceedings in the registration courts, rather than if the franchise were based upon value?"
  Mr. Sidney Smith (Secretary to the London Liberal Registration Association) re-plied—
  "Yes, I think so, and I think it would have another good effect, seeing that the value on the rate book is so perfectly arbitrary just now"…
  "798.—It would require completely to change the system of rating, and the enormous variation which exists now in the percentage between the real value and the rateable value would require to be made more uniform?—It would."
  "799.—It would require the enforcement of the existing law?—Yes."
  "800.—Would the present law be sufficient for the purpose?—So far as the value is concerned it is entirely arbitrary. A mistake takes place with those who think that it is the interest of the overseers always to get the highest amount; whereas it is not their interest . . . . It is the interest of a whole parish to go as low as they can, in order to avoid the Queen's taxes; and that is systematically done all over the country . .
  "804.—From inquiry at overseers of other parishes I learn that it is very general; they say if we put it up to the real value, the Queen's surveyors will be down upon us."

  593
  "805.—Then the provisions of the Parochial Assessment Act are altogether neglected are they not?—Yes, so far as that is concerned."
  The effect, therefore, of adopting the Amendment would be to correct the rating, and increase the revenue derived from the taxes throughout the kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this was the first time it had been proposed to base the franchise on rating, "and that it was false in principle." Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the Bill of 1852, brought in by Lord Russell, which proposed a £5 rating franchise, or the Bill of 1854, which was based on a £6 rating franchise? Did he think that those Bills were introduced without careful consideration by the noble Lord? Did he assume that a "false principle" would have been introduced into both of them, by one who had studied the subject ever since 1832? An hon. Member had endeavoured to draw a distinction between Ireland and England in this matter, observing that because the Irish tenants repaired their holdings themselves, the principle which was found to work so well in that country would not be applicable to England. But the fact that the Irish tenants repaired their own holdings did not alter the case; for in order to arrive at the rateable value it was necessary to subtract from the gross estimated rental the amount required for their repair, and it mattered not who expended that sum in the first instance. It was the rent received, and not the rateable value which was affected by that custom. There was another important point to be considered: from year to year Parliament passed Bills for various purposes; the expenses incurred in virtue of those acts were defrayed by the rates; and, therefore, if votes were given to persons who did not pay rates, power was given them to a certain extent to encourage that legislation which would increase the burden upon those who paid the rates. Take the case of the Public Health Bill which was now before the House. The expenses of that Bill were to be met by rates; the expenses of his (Lord Robert Montagu's) Sewage Utilization Act of last year were paid out of the poor's rate. But those only should have legislative influence and power over the wealth of the country, who perform the duties and bear the burdens of citizenship. Hon. Gentlemen had expressed their desire to return to "the old lines of the Constitution," and the
  594
  Chancellor of the Exchequer had this evening taken up the strain. He had alleged the precedent of scot and lot in favour of household suffrage. The hon. Member for Birmingham had made similar assertions. He had, however, investigated the truth of the statements on this point. He found in the Firma Burgi of Madox, who was an authority on the subject—
  "It is likely that townsmen or members of the community were the persons who ought to enjoy the franchises of the town. It resteth to be inquired, who were formerly the townsmen? . . . . They were deemed townsmen who had a settled dwelling in the town, who merchandized there, who were of the house or gild, who were in lot and scot with the townsmen, and who used or enjoyed the liberties and free customs of the town. To have a settled dwelling or abode in the town made part, but not the whole of the description of a townsman. Some of the other qualifications just above mentioned, if not all of them, were requisite to complete the denomination." . . . .
  And at page 380—
  "Every person willing to enjoy the franchise of the town was to contribute according to his ability to these public burdens or charges incident to the community."
  Practically, we have to consider who, according to the "old lines of the Constitution," were actually the constituents in boroughs. The commune or commonalty, that is to say, the corporation were the electors. The ruling inhabitants in each borough, the mayor and aldermen, who had jurisdiction and a common seal, were those who sent Members to Parliament. In Brady on Boroughs, it was stated that—
  "'Tis manifest beyond contradiction that the commonalties of cities and burghs were the magistrates and governors, and all such as with them had the transaction of all affairs appertaining to them; and not the common, ordinary, or inferior burgesses, who were always under the government and direction of such communities or commonalties."
  Communities, Communes, or Commonalties, were—
  "Used to denote a select number of men joined together in mutual society and fellowship, for transacting the common business of a greater number that had dependence on that society or fellowship, and of all the ordinary and general members of the same."
  So far, then, from all the burgesses having a vote for the representatives returned to Parliament, only the mayor and aldermen had a voice in their selection. Thus, for instance, Brady mentions that in the borough of Huntingdon there were only twelve electors. It had been asserted, during the debate, that the desire of

  595
  the Opposition was merely to raise the franchise and diminish the number of electors, and that all the arguments which they had used in favour of the Amendment had been insincerely and falsely employed. He denied the charge that it was his desire to raise the franchise, or, in other words, to diminish the number of electors contemplated by the present Bill; what was sought was a rateable basis for the franchise, seeing that it would form a less variable and more certain qualification. The question of the amount of the franchise was not then before the Committee. He would not, therefore, now state whether he would or would not give his vote for a £7 or a £6 franchise. But what was it that the Ministry were seeking to do? They wished to take the power from those who now enjoyed it, and place it in the hands of another class. Those who lived in houses of £10 value and upwards belonged to all the classes and interests in the kingdom. Those who lived in houses of a less value were all of the same class. Moreover, the occupiers of houses below £10 were the most numerous class, and to enfranchise them would in effect simply be taking the franchise from all other classes. Let the House consider how much tradition had to do with the stability of our Government. Traditional rules were the only real checks against democracy. The House of Commons was undoubtedly the most powerful of the three branches of the Legislature, just as "the people" were the most powerful outside. And the Liberal party were the most powerful party in the House. What, then, prevented the House of Commons from taking all the power to itself, and putting an end at once to all opposition by extinguishing the other branches? It was a sort of traditional morality which was imbibed by statesmen, that prevented them from carrying their democratic principles to a logical issue. It was this which made them turn round and act as a check upon their too ardent friends. Now if the power be put into new hands, all this store of tradition would be at an end; the power would be exerted; their democratic principles would be carried to a legitimate issue. It was this which had produced the crisis in Victoria, on a question which had also occurred in this House. But here statesmen had instinctively shrunk from such a crisis. The Ministry were seeking therefore to destroy tradition. He desired to give the power of voting to as many of the people of this
  596
  country as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he would do it in a different way. In the counties there were many large towns, the inhabitants of which could only vote by possessing a county qualification. But if they were to be grouped with the represented towns, if the borough franchise were to be extended to them, then (according to a calculation he had made from a Return presented to the House in 1860), a larger addition would be made to the borough constituencies than would be effected by the present Bill. Take from the counties the population of the unrepresented towns of more than 5,000 inhabitants; the remaining village population was equal to that of the represented towns. In the name of fairness why should not the former have a pure representation? They ought not to have thrust upon them Members who had no sympathy with their industry, and nothing in common with their interests. His plan, then, would not only give votes to as many as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to enfranchise, but it would bring about a purer representation of the counties. The right hon. Gentleman actually swamped the county voters by means of town voters, and deprived the counties of the representation they now enjoyed. This was amply proved by the "Returns relating to County Electoral Statistics, No. 335." As Germany settled the question of the Duchies by annihilating Denmark, so hon. Members opposite would settle the Reform question by annihilating the Conservative party. And what would happen then? Would they be unanimous and contented then? No; like Austria and Prussia now, they would quarrel among themselves for their unrighteous booty. Many below the gangway were not content with the Bill, and regarded it as a "stepping-stone," to their ultimate end, the object of all their aspirations — universal suffrage. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) and others had openly declared their real opinions and proclaimed their policy. The hon. Member for Birmingham had indeed been drilled and tutored into prudence, and had learnt to conceal his views; while above the gangway, on the other side there were many who would rise to oppose the democratic measures of those below, when the Conservative party were no longer there to take part in the contest. Why not withdraw the Bill at once, and retain your power? There was a very strong opposition to the Bill on principle, because

  597
  the House knew that it was framed in haste before the Government had obtained their statistics, and that the figures proved the fallacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assertions. There was also a smouldering discontent on the Ministerial side of the House; and, although the Opposition might be beaten that evening, yet before the Bill was passed, those who supported the Ministry would, either in the House, or in private, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they did not like his Bill, and would ask him to withdraw it. He had heard what hon. Members opposite had whispered in the lobbies and proclaimed in society, and he charged them with cowardice for not saying as much in the House. [Cries of "Name, name!"] Yes, he would name them; their name was Legion, for they were many. The long list of Amendments on the paper proved that hon. Members had no settled principles on Reform, that their views were vague and divergent; the varying statements of the Government was the consequence of their having framed the Bill in great haste, before their ideas were matured, or the facts had been learned. He therefore advised the adjournment of the question to another year, to allow hon. Members a chance of agreeing upon principles and the Government time to consider their statistics. This constant haggling detracted from the honour of Parliament, and reduced its influence throughout the country; and the haste and insincerity with which the Government had introduced the Bill, and the obstinacy with which they had adhered to it, only lessened the credit and tarnished the reputation of the Liberal party. Considering the state of affairs abroad, was this a time to make sweeping changes in the Constitution of the country? Changes which would not be welcomed by the country; which the present electors feared and the House abhorred? Was there any pressing necessity to compel a settlement of the question this year? Was any danger to be apprehended from further postponement? There was not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would bear out this assertion. He would quote eloquent words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 29th of March, 1859—
  "We cannot afford, as a mere matter of time, to pass year after year, to fritter away the principal part of each Session, in debating the question of Parliamentary Reform. I say, too, over and above the loss of time, it is a dangerous habit for the country to fall into. … No indivi-
  598
  dual can be constantly watching the state of his own health without injuring it; and a disposition to be continually agitating a question of organic change has not only an unwholesome effect upon us, withdrawing our attention from other important matters, but it diminishes the stability of our institutions, and tends to disqualify England for the performance of those great duties which she has to discharge both to herself and to the world."—[3 Hansard, cliii. 1066.]
  Were there not other questions to be settled beside that of Reform, questions far more pressing, far more urgent? Matters which would brook no delay demanded their attention; matters which more nearly affected the health and happiness of the people awaited their consideration. With a threatened visitation of cholera, which might sweep hundreds off the face of the land, ought we not to be passing rather a Health Bill than wasting time upon a Reform Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he inferred from the wide scope of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire, that it had been prepared for an earlier stage of the Bill. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord's statement that the gross estimated rental was no guide to the rent. Nothing had been done since 1859 affecting rateable value, but a good deal had been done affecting the gross estimated rental, the labours of the union assessment committees having changed variety for something like uniformity, so that in about three-fourths or four-fifths of the boroughs the gross estimated rental was a good indication of the clear annual value and of the annual rent. The result of this uniformity was that, in introducing the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to say that he hoped in future to look to the gross estimated rental as primâ facie evidence of the clear annual value, and hence the provision which the Bill contained. He assumed that what they were trying to do, in the attempt to make a good Reform Bill, was to arrive at the best possible definition of an occupation franchise; because hon. Members had signified their content with an occupation franchise and had not expressed a desire for a franchise of another kind. Hon. Members, then, wished to have an occupation franchise as clearly and honestly defined as possible; and he believed that all on his own side of the House wished it to be defined at as little trouble and cost as possible. He had at first shared the opinion of most of those who had at

  599
  tempted to solve the question, that it was the best principle to proceed by taking the rateable value; but all who had pursued the subject still further had invariably found, in the attempt to carry out this idea, that it was a delusion, that it was more cumbrous and expensive than the course proposed, and that the example of Ireland was misleading because of the exceptional circumstances of that country. In order to ascertain the clear annual value it was proposed to take the gross estimated rental as primâ facie evidence, which it might be assumed to be under the operation of the Union Assessment Act; and power was given to a claimant to appeal to a perfectly impartial judge, the Revising Barrister, who would decide whether the clear annual value was rightly defined by the rate book or not. The Amendment, if he understood it rightly, would get rid of the Revising Barrister altogether. ["No, no!"] Suppose it did not, it would give the Revising Barrister more work than he had to do at present, because there would be disputes, not merely with regard to the gross estimated rental and the clear annual value, but also with regard to the rateable value and whether that had been properly arrived at. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine that rateable value was accuracy itself. That was a mistake. The rateable value was based upon the actual value, and perpetuated all its errors, together with those which it gathered in its course. Since, then, the Revising Barrister would have first to examine into the actual value of the property and then check the process whereby the rateable value was deduced from it, his work would be increased. But suppose the Revising Barrister was dispensed with. The list of voters would then be dealt with by the local authorities alone, and he would show what would be the result. In the first place, he believed there was a great mistake as to the number of £7 voters who would be admitted under a rating franchise. Speaking of a large number of boroughs it would require a man to pay on an average a rental of £9 a year before he could get a vote. That would bring in the élite of the working classes, whom it was most desirable to introduce into the constituencies. He had got the statistics relating to twenty-two boroughs taken at random from letter B, from which he had deduced calculations as to the probable working of a rating fran-
  600
  chise—Gentlemen would accede to a rating franchise. In one of the twenty two boroughs 10 per cent was deducted from the gross estimated rental in order to arrive at the rateable value; in another 12½ per cent; in four it was 15 per cent; in five it was 20 per cent; and in one other it was 25 per cent. In the remaining ten the deduction varied from 5 to 15 per cent. It was agreed on all hands that a cottager who paid 3s. 6d. per week for his house, or nearly £9 a year, was a proper person to have a vote. But his landlord paid his rates, so that 3s. 6d. a week would give about £7 5s. as the gross estimated rental; and if 20 per cent were deducted from that the house would be brought down to £5 16 s.; and if 15 per cent were deducted, the result would be £6 3s. Thus it would be seen that in ten boroughs whose initial letter was B, a cottager who paid 3s. 6d. a week for his house would not have a vote under a £7 rating franchise; in eight boroughs he would get a vote, and in four he might or might not. That being the case, it was advisable to consider who would have the power of deciding whether that man had a vote or not. That comprised what he ventured to call the suspicious part of the proposition. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not use the word invidiously—he had never been in the habit of making personal attacks upon hon. Gentlemen—but he believed unfairness would occur in connection with the decision as to who was or was not to have a vote in proportion to the extent to which political feeling existed in a borough. Local persons, not necessarily partial, but liable to be influenced by political controversy and party pressure, would frame the lists of voters in boroughs, and on the mode in which they framed them would depend whether a man who paid as little as 3s. 6d. per week for his cottage would have a vote or not. Much had been said with respect to double elections; but in this case it was proposed that men who were elected for one purpose should choose the voters for Parliamentary boroughs. Then the guardians who chose the voters were elected by what was called a plurality of votes. If it was intended to introduce that principle to test Parliamentary voting, let it be stated boldly, but he begged they would not steal in with it furtively. He asked hon. Gentlemen, most of whom were ex officio guardians, whether it would be fair for county

  601
  magistrates living near a borough to have the power of framing the list of voters for that borough; and whether it was fair that in an agricultural parish, contiguous to a borough, the farmers in that parish should choose the list of voters? [Mr. DISRAELI: They have nothing to do with it.] He must beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but they had everything to do with it. The course of proceeding was this. The overseers made out the lists; and how were the overseers appointed? Theoretically they were appointed by the justices, but as a matter of fact by the vestries—or rather the incoming overseers were appointed by the outgoing. ["No, no!"] He contended that his assertion was true, and further stated that the overseers drew up the rating list and arranged what percentage should be deducted from the gross estimated annual value. ["No, no!"] He said it was so, but admitted that the list was submitted to, and revised by, the union assessment committee, who, however, he insisted, were elected upon the plurality principle, and were assisted in their revision of the list of voters by magistrates who had in some cases nothing to do with the borough. In three-fifths of the cases there would be a preponderance of the agricultural element. He asked, was that a fair way of drawing up a list of voters? Under any circumstances, it would have a suspicion of unfairness; and he could conceive of nothing more likely to lower the House of Commons in the estimation of the country than the adoption of the principle which was offered for its acceptance in the Amendment under consideration.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has displayed all the zeal of a neophyte which is so commendable in a young Member of the Government. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies rated the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord R. Montagu) for having wandered from the question, but the hon. Gentleman himself wandered away from the question when he indulged in a series of remarks upon the office and character of an overseer, which does not seem to bear much on the subject at issue; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who set us the example of wandering away from the question, by pressing into the consideration of this question other subjects that were
  602
  utterly foreign to it. Without further preface, I must say that I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as to admit that the Amendment of the noble Lord does go to the root of the question. The Amendment opens up a field for criticism upon the whole Bill, and raises the whole issue upon which, in a very pointed and grave manner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeated the solemn pledge which he gave to the House and the country that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to stand or fall by the Bill now before the House. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheers that sentiment. I hope that the decision we are about to come to will show the House and the country what is really the opinion of the Committee upon this subject. I, for one, have always supported the Government on this question. I have voted for it night after night, and would support any Government that should bring in a Bill for the reduction of the franchise. But after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to put this point to the House of Commons. What is the question it really has to consider? What is the duty of this Committee of the House of Commons now? To my mind the duty of the Committee is paramount—it is not to consider what are the views of any particular Minister on this subject, or what the position of that Minister would be in certain contingencies, but what will be the result of the measure upon the country—whether the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Dunkellin) does not involve considerations better than the scheme of the Government for the general good. No doubt there are many others who entertain similar views respecting the situation, and I am anxious to point out to the Committee the course which I proposed to take on the present occasion. I followed with great attention the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admitted the importance of the Amendment, and divided it into two heads—namely, political and practical—but I was sorry to notice in his remarks traces of an excited and irritated manner for which there seemed to be no good reason. ["No, no!"] If I in any way misrepresent my right hon. Friend, I am sorry for it. Perhaps hon. Members who say "No, no!" were not present when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke. The impression produced on me by his speech

  603
  certainly was that for some reason or other which I could not understand, he spoke with unusual animation and irritation. ["No, no!"] Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer charged the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite (Sir Hugh Cairns) with having given an erroneous assurance, and went on to say that it was quite evident that the noble Lord (Lord Dunkellin) had not read the Bill, and that he had hopelessly jumbled up his arguments. That, surely, is rather excited language. ["No!"] Well, then, it is a very calm way of putting the case. It is a very calm and judicious mode of conciliating Members of the Liberal party, similar language having been used to many others who sit on this side of the House. I will now pass from that and will assume either that the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very bad one, and that he felt it required a little extra polish and varnish, or that he was carried away by the enthusiasm with which, I am happy to say, he always deals with a subject. My right hon. Friend divided the Amendment into two heads—the political and the practical. I will take the practical first. He said that the noble Lord the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin) did not understand the question, but forgot to add that the noble Lord did not fix any limit or name any figure at which the franchise should be put, merely advocating the general principle of rating. And I must say that to my mind the noble Lord put the case before the Committee in a very able and intelligible way. It is quite clear that there can be no intrinsic merit in the figures £7 and £14, because we know that before the Returns were prepared which so misled them, the Government had proposed, or intended to have proposed, a different figure from the £7 and £14 franchises. Now it is my wish carefully and earnestly to consider this question, because I should deeply regret to take upon this subject any step which I might afterwards have reason to think I ought not to have taken; but I certainly have come to the conclusion that the arrangement which the noble Lord proposes as a basis for the borough franchise has a great advantage over the proposal of the Government. It has been stated two or three times over, and it cannot be stated too often, that the rate books are drawn up without any question of political bias—that they are perfectly fair towards the occupier, and that the occupier's interest is not to exaggerate the value of
  604
  his holding; for the result would be that he would subject himself to additional taxation. Clearly, on whichever side of the House we sit, we are all interested in making Parliamentary government as effective as possible, and therefore let us consider this question fairly and above-board, with the single object of amending the franchise. I say that I have always hitherto supported the Government, and am in favour of reducing the franchise: but do not bring party feeling into the consideration of a question in which all parties are interested alike. This Amendment, in my opinion, does not in any way tend in the direction of a party movement. ("Oh, oh!" and cheers.] Here, again, I am met with interruptions. I do not know why they should be directed against an observation of that kind, for this I can say, without fear of contradiction, that for more than fifteen years during which I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I never recollect an Opposition which lent itself less to the arts of Parliamentary tactics than has the powerful party on the other side of the House upon this occasion. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] I say this as a supporter of the Government. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] Why, nearly all the opposition to this Bill has come from this side of the House. And I think that the narrow divisions upon the Motions of the noble Earl the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor), and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), must have convinced the Government that the danger they have to apprehend arises not from Conservatives but from the ranks of the Liberal party. Now, I have not spoken before daring the present debates; but I am sorry to say that, as time has gone on, I have marked a growing dislike throughout the country for this particular measure. I speak certainly of the borough I have the honour to represent. I can assure the Committee that I have voted over and over again for the Government where I really and honestly believe that the opinions of the constituency which I represent would have gone in the contrary direction. Now, I would observe that a rating test, which is now under consideration, as it was last week in regard to the counties, would be of infinitely greater value in borough than in county registration. And here I would make a remark upon the speech of the Solicitor General, who, I should say, did not seem to know exactly what had been done by his own

  605
  Colleagues in the matter. I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman talk of going out of the way in the discussion of this question—I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was not going out of the way when he went on to rate the borough justices as he did. I did not expect to hear a Law Officer of the Crown do that. The only excuse he gave was that every one in this House was not a lawyer, and therefore did not understand the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that rating throughout the country was most unequal; but, at all events, I think a rating would be more equal than a rental qualification. The Solicitor General appeared to have forgotten that there was a recent Assessment Act passed by the present Government which tended in a very great degree to promote a uniform principle of assessment throughout the country. Then a rating test is the legal test in Ireland, and I know to my own knowledge it works well and satisfactorily. Now, the principle of the Union Assessment Act and the rating test which is already the law in Ireland would be equally applicable to counties as to boroughs; and for reasons which must be obvious, I think it a very important consideration that the determination of a low qualification of £7 should be altogether withdrawn from the sphere of political animosity and agitation in boroughs. I voted with the Government the other night against the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; but I am sorry to say that, upon consideration of the Amendment of my noble Friend—looking to the importance, in my view, of the rating qualification in boroughs, and believing that there is risk of the manipulation of the register, which should be guarded against by every means, and that the Amendment of my noble Friend is more likely to provide safeguards than the proposal of the Government—without further occupying the time of the Committee or going into any figures, I must say I shall be glad to see the Amendment adopted. Having said so much with regard to the practical head of the question, I would touch for a moment upon the other portion of the subject referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I mean the political portion, and that is the gravest part of the affair. This Amendment, I maintain, is very much the result of the conduct of the Government towards the Liberal party. I heard the other
  606
  night one of the stanchest Liberals in this House, say he had been treated by the Government on the night of the division upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire in a manner which he could not forget; and many other Liberals who sit in this quarter make the same observation. [Cries of "Name, name!"] I answer, as my noble Friend answered before—their name is Legion. I say this Amendment is caused very much by the action of the Government, and so was the Amendment of my noble Friend the Member for Chester, and that of my gallant Friend the Member for Wells, and of the course adopted by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer has over and over again said that the present Government sitting upon these seats is the Government of Lord Palmerston without Lord Palmerston. Now, to his mind that may be a distinction without a difference. I have heard my right hon. Friend say so, The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. If he denies it I will, of course, at once retract: but this I will say—it is quite certain that the wisdom and the discretion of Lord Palmerston are no longer on these Benches to guide the decisions of the Government. We have felt that on more than one occasion. When I stated just now that there was great dissatisfaction felt by many hon. Members on this side of the House with the conduct of the Government I was met by marks of dissent, as if that were not the case. Only last week what occurred? The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a proposal made by an hon. Gentleman opposite; and what was said by hon. Members on this side? I will quote the remarks of three eminent Liberals in support of my statement. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) said he looked upon the changes in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's views with some suspicion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had struck a fatal blow at the utility of the Bill; and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White), with that stanch and bold front which he always shows, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted in a spirit of deplorable concession without regarding the feelings of hon. Members below the gangway. If that does not indicate very great and unfortunate differences of opinion on this side as regards the conduct of the Government, I really do

  607
  not know what does. Now, I want to put the matter to the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer in this way:—As regards the pressing on now of this measure, time appears to be against you. I think we should not have sufficient time, even if you carry this clause, to go on with the entire Bill this Session. At the commencement of the Session I looked with hope and confidence to union and strength on the part of the supporters of the Government to facilitate the progress of this measure, which I have as much at heart as any man. I say for seven or eight years I have been decidedly in favour of a reduction of the franchise, and, whatever Government comes into power, I will always support any Bill which leads in that direction. Well, having said so much, I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a little consideration for the opinions of those who are in the habit of acting with him. At this late hour I will not venture to trespass further on the time of the Committee, except so far as to say that I am disposed—reluctantly, I admit—to support the Amendment of my noble Friend, because I honestly and conscientiously believe that it is better for the public interest than the proposal of the Government. I prefer doing that to giving, as I must otherwise be obliged to do, an insincere vote to bolster up a scheme which this House and the country have sufficiently proved to the Government is not one which would be palatable to the public or in any way promote the interests which we are desirous of serving.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, the Committee will agree with me when I express a hope that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth feels himself much happier and greatly relieved after the opportunity he has had of pouring out the story of his personal griefs. The right hon. Baronet began by charging the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a manner unfriendly and irritating. Now, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed himself to the speech of the noble Lord who sits near me (Lord Dunkellin), I venture to say that the idea that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was irritating in his language, if it has entered the mind of the noble Lord at all, has entered it since the matter has been pointed out to him by the right hon. Baronet—for I will undertake to say that nothing could possibly be more fair—that nothing was more generous—than the view which the right hon. Gentleman took of
  608
  the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Galway county; because he gave him full credit for his sincerity in wishing merely to amend this Bill in this clause, and he shut out of view, if not altogether, almost entirely, any suspicion that he might have that the object of the noble Lord was to limit the franchise. Now, I think that the question as between rating and rental, as a mere matter of practical advantage, has been discussed almost as much as it can be with profit to the Committee. I doubt if anything new or better can be said on either side upon it than has been said by the speakers who have addressed the Committee. I take the liberty of expressing my opinion that the real object of this Amendment, in the shape in which it is presented to us, and the real cause why it obtains so large, perhaps it may be so unanimous, a support from the other side, is that it meets the proposition of the Government to extend the franchise to all householders in boroughs who pay rent to the amount of £7 in value by a proposition which will raise that limit to about £9. I will not charge the noble Lord with that intention; but I will say this—that during the whole time that I have been in this House, while the noble Lord has been in the House, and that is now a good many years—I do not know how many—I have never known him take before so deep an interest in any matter connected with England and Wales as that which he has shown to-night with regard to this particular question—and, on the whole, I suspect that it is not necessary for the representative of the county of Galway to undertake to teach either the people or the representatives of England and Wales what is right with regard to a practical question of this nature. The noble Lord, if he comes forward to ask the House of Commons not to extend the franchise so widely as the Government proposition would extend it, is doing that which not only he but any Member of this House has a perfect right to do; but I take the liberty of saying that I do not think that he is the highest authority on the question of rating in boroughs. He tells us—and I believe with great truth—that the system which prevails in Ireland is perfectly satisfactory. I do not dispute that in the least. I believe, however, that the system which has been proposed in this Bill would be found to be equally satisfactory, and that if it were put to the population of the boroughs—both to

  609
  those who are at present electors and to those who are proposed to be made electors by this Bill—that there would be a vast majority of them who would approve of the proposition of the Government. But I believe the noble Lord did not understand one part of his subject, or, at any rate, he failed to make me believe that he understood it. He quoted some passage from a speech of mine which did not appear to bear much on the question; and he quoted the opinions of much more eminent men, for the purpose of showing how admirable it was or would be to take the rate book and make it the basis of the register. Well, in the Bill which I prepared with great trouble some years ago, and which I did not bring before the House in the Session of 1859, because the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had a Bill which for the moment stopped the way—in that Bill I proposed that the rate book should be the basis of the register; but then I proposed that everybody whose name was in that rate book should be placed on the register, and it was not with me, nor was it with any of those men whom the noble Lord quoted as authorities, that it was ever intended that the rate book should determine carried, and if a £7 rateable value be in a register based upon the rateable value; because in that case, as far as regards the extension of the suffrage, you might make the suffrage high or low; but clearly if you apply that test to any particular figure you limit the franchise very much beyond what it would be limited if that figure were taken as the clear annual value. The noble Lord said that he was going upon the old constitutional basis. I venture to say that he can find nothing in the old Constitution of this country which will show that the rateable value, as he now proposes we should accept it, has ever been employed to determine the number or the quality of the electors of this country. The proposition is wholly unknown before, and is introduced now for the first time; and I cannot understand how any Member of this House who is not anxious to limit the franchise further than it would be limited by the £7 rental qualification can resist the conclusive and exhaustive argument which has been offered to the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) who seconded the Amendment was very candid and very fair, because he said that he approved the Amendment, not only because he considered that this mode was better, but he
  610
  approved also of the limitation of the franchise which it would effect. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether their unanimity is not caused mainly by that fact? If the noble Lord the Member for Galway had intended that the franchise should remain as extensive if his Amendment were carried as it would be by the proposition of the Government being sustained by the Committee, he would surely have told us that if his Amendment were carried he proposed to substitute the figure 5 for the figure 7 in the clause of the Bill. A £6 rating qualification, which has been suggested, would certainly not be as extensive a franchise as the £7 rental qualification proposed by the Bill. Well, then, the real question at issue—and I shall keep the Committee but a few minutes upon it, because it was much discussed at an earlier period of the Session—is this, whether they will agree to £7 value as it stands in the Bill, or to a £7 rateable value, as is proposed in fact by this Amendment, and which will be substantially a franchise close upon, if not precisely, a £9 value. ["No, no!"] I venture to say that if this Amendment be introduced, unless there be a determination on the part of the Committee to insert the figure 5 instead of the figure 7, the aim and great object of this Bill will be entirely defeated. The claim of the working men, which even the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) seems as if he would not wholly reject, will practically be rejected. I may say, therefore, and I say it with the most entire belief in its truth, that whatever any Member may convince himself of; the actual meaning of every vote that will be given to-night in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord will be that the franchise shall not be given to £7 householders, but shall merely be extended to householders of £9 in value. On a former occasion in discussing this question I took the opportunity of stating figures with regard to about thirty of the select and choice working men of the town in which I live—the men who are such great favourites with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir Bulwer Lytton). I shall not detain the Committee more than a minute upon it, but it is a fact illustrative of the point before us. The hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope) in a recent speech said, that of the managing men of the co-operative societies of Roch-

  611
  dale he understood the greater number of them were outside of the borough; and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire intimated something of the same kind. Well, when I was down in Rochdale I understood somebody was making a minute investigation, but as he did not find the fact to be so I suppose he was not able to report it to his employers. Of the whole thirty-three men who manage these committees—I think there are actually only thirty-two, because one of them is on two committees—there are only six of them out of the borough, and of these only one certainly, the other two possibly, might have a vote if they were inside the borough. Therefore that point of the case is disposed of. At present there are seventeen of these men within the borough who have no votes. With a £7 franchise, as proposed by the Bill, out of those seventeen eleven would be enfranchised. Bear in mind they are the very select men of the 5,000 working men's families in Rochdale, and that they manage—and manage admirably so far as I believe—a business of nearly £500,000 a year. With a £7 franchise, eleven out of the seventeen would be enfranchised, while, if you had an £8 franchise as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), that eleven would be diminished to only two. If this rating proposition of the noble Lord were adopted, and the word "seven" remained, in that case I believe there would not be one single man of those seventeen who would be enfranchised. Now, let me for a moment tell the Committee what those men have done in matters of which I had not before the opportunity of speaking. They are 5,500 in number; they apply every year 2½ per cent of their profits to educational purposes—they spend £700 per annum in this way; they have established a library in the town of upwards of 6,000 volumes, and they keep open and support ten separate news-rooms at their different branches in and about the town, to which libraries and news-rooms entrance is free to all the members of the co-operative societies. A distinguished officer of the Government who went to that library with me, after examining the collection of reviews, magazines, newspapers, and periodicals of various kinds, told me he was quite certain the collection was more extensive than that which was taken in at the Athenæum Club, of which he was a Member. ["Question!"] I am not sur-
  612
  prised that the hon. Gentleman there calls question; but if this is not the question, there is no question before the House. Are you prepared to extend the franchise to eleven out of these seventeen, according to the proposition of the Bill, or to only two out of the seventeen, according to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford? or are you prepared to deny it to every one of them, according to the proposition of the noble Lord, if the word "seven" remain in the clause? Now, these are the choice men of their class—the select men as they may be called:—they are men of whom any country may be proud, and yet it is proposed to shut the door of this House in their faces, and to deny them entrance here, not in their own proper persons, but in the persons of their representatives. What will be the effect of such a proposition as this upon the minds of those men—of these 5,000 whom they represent, and the hundreds of thousands who form the population of the great manufacturing towns? At present it is to my mind one of the most lamentable things in our country, that the great body of the working class are absolutely divorced from our political interests and institutions. Since these discussions commenced a few weeks ago, a Member of this House has showed me a letter which he had received from a gentleman with whom I am well acquainted — one of the largest cotton-spinners, manufacturers, and merchants in Lancashire—a gentleman who might long ago have been in this House had he not had so much business thrown upon him that it was impossible for him to have given up the time which his presence here would have demanded. In this letter this gentleman stated to my hon. Friend that he regretted to find that amongst his workmen there was growing up a much stronger interest in American politics than in the politics of their own country. I met him not long ago, after reading that letter, and asked him if he really meant what he had written to represent the literal fact. He said it was the literal fact, and he stated as a proof of it that in his mill there were nearly as many American newspapers to be found as newspapers published in this country. Hon. Gentlemen may think that has nothing to do with this question; but I take the liberty of telling them that in my opinion a state of society like that, and a state of opinion like that, amongst a population such as we have in Lancashire and Yorkshire represents anything but a healthy

  613
  state of things, and demands the attention of this House. What do the great employers of labour say who are here? Take the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley), one of the largest employers of labour in the kingdom; take the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt), perhaps the largest machine maker in the world, and employing several thousand men; take the opinion of such men in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and they will tell you they have a deep interest in changing the state of feeling there, and extending the right of voting to the persons they employ. They all know—all of us who employ labour know — that one great effect of passing this Bill would be to increase the desire for education, to stimulate self-respect, and we know, moreover, that all the social relations of our great population would thereby be very much improved. The noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) spoke of the state of things at this moment in Europe—a state of things calculated to fill all our minds with grief, and to make all of us, I hope, congratulate ourselves that we have done something of late years to estrange ourselves from the complications of European politics. But the noble Lord argued that because there was this state of things in Europe, therefore this Bill could not wisely be proceeded with. I should argue from it exactly the reverse. War throughout Europe may end very differently from the idea now entertained by the Kings and Emperors concerned or looking on. It may end in a fever of revolution in Germany; it may end in the promulgation of opinions which are not favourable to constituted order, and no man knows to what country and to what extent those opinions may spread; and I, living amongst a very dense population, believe, and I think every employer of labour in this House will believe, that every interest in this country would be safer, more comfortable and more happy in every particular, if some 200,000, 300,000, or 400,000 persons were added to those who now possess the electoral franchise. I am not speaking of this now solely in the interests of the working men, but I regret from the bottom of my heart to see the constant endeavour, as it appears to me, to dig a gulf of eternal separation between the great body of the working classes throughout the kingdom and its institutions. You may rely upon it that this setting the most numerous,
  614
  and, after all that can be said, the most necessary class in it constantly against every other class is bad in every way, and it is especially perilous and more likely to be fatal when it is a policy advocated by a great and powerful party in this House. Every man of you knows that this Bill, if it were passed, and this clause more especially of all parts of the Bill, would give the greatest satisfaction, not only to the 200,000 who would be admitted to the franchise, but to millions now excluded, and who would consider themselves in some degree represented by those whom, when passed, it will admit. There have been, as I know, between 400 and 500 public meetings held in the country—["Where?"]—at every one of which resolutions in favour of this particular clause have been adopted. Hon. Gentlemen ask Where? Why, on the table of the House there have been petitions laid, signed by the chairmen of above 180 public meetings; and I am not overstating it, for I know the facts, when I say that more than 450 public meetings have been held approving of this Bill, and especially approving of this clause which we are now discussing; whilst there has been no public meeting in any part of the country that has been held to protest against this measure. The people are not like the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir Robert Peel), in favour of extending the suffrage, and yet voting against a proposition to extend it. They know what they want, and they support the measure which is offered to them. Your constituents have not held, and there has not been held in the whole country, any public meeting at which the Bill has been stigmatized as dangerous to the institutions of the country, or even dangerous to the Conservative party. The noble Lord says the Amendment will not be carried. I can give no opinion upon that, for I am not versed in Parliamentary computations; but if the Amendment be carried, if the Bill be rejected, if the Government be overturned—that is a point, of course, which, as Members of this House, we are called upon to consider in emergencies of this kind—here, too, I may add that when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, hon. Members opposite told us it would be a great calamity to have a change of Government—I am at liberty to say the same thing now if I please, but it is not necessary for me to say it—I say, if you vote for this Amendment, and carry it—if you reject this Bill—if

  615
  you overturn this Government—if you come to this side of the House (a very likely thing to happen, and one which we are obliged to consider)—this question will still remain. Do not imagine you can come here, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire can get up at that table and defy the Liberal party in England. Do not imagine that he can stand up here and tell the people of England that the measure of their political franchise is full—or that he can stand there and tell the people of England, as the Duke of Wellington did in the other House more than thirty years ago, that he could almost trace a Divine origin for our Constitution, and no alteration was required in it. Depend upon it, the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to follow such an example. This question, I say, will remain—to break up his Government, it may be—to weaken every Government that sits on that Bench until it is settled—to create excitement everywhere throughout the country, and to afford an opportunity at every meeting for the discussion of those fundamental principles of the Constitution which it is advisable not to have too freely discussed in this country. And all this you are going to bring about because the noble Lord the Member for Galway has imported into this House a proposition to suit the county of Galway—a proposition that is wholly foreign to anything that has ever existed in England and Wales, which is utterly unknown in this country, and for which there can be no foundation found in the kingdom of Scotland. Now, I ask hon. Members in all sincerity whether it is worth their while to take a course which will entangle them in so many difficulties, the whole measure of which they cannot at the present moment well comprehend—I ask them whether it would not be better frankly to accept this Bill—to give to the people of England an assurance of their confidence in them, and to do an act of generosity by them. I believe that there never is anything more wise on the part of a monarch, or on the part of a Parliament, than to place confidence in the people for whom they are called upon to legislate. And from what we know of the people of England and of their great and good qualities—which no one here will wish to depreciate — I will undertake to say that if you will treat them with generosity and justice now they will make an ample return by rendering
  616
  obedience to the law and loyalty to the Throne.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I feel that, after the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and after the rebuke which he has administered to the noble Lord who has proposed this Amendment (Lord Dunkellin), I owe an apology to the Committee that I, an Irish Member, should presume to take part in the discussion of an English question. I will endeavour to make my peace with the hon. Member for Birmingham, and with the Committee at the same time. To the hon. Member for Birmingham I will say —I would address him in a whisper, only I am afraid it would not reach his ears—that if none but English Members had discussed and voted upon this Bill, we should not to-night have been in Committee upon it. To the Committee my excuse must be a promise. I will promise them to do what the hon. Member for Birmingham has not done—namely, to confine the few observations I shall make to the subject under discussion. I shall not contend with the hon. Member as to whether the manner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fair and courteous and generous to his opponents; that undoubtedly is a matter of opinion, but time would be wasted if we were to enter upon such an argument. Neither will I enter the lists with the hon. Member for Birmingham on the subject of the details he has given us with regard to Rochdale. But the hon. Member referred to what was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. Now, the statements of those right hon. Gentlemen were not their own; they were statements which are contained in the blue book of the Government. The statements contained in that book may be very erroneous, but we have no other materials before us than what it contains. It tells us that the better class of the working men of Rochdale live outside the boundaries of that borough, and that that is the reason why so few of that class are upon the register.
  Now, Sir, I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is extremely desirable that we should know the exact issue raised by this Amendment. Notwithstanding all that the hon. Member for Birmingham has said upon the subject, no man in the Committee knows better than he does that the real issue before us is not the amount of the fran-

  617
  chise in boroughs—that question will be as open to every Member of the House to discuss and to argue, if this Amendment is carried, as it is at the present moment. Neither does the question before us relate to the subject which occupied a considerable portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer — namely, whether the ratepaying clauses with regard to boroughs should be retained. That is a question which will not arise until we come to the part of the Bill which deals with that subject. I may also put aside a chimera conjured up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by which many Members of the Committee were evidently very much affrighted. The right hon. Gentleman said that if this Amendment was carried, there will sometimes be property in boroughs not rated at all, and that therefore it would be necessary to provide a separate franchise for that description of property. But I am not aware that there is any borough in England which has in it either mines or forests, and mines and forests were, I presume, the property to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I think, therefore, we may approach this discussion without being much disturbed by the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman. The real questions we have to discuss, as I apprehend them, are these. In the first place, as to the question of principle. The local taxation of this country is founded upon occupation—occupation is founded upon rateable value. If there can be one principle which commends itself to one's reason more than another, it is this—that the question of the burden and the question of the benefit should be adjusted by the same standard. The burden is the burden of paying taxes, and the benefit is the advantage derived from having a vote for the representation of the people. The principle, therefore, raised by the Amendment is a simple one—it was admitted even by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to be a very plausible one — it is this, that the weight of the burden and the right to the benefit should be ascertained by the same mode. Now, I do not think it is too much to say that upon those who contend against this principle lies the burden of adducing reasons why it should not be adopted; and what we have now to see is what reasons of this character have been adduced against it. In the first place, if the Committee will permit me, I will remind them of what the origin of the
  618
  rateable value was, and what was its real meaning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the noble Lord the Member for Galway that he appeared not to be aware that the column headed "gross estimated rental" was something quite new in the history of the question, and that it had been unheard of until it appeared in the Government blue book. Now I hold in my hand the Act of 1836, and if the Committee will allow me I will read a few lines of one of the clauses that affect this question. The Act provides that the rate shall be given in a form given by the schedule, and that that form shall contain an answer to all the headings contained in the schedule. And, with respect to the column of the "gross estimated rental" which the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted the noble Lord the Member for Galway with not having discovered, the Act of 1836 contains the identical same column with the present Bill; and not only that, but the schedule is copied from the Act of 1836 down to the names of the occupiers. What are the objections to ascertaining the annual value by the same mode as that in which it was proposed to be arrived at in 1836? There can be no objection raised on the ground that there is a want of uniformity in the law of ascertaining the rateable value, because similar property is valued in a similar mode in every district. But then, it is said, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer urges the argument with great ingenuity—"What right have you to deduct the cost of repairs—it is a question for the landlords, and not for the tenants, and has, therefore, nothing to do with the occupation value? The element of repairs ought not to enter into the question at all." I can understand you to say that a man pays so much rent to the landlord, and that the landlord pays the rates and taxes. Take the case of a tenant who takes a holding by the week, pays 3s. 6d. or 4s., of course the landlord pays the rates and repairs. I can understand you to say that payment by the man should be the test of his right of voting. That is intelligible. But I cannot see why you should say we will deduct the rates and taxes which the landlord pays, but we will not deduct the annual average sum for repairs. The argument is perfectly inconsistent. I cannot understand the argument that you should make a reduction with respect to local rates and taxes, and not with respect to repairs. But then it is said that there is an inequality in, the de-

  619
  duction, and that it would be unsafe to allow it. Now, in the first place, I ask the Government, do they contend that local taxation is an equal deduction under all places and circumstances? Anything more unequal than local taxation, or than the rates for the poor in two adjoining parishes, can hardly be imagined. Take the case of two men renting houses for which they pay £11. One man is allowed 25 s. for local deductions, and another only 15 s. The man who is allowed 25 s. loses the franchise, while the man who is allowed 15 s. stands in the rate book at £10 5s., and receives the franchise. With regard to these repairs, what is the course taken for the deductions for the annual rateable value? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us the instances of Oxford and Exeter, but they were unfortunate illustrations. The whole drift of the contest is that the Act of 1862 has materially altered the regulations and practice with regard to assessment. It is said that in that Act there is a particular enactment to the effect that if the overseers are of opinion that the assessment does not correctly show the rateable annual value they are to revise the valuation—that is, wherever the Act applies. Now it is a very curious thing that the instances which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has selected for his examples are those in which the Act of 1862 has not yet been applied. The Act has been applied, as we know, in a great number of parishes and unions in the kingdom, but it has not been applied at Oxford, it has not been applied at Exeter, and they are the two conspicuous cases which the Government bring forward as instances why the rateable value cannot be trusted. Now, let us have one thing or another. Do not appeal to the Act of 1862 as having altered the basis of legislation; or, if you do appeal to it, apply it to all the unions, and do not single out those where it has not been applied up to the present time. I think it is a very wise precaution to take to provide that the very wholesome Act of 1862 should be made compulsory on the unions which have not yet adopted it, and that would remove the most singular anomalies that have been mentioned. With regard to the other instances in the blue book where the Act has been adopted, what do they come to? We have no knowledge whatever that any scale with respect to the other unions of assessment of rateable value is an unfair scale. We are told that in some unions a
  620
  different deduction is made on houses over £8 from those under £8, and that in other unions there are different deductions made in certain parts of a town from those made in other parts. But these may be perfectly fair deductions. Having regard to the particular classes of houses in different neighbourhoods, the difference in materials for repair, and the difference in wages and in other incidental circumstances, may make a different rebate a very proper course to be taken. It is a gratuitous assumption on the part of the Government that these are unfair deductions. How do we stand as to the gross estimated rental? The Government are greatly enamoured of it, and they consider that it forms so excellent a standard that it may be safely adopted as a primâ facie standard. But those who have any experience of the working of measures of this kind know that if you adopt anything as a primâ facie standard you adopt it as a standard for pretty well every purpose. I look into the blue book and I find that the gross estimated rental is in some places the rackrent, and that this rackrent is explained as the rent leaving out of consideration local rates and taxes; in other places it is the rent taking into the computation those local rates and taxes. In other places I find a deduction of 5 per cent is made—on what principle I do not know—before the gross estimated rental is arrived at. In other places I find that 10 per cent is deducted, and that there is no principle upon which such deduction is made. I wish to point out to the Committee a matter of considerable importance with regard to the system of gross estimated rental. The Government throughout assume that rateable value is arrived at by first taking the gross estimated rental and then making a deduction. I venture to say that this is a very questionable proposition. I do not find any Act of Parliament stating that this is the mode by which you are to arrive at the rateable value. I know what the practice is, and I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on authority that has satisfied me, that if I take the case of London, in almost all the parishes of London so far from there being a process by which the gross estimated rental is arrived at and then reduced, and the operation is exactly the opposite. The surveyors and valuers go out and value the premises for rateable value. They ascertain and determine that which they are

  621
  accustomed to ascertain and determine; and I understand that the person who determines the gross estimated rental is a clerk in the counting-house or office, who proceeds to add, on some imaginary principle, 10, 15, or 20 per cent, as the case may be, to the rateable value as ascertained by actual inspection. Do not let us delude ourselves by thinking that gross estimated rental is anything in the great number of cases but purely fictitious. I believe that in practice the real column is the column of rateable value, and that the column of gross estimated rental is the fancy column. It is sometimes added and sometimes not. I appeal upon that point to the authority of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). One word more about the gross estimated rental. The Government are very much enamoured of that column, and of that test with regard to that rental. I cannot help reminding the House of some curious information we have in the blue book. It is impossible to go through all the cases at this hour, but I will mention one or two. One is the case of Ashton-under-Lyne, where there is a very curious case about which there is a curious history. What the blue book tells us in regard to Ashton is, that there are nearly 100 more £10 votes on the list than there are £10 occupiers in the borough. That is very odd, and you wonder how it could happen. But there is a note in the blue book to explain it. It is stated that there is a large number of houses in the borough at a fixed small rental. It appears that in Ashton there is an excess of eighty-nine voters over the £10 occupiers. There are two manufacturing firms employing a large number of hands and owning a great number of small houses, into which they put their workmen, and these are locally known as "voting houses." Many of these houses are of a class which in other parts of the town are rated at £8 or £9 a year. Now, these are estimated at £9 10 s. in the gross estimated rental column; but the men pay £10, and prove that amount before the Revising Barrister. Of these eighty-nine surplus voters sixty possess houses belonging to these two firms. We are told that if the gross estimated rental is wrong, you can appeal to the Revising Barrister; but nobody can find out what the gross estimated rental is, whereas the rateable value column is perfectly clear and correct, and there can be no dispute as to what the house is rated
  622
  at. There are other cases. The case of Rye has been referred to to-night, and other cases might be put were the hour not now so late (twelve o'clock). And that is the column of gross estimated rental which the Government say is so superior in accuracy to the column of rateable value. As to the matter of precedent and authority, with the exception of the Reform Bill of 1832, every Act that we have on the subject of borough taxation, every Act that we have on the subject of borough voting, goes upon the principle of rateable value. I refer to Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, to our Local Government Acts, our Health of Towns Acts, and all Acts of that kind relating to local administration and local taxation. The only Act which ever adopted the principle of clear yearly value was the Reform Act; and the House is aware that never was there such a qualification in a borough before the year 1832. What we have therefore in the nature of precedent and authority is the other way. I appeal to the head of the present Government and to other persons who were Members of the Government which in 1862 and 1854 brought into this House Bills founded on the principle of rating, and that too at a time when the system of rating was subject to all those imperfections from which it has been relieved by the Act of 1862. Something has been said about the Bill of 1859 not having been framed on the principle of taking the rateable value; but there was a very simple reason for that; and if those hon. Members who have referred to that measure had only considered it for a moment they would have seen how utterly inapplicable it is to the present argument. The principle of that Bill was to maintain the £10 franchise for the boroughs undisturbed, and either to assimilate other franchises to it or make what have been called lateral extensions of the franchise. But you must have disturbed the borough franchise as it then stood if you had adopted the rateable value; and that would have been incompatible with the principle on which the Bill of 1859 was framed. Now I come to the Irish Act; and really I must ask the House, as an Irish Member, to allow me to offer one or two observations on that subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Attorney General for Ireland would explain all about it, but he himself did not explain how it did not bear on the point under discussion. The words in the Irish Act and the words in

  623
  the English Act with regard to the rateable value of houses in boroughs are identically the same. The Irish Act provides that the test of the franchise for boroughs shall be that the claimant shall be rated on the Poor Law list at the sum of £8 rent. That Act was passed, be it remembered, in 1850, when there was no general valuation in Ireland at all. We have heard the Government repeating again and again tonight that the Irish case has no application, because there exists in Ireland a general valuation. Yes, there is a general valuation now; but it was not in existence in 1850, when the Act was passed. And, moreover, in 1850 the rateable value was ascertained by the local bodies; it was the authority of the parishes and the unions which then ascertained and decided the rateable value. And, therefore, in 1850, you had in Ireland the very state of things which you say would be an objectionable state of things in this country. But what happened in 1852? Then my noble Friend (Lord Naas), as Chief Secretary for Ireland, presented to the House and the House passed the Valuation Bill of that year. And what are its words? This is the test of the rateable value for houses which it prescribes—
  "The rent for which, one year with another, the same might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, the probable average annual cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the hereditament in its actual state, and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any (except tithe rent-charge), being paid by the tenant."
  These are the very same words that are used in the English Act of 1836, with this simple difference—which is no difference in substance, but only one in form—namely, that in Ireland you assume that the tenant pays the whole of the local rates and therefore pays less rent than in England; and then you deduct the repairs and the insurance, and that brings you exactly to the same figures. Therefore the Irish precedent is exactly the same as the English; and the fact that in 1852 there was a general valuation does not alter the case at all. And now a word upon the relative advantages of the two systems—of the gross estimated rental and the rateable value—in regard to appeals. I desire to speak with respect of Revising Barristers—they are very good persons in their way; but do not let us run away with a mistaken idea of what the argument is with reference to them. They are generally young men. They are themselves no more
  624
  judges about the value of houses than they are as to the theory of the foreign exchanges; and although I am unwilling to follow the example set by those who impute motives to those who decide questions of local rating, yet it is just possible—I do not say it is likely—that Revising Barristers might have slight political proclivities. At least you must not set them down as infallible. But, apart from that, observe what you have to do as to gross estimated rental if you have an appeal in order to set right any error in it. You have to give three weeks' notice of your appeal, and you only get, in almost every case, one day in a year on which the Revising Barrister attends in your neighbourhood, and only for a very few hours during that day. He has a great crowd of cases to dispose of, and it may be that a man in humble life, who thinks that the column of gross estimated rental is wrong, will have to attend this Court to have it rectified; and this not because it will save him anything, but because perhaps in the course of the next six years he may be able to vote for a Member of Parliament. And when this person goes to the Revising Barrister, the Revising Barrister knows no more than the man in the moon about the value of the house; he must have the assistance of surveyors, architects, and valuers; and who are to pay for it all? Do you think that a poor man will have the means of paying for these skilled witnesses? And, moreover, every one who has had any experience of judicial contests where the value of houses is concerned, and has ever heard the conflicting testimony often given about the value of property, will be able to judge how satisfactory evidence of that description is. Well, that is the kind of appeal which the Government propose. Let me ask the House to contrast with this the appeal as to the question of rateable value. It is said that we propose to oust the appeal to the Revising Barrister; and certainly there would be no appeal to the Revising Barrister on the question of value, but there would be an appeal to him on every question of law. In Ireland there is no appeal to the Revising Barrister on the question of value, but there is an appeal on every question of law. And when we are speaking of local tribunals, I must remind hon. Gentlemen that in Ireland on the question of rateable value, the first appeal no doubt is to the public valuer, but from him there is another appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions,

  625
  which consists of local magistrates, and generally of that dreadfully obnoxious class, the county magistrates, who are well known to decide every question against justice and right. In the first place you have three controlling checks, if you adopt the rateable value, which almost make it certain that no appeal will be required. The first check against the rating being too high, would be the certainty that the tenant, when he finds that he would be called upon to pay more than he ought, will take care to have it set right. The next check against having the rating too low is, that if one man out of a hundred is rated too low, the rest of the parish would suffer, and therefore you may be perfectly sure that the rest of the parish will take care that no man or number of men will be rated too low. I do not stop to deal with the argument of the Solicitor General that there is no appeal if a man is rated too low; the Act says there is an appeal to anybody who is aggrieved. It may be that there was no grievance last year in a man being rated too low, but if his franchise depends on his being sufficiently rated, he would have a grievance and an appeal if he were underrated. Then there is this third check, that if one parish seeks to place its rate at a lower figure than the rest of the union, the rest of the union, and not only that, but the rest of the county with regard to the county rate, will be up in arms against that diminished rating. In these three checks you have as great a certainty as there can be that the rating will be at a proper level, and that everybody will be rated as he ought to be. And you must remember how the demand of half-a-crown operates on a man more strongly than the desire to possess a vote at some future period. What happened at the time of the Reform Bill? You passed an Act requiring 1s. to be paid for registration, and you had to reverse that in the course of a few years, because it was found that men were so indifferent to the franchise that they would not pay 1s. in order to possess it. One word more on the subject of appeal. There is this difference between the Revising Barrister and an Appeal to the magistrates. The Revising Barrister has not got the responsibility of saying what the rating should be, but simply decides whether a vote should be struck out or retained. But magistrates at sessions or a committee of assessment have the duty cast upon them of saying what the rate should be, and a sense of responsibility is more likely to control
  626
  their judgment and induce them to arrive at a proper conclusion. Both on principle and precedent, therefore, the argument is in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord. I regretted very much to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this Amendment that the Government had determined not to recede in any way from any of the arrangements in this clause with regard to the borough franchise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made that statement just after the discussion was launched, and after hearing a very small part of the argument on the subject. That course, I take the liberty of saying, is hardly consistent with due respect to this House. In the course of the discussion on this Bill the Government have viewed every attempt to alter it as personal to themselves, and they have in that point of view determined to resist every Amendment. After the second reading the Government said, "You may go into Committee; but the House must distinctly understand that the till must come out of it exactly as it went into Committee, or we, the Government, will have nothing to do with it;"—in fact, we were only allowed to go into Committee pro formâ. Sir, I for one protest against this mode of conducting the business of this House on the part of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night told us, before the argument on either side was heard, before the House had intimated any opinion, that the Government had made up their mind on this point and that they would not recede from any part of the clause. That reduces the discussions of this House and in Committee to a matter of mere form. I appeal from the decision of the Government to the judgment of the Committee. We meet here to discuss and argue, to find out from the opinion on one side and the other, what is really the best proposition to introduce on questions of this kind; but on the part of the Government it appears to be a foregone conclusion, whatever the force of argument which may be brought to bear on either side of the question. I trust the Committee will maintain the right of the House not merely to discuss but to decide; for the decision of this question rests, not with the Government, but with the House of Commons. And I trust that the Committee will feel that the weight of the argument is in favour of the noble Lord's Amendment, and that they will not fail or hesitate to support it.
  MR. OSBORNE (who rose amid loud cries for a division)said, he should respect the hour of the night, and the feelings of the Committee, and endeavour to concentrate what he had to say in the shortest possible compass. And, at the outset, he must say that he could not agree with an observation that had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham relative to an Irish county Member bringing forward this Motion. He had always understood that Irish Members stood in the same position as English Members, and he thought it would be a very bad argument to submit to the House and the country that they ought to draw that broad distinction between Irish and English Members, but rather that they ought to encourage them to take part in English subjects, as he (Mr. Osborne) wished to encourage English Members to take part in Irish questions. What, however, was more natural than that an Irish Member, who had seen the good effects of the rating franchise in Ireland, should endeavour to apply it to his English fellow-countrymen? They had had no explanation about that franchise, as he had hoped, from the Irish Attorney General. It consisted of an annual revision of the franchise, and every fourteen years a general re-valuation. They got rid of the expense of registration, and to a certain extent of the Revising Barristers' Courts, the costs being partly defrayed, however, by the Consolidated Fund (which was a very favourite Fund in Ireland), and partly by municipal and county rates. It was an admirable system, and worked well in Ireland; but though it worked well in Ireland, they were bound to consider how it would work in England. In the first place, they would have a total change of system—they must have a central authority sitting in Somerset House, there must be Government valuators, and he asked whether boroughs would allow such interference with their own affairs, taking the valuation from the hands of the local guardians? Now, to any one who knew and understood of what sort of stuff or material the English boroughs were made, must know that it was an absurdity on the face of it to suppose that they would submit to Government valuation or Government officers; and, although he thought this a very fair question for discussion, and he could find no fault with the noble Lord for having brought it forward, he could not, however, give him his support. What happened under the pre-
  628
  sent system? In the town he had the honour to represent, the houses on both sides of one street were perfectly equal in rateable value, yet the renting value was totally different. A great deal depended on the mere construction of a house—whether it was an old or a new one; and although these houses were the same in the rental, they were not in the rateable value. Allusion had been made to the proceedings of the important Committee of the House of Lords that sat in 1860 with reference to Poor Law rating. Now, Revising Barristers had been talked of rather contemptuously that night; but one of them had given very important evidence, in which he stated that the difference between the rating and the rental varied from 5 per cent to 40 per cent. Then, how could such a change as this be proposed? The fact was notorious that in the large manufacturing towns there was great diversity between the rating and the rental—that a house of £5 rental was rated in Liverpool at £4, in Bradford at £6 10 s., in Bolton at £6 15 s., in Halifax at £6 15 s., while in Manchester and Salford houses with a rental of £8 were rated at only £6 10 s. He now came to a much more important point. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had spoken about the tactics pursued with reference to this Bill. His right hon. Friend spoke of the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. W. E. Forster) as a neophyte; but he (Mr. Osborne) thought that the Member for Tamworth must be a neophyte, judging by the remarks he had made. What were the tactics that had been pursued? They were Fabian tactics. His new allies might hail the right hon. Baronet with the words "unus qui nobis cunctando restituit rem." The real object of bringing forward this Motion was to delay the Bill of the Government. Was it not patent to every one in the House that this Motion was levelled with this very object, and under the specious pretence of discussing this subject the real object was to get rid of the Government and of the Bill? He did not wish to say anything obnoxious to his hon. Friend the Member for Galway. He would say this, however, with respect to that hon. Member, and to other hon. Members, that if they would tell him which way they were going to vote, he would tell them what they wanted. That hon. Member was one of the first promoters of the "Cave" movement, though the "Cave" seemed now to have dwindled

  629
  to a "close borough." ["Oh!"] He knew the subject was an unpleasant one, but he wished to remind hon. Gentlemen that by these tactics they were forcing moderate men to a conviction, that if they threw out this Bill they would be doing an unwise act; and that if they rejected this Bill by rejecting this clause, they might ultimately get a rating suffrage, but it would be accompanied by a household suffrage.
  MR. MACEVOY,who also rose amid loud cries for a division, said, he had voted for the Reform Bill in all its stages, and he had voted for Lord Derby's Reform Bill, and therefore he could not be accused of being hostile to Reform. Having listened to the whole of the debate, he confessed he had heard nothing to alter the opinion he had always entertained that the rating franchise was the better franchise. The noble Lord the Member for Galway had, however, proposed a rating franchise of such a kind as to be open to many objections. If the noble Lord would consent to his (Mr. MacEvoy's) suggestion—namely, to alter his Amendment so as to make the rating on "a uniform valuation of lands and tenements"—the words of the Irish Act—he (Mr. MacEvoy) would willingly support him. If any hon. Gentleman thought that this Reform Bill would pass both Houses of Parliament without such an Amendment as he proposed, that individual must be very sanguine. The proposal of the noble Lord was objectionable in this respect—that in every union in England there was a different system of rating. If, however, the noble Lord altered his Amendment according to his suggestion, he (Mr. MacEvoy) would support him.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS,who also rose amid cries of "Divide!" "Adjourn!" said, he would not detain the House more than a few minutes; but having, as he might say, been the author of the Union Assessment Act, and knowing the purpose it had in view, as well as having watched its operation since it passed, he hoped to be allowed to say a few words. The consideration of that Act had an important bearing upon the Amendment before the House, and if the House intended to decide upon that upon its merits, it was necessary that the Act should be understood; but, judging by the course the debate had taken, and by the impatience then shown, he doubted whether that was the intention of the House. It would seem, indeed, as if the hon. and learned Member for Belfast
  630
  (Sir Hugh Cairns) had shown less of his wonted skill in the speech he has just addressed to the House, by attempting to argue the question as it was actually proposed to the House, instead of following the example of Members on his own side who have preceded him, and who have thought it advisable to change the issue and refer to the general subject of Reform; and he must have felt what was evident, that, in consequence, he failed to speak with his usual success. He had laboured to show that what was called rateable value was a safer guide as to the value of an electoral qualification than what is now termed in the rate book the gross estimated rental. It was clear, however, that he had been depending upon information supplied to him by others, who felt the inconvenience of the case being correctly stated, and that he had not examined the subject for himself. The way in which the House is being misled on this matter is, by assuming that the rate books are still made out as they were formerly, and that the Act has produced no difference in the respect in question. Now, one of the purposes of the Union Assessment Act was to correct the many irregularities assumed to exist still. It was alleged in both Houses of Parliament, upon the occasion of the Reform Bill of 1860 being discussed, that there was no reliance to be placed on the value of tenements, as entered in the rate book for the purpose of being rated, because the values were constantly changing without any revision of the entries made in the book; and that, in consequence, it was difficult to learn how many persons would become qualified, really, by any definite pecuniary qualifications such as was proposed by that Bill; and doubtless, under the system of parochial assessment at that time, there was considerable truth in the observation, and several Members on that account expressed the hope in the House that, before any other Reform Bill was introduced, some step would be taken to secure a more accurate valuation of rateable property. It was, as he said, amongst the immediate objects therefore of the Assessment Act to provide for an accurate estimate of property subject to be rated. The fact was, that formerly property, though constantly changing in value, it was left in the rate book as it had been entered at any time previously, and the error which there might be in that estimate was necessarily followed out into what was entered as the rateable value,

  631
  which was only a deduction from the gross estimated rental, and which deduction was made then far more capriciously than it is at present. The inaccurate valuation of property under the old system had been proved in numerous instances, and the disproportion to the real value, as ascertained by inquiry under the Act, was almost ludicrous. In the City of London, for instance, he had been informed that in some cases the assessment committee had been obliged to estimate the value of the property to be rated at 400 per cent higher than it appeared in the rate book; and throughout the whole country errors in the valuation of the grossest description had been found to have existed, and to such an extent that he had been informed that the Returns called for by the Poor Law Board would show that an addition to the annual value of rateable property of the country had already amounted to £26,000,000. The Act had now provided for an annual revision of the valuation lists in every union, and a report each year is made to the Poor Law Board of the annual proceedings of the assessment committee. It was therefore now rendered nearly impossible that the entries in the rate book of the estimated rental of the property should be false or inaccurate again; and yet the hon. and learned Member had been so instructed, as to say that the rental of properties as estimated and entered in the column provided for that purpose in the rate book, was purely fanciful and fictitious and could not be relied upon, though he told the House, in the same breath, that the entry of what was called rateable value, which is only a deduction from what he terms the fanciful valuation, was what could be depended upon, and on that account he would vote for the Amendment. His only excuse for this statement appears to be that he relied upon what he had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire say upon this matter, and who certainly had made some singular statements about it, though the learned Gentleman must have observed, that though the right hon. Gentleman was generally considered a reliable authority on such matters, yet that no other Member, who was in the habit of considering these things, had had the courage to endorse the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that nobody ever thought of looking at the estimated rental column as a means of learning the value of a property, but simply at the column for the rateable value. Now anybody might learn that that, as a matter
  632
  of necessity, must be at variance with the facts. Again, the right hon. Gentleman has told the House that there could be no appeal made against the entry of the estimated rental, though there was one provided by law against the rateable value. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that now that there is equally a right to dispute the rental valuation, as the rateable value, and that there could be no dispute about the amount entered of rateable value, that would not involve the question of the correctness of the estimated rental. The right hon. Gentleman has hardly the same excuse that other Members might have about this Act, for he gave peculiar attention to it in its passage through this House, and endeavoured to resist its passing; and, to frighten the House as to its consequences, predicting that it would cost the country millions of money, and be attended with no advantage—whereas, as he had shown, that its operation has disclosed a system of negligence, inaccuracy, favoritism, and jobbery in the system of assessing rateable property as it existed before the Act, that it was almost difficult to imagine, and that without in any way increasing the burden of the rates to the occupiers who paid them, it had brought many millions more of rateable value to charge. His (Mr. Villiers') statement, therefore, was that, under the operation of this Act, it was to the carefully considered valuation lists of the unions, showing the different values liable to be rated, to which everybody wishing to be well informed would turn, to know precisely the value of any property; and that its accuracy was more to be relied upon, because the property was valued now according to the mode prescribed by Act of Parliament, because competent persons were appointed to determine upon the value, and because every publicity was given to their valuation after being estimated, and every facility was given for having the valuation re-considered. The House, therefore, has before them now, and the public will have to-morrow, the very opposite statements made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire and myself, and judgment will be given in the country generally as to which is correct. He might, indeed, here mention to the House that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having some doubt as to the manner in which the assessment committees had discharged their duty, de-

  633
  sired to have their valuation lists referred to the authorities at Somerset House, in order to ascertain how far they tallied with the returns made by the Property Tax Commissioners; and it was found that in that department the valuation lists of the unions had already been called for by the Commissioners, and that they were able then to vouch for their great accuracy, and that they had called for them in order to test their own returns, and that there was no discrepancy between the two that could not reasonably be accounted for, and that in some cases the estimate of property was put higher in their valuation lists than in the Returns of the local Commissioners; and yet these were the Returns that the House was asked to reject as too fanciful and incorrect to determine the qualification of the voter, and to adopt the notoriously uncertain criterion of the value which was left after various deductions had been made to fix its rateable value; and this House was asked to act upon this principle in a matter affecting purely English interests by the noble Lord the Member for Galway. He did not wish to impute to the noble Lord that he would tell the House what he did not believe, but that noble Lord must allow him to believe that he had not made much inquiry into the matter as it affected this country, and that though he may be correct in what he has said about Ireland, yet he could not allow him, judging by his speech, to be much of an authority on what takes place in such matters in this country. There is really no excuse at this moment for the statement that the entry of rateable value is a more accurate estimate of what a property is worth to the occupier than the gross estimated rental, for this reason, that there is actually at this time a very general complaint of the want of rule and uniformity in making the deductions for repairs and other things, in order to arrive at the rateable value, and that all kind of influences are said to be at work in some places to make the deductions greater than they should be. It has already been once brought before the House upon a Motion made by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and he (Mr. Villiers) had been applied to to introduce a Bill to fix on a proportion for the whole country, to be deducted from the estimated rental, to prevent the variations that occur in different unions at present, and nobody probably knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, that the
  634
  only confusion that now need exist in county rating is owing to the want of uniformity in the rdeduction made from the rentals in the different unions. What, then, is the inference to be drawn from the Amendment now proposed to the Bill? why, that it is not because the voter's qualifications can be more accurately obtained from the rateable value, but because of its supposed effect, either in raising the qualification for the franchise, or, that by defeating the Government upon this point, that this much dreaded Bill will be withdrawn, or that the Government will resign. In fact, since the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the discussion, with one or two exceptions, had turned, not upon the Amendment of the noble Lord, but upon the general policy of the Bill, and nothing had been heard but the most unpopular sentiments from Gentlemen opposite. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "No, no!" but he had been sitting there the whole of the evening, and knew what he was saying. Re could point to one speech in particular that had been made, and which had been vociferously cheered, and about which there could be no doubt—he referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene). He had openly avowed that he abstained from entering into the question of the difference between estimated rental and rateable value, declaring at the same time, for himself and those around him, that they would do all in their power to get rid of the Bill, and that they viewed with dread the Government scheme for enfranchising the working classes. Those sentiments were loudly cheered, because he conveyed correctly to the House what was the real object of the Amendment.
  MR. GREENErose to explain; but Mr. Villiers for some time declined to give way. At length, the hon. Member said, that the right hon. Gentleman had, he was sure, unintentionally misrepresented what had fallen from him. He did not say that the Gentlemen around him took the means which he seemed to suppose to get rid of the Bill. He stated that he himself was opposed to the franchise proposed by the Government, but that he believed the principle of rating was the best on which to proceed.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had listened distinctly to the speech of the hon. Gentleman owing to the boldness with which he announced that he was opposed

  635
  to the purpose of the Bill itself, and certainly he concluded from what he had said, that he regarded the Amendment as a means of getting rid of the Bill; but, he maintained that from the time of the introduction of the Bill to the present time there had appeared to him but one object on the part of those who were in opposition, which was to get rid of the Bill any how. They had had a succession of Amendments proposed all with the knowledge and the belief that the Government would, if carried, withdraw the Bill, and, as a matter of course, go out themselves. The noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wells (Captain Hayter), could have no doubt as to the results of their Amendments if they had been carried, cordially supported as they were by the party opposite, who desired to change the Government; and now they had this Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Galway, seconded by an hon. Member (Mr. Cave), who has avowed his intention of raising the qualification proposed by the Government, that whenever any Amendment was proposed the hearts of hon. Members were so full against Reform that through their mouths they would state the truth, and the debate from beginning to end has exhibited only what has always been and always will be the case he believed—namely, an unwillingness on the part of this House to reform itself. If there was any difference in the character of the resistance to this Reform Bill with what had been exhibited before, it was in its having been somewhat less bolder, and that the methods taken to defeat it had been more insidious and deceptive; but, everything that had been attempted had been, as it appeared to him, for the purpose of defeating Reform, of which the present Amendment was only a fresh proof.
  [The right hon. Gentleman and the preceding speakers could be with difficulty followed, the Committee showing the greatest impatience to proceed to a division.]
  LORD DUNKELLIN: I am anxious to say a word in answer to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy). I do not think it would be competent for me now to alter the terms of my Amendment. It would be inconvenient to the House, for I understand that it could not be done without withdrawing the Amendment which has been discussed all the evening
  636
  and substituting the words now for the first time proposed. I therefore cannot accede to the request of my hon. Friend. At the same time, I think the tendency of legislation is towards the equalization of assessment; and, as far as I am concerned, that is a principle of which I approve. I do not know whether I have any influence with friends around me. I can only say that the principle is one of which I approve, and I hope that will be sufficient to get the vote of my hon. Friend. ["Divide!"] I ask the indulgence of the House—not to reply to what has been said in answer to me, because with very few exceptions the arguments used have not been against my Amendment; they have drifted into every other subject; comparisons have been instituted between the first column and the third column, and I venture to say that in the battle which has taken place the first column has not come off best. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has used that old stale argument, so utterly unworthy of him—"You are not really in earnest in the Amendment you propose; what you mean to do is to throw out the Government and the Bill." As far as I am concerned, I do not suppose that the discussion of a clause in a Bill affects any vital principle of this Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Is it a vital principle? Where do you find it? If it is a vital principle it has been made so since this Amendment was proposed, and since the feeling of the House was discovered this afternoon. I say that the Amendment does not affect a vital principle of the Bill, and I do not suppose if the majority were in my favour, and against the Government, they would treat it as such. One word as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. And here I may take leave to say that I, for one, do not take exception to nor do I endorse the complaints made of the manner of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no fault to find with him as regards the manner in which he criticized my statement, though I own that I do not admit the force of his arguments. His arguments went to this extent—that I had brought forward a subject which I had not studied and did not understand. Perhaps I am not as familiar with it as many country Gentlemen; but my right hon. Friend himself, I think, was a little confused about assessment committees, and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from those Benches fell into the same slough

  637
  and floundered about not very gracefully. I will leave it to the Committee to decide whether, if any ignorance has been shown upon the subject, I am the only person who displayed it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham took exception to my bringing forward this Motion as Member for Galway. I object to the hon. Member for Birmingham or anybody else trying to limit discussion in this House. Remembering that, although I only represent an Irish constituency, I am not altogether unconnected by property with England, there is nothing unreasonable I conceive in my bringing forward a question which calls for consideration and deliberation. And I must say that the taunt comes badly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, because, when on different occasions he has interfered in Irish discussions and propounded doctrines not always acceptable to the majority of the persons whom he was addressing — not always showing that deep knowledge of the subject so much insisted on to-night—so far from having it thrown in his teeth that, being an English Member, he ought to confine himself to English questions, his remarks have been received with respect, and his opinions treated with consideration. I will only add, as so many arguments have been addressed to myself personally, and so many imputations indulged in as to my desire to throw out the Government by a side-wind, that I can conscientiously say I have no such feeling. But I have seen no cause, and I have no reason to induce me to change the opinion which I advanced in the early part of the evening.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I need hardly assure the Committee that I am not here as claiming the privilege of a reply, or intending to traverse the field over which this debate has ranged; but there was one observation which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) which absolutely calls for notice and explanation from me. He entirely and rather grossly — though, I am sure, unintentionally—misstated what I said at the commencement of the debate, alleging that I had declared that we would not entertain any change of any kind in any of the provisions of this clause; and on that statement he founded a denunciation of the unbecoming and improper conduct of the Government. I did not state anything in the slightest degree resembling that.
  638
  But as the point is of consequence, and not a mere matter of feeling, I will revert to what I did state, and I will tell the House exactly how the matter stands—because the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in stating that this clause is one the carrying of which depends on the House, and not on the Government, and we subscribe to that not only as a fact, but as a principle. I think, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be also of opinion that the matter is one upon which the Government are entitled to entertain their own convictions, to form their own intentions, and to take the course which they think for their own honour and the advantage of the country, and to decline to take any other. What I did at the commencement of this debate, following the speech of my noble Friend (Lord Dunkellin), was to endeavour to make a separation between the political part of the subject and the practical part — the political portion relating to the amount of enfranchisement contemplated by the Government under this clause, and the practical portion relating to the subject of rateable value. With regard to the political part I stated that the Government could not be brought to a curtailment of the amount of enfranchisement, moderate as they considered it, which they had proposed in the Bill as it stands. With regard to the practical part, I certainly did endeavour, like my noble Friend, to handle it as a question entirely apart from the politics of the Bill, and from the general objects and constitution of the measure; but I am bound to say, having heard the debate, that I entirely failed in that object. I do not retract or modify a word that I said with regard to the purpose of the Amendment or of the speakers on the Amendment. Of the Amendment itself I speak in different terms. I do not say that my noble Friend is not entitled to use any language or to pursue any course which he thinks fit; but I say that the course which has been taken is to make use of this Amendment for the purpose of raising the standard of enfranchisement and limiting the amount which the Government think necessary. I am entitled, therefore, to look to the effect of the Amendment and to say that it is in my judgment an Amendment striking at the plan of enfranchisement proposed by the Government. So viewing it, I cannot enter into any engagement that we will accept an adverse vote, or

  639
  regard it as otherwise than incompatible with the progress of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the words clear yearly' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 304; Noes 315; Majority 11.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'rateable' be there inserted."

  AYES.

  Acland, T. D.

  Coleridge, J. D.

  Adair, H. E.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Akroyd, E.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Allen, W. S.

  Colvile, C. R.

  Amberley, Viscount

  Corbally, M. E.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Cowen, J.

  Antrobus, E.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Armstrong, R.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Bagwell, J.

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Baines, E.

  Dalglish, R.

  Barclay, A. C.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Baring, hon. T. G.

  Dawson, hon. Capt. V.

  Barnes, T.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Barron, Sir H. W.

  Dent, J. D.

  Barry, C. R.

  Dilke, Sir W.

  Barry, G. R.

  Dillon, J. B.

  Bass, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bass, M. T.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Dundas, F.

  Bazley, T.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Berkeley, hon. H. F.

  Edwards, C.

  Biddulph, M.

  Eliot, Lord

  Blake, J. A.

  Ellice, E.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Erskine,Vice-Adm. J.E.

  Brady, J.

  Esmonde, J.

  Bright, Sir C. T.

  Evans, T. W.

  Bright, J.

  Ewart, W.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Eykyn, R.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Fawcett, H.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Fildes, J.

  Bryan, G. L.

  FitzGerald, Lord O. A.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

  Butler, C. S.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Buxton, C.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Buxton, Sir T. F.

  Forster, C.

  Calcraft, J. H. M.

  Forster, W. E.

  Calthorpo,hn.F.H.W.G.

  Fort, R.

  Candlish, J.

  Fortescuc, rt. hon. C. P.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Fortescue, hon. D. F.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Gaselee, Serjeant S.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Gavin, Major

  Cave, T.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Gilpin, C.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Gladstone, rt. hon.W.E.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Chambers, M.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Chambers, T.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Cheetham, J.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Clay, J.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Clement, W. J.

  Graham, W.

  Clive, G.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Greville, A. W. F.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Greville, Colonel F.

  640

  Gray, Sir J.

  Miller, W.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Mills, J. R.

  Gridley, Captain H. G.

  Mitchell, A.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Grove, T. F.

  Moffatt, G.

  Gurney, S.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Hadfield, G.

  Monk, C. J.

  Hamilton, E. W. T.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Hanbury, R. C.

  Moore, C.

  Hankey, T.

  More, R. J.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Morris, W.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Morrison, W.

  Harris, J. D.

  Murphy, N. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Neate, C.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Hay, Lord W. M.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Hayter, Captain A. D.

  O'Beirne, J. L.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Henderson, J.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Henley, Lord

  O'Donoghue, The

  Herbert, H. A.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Oliphant, L.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Onslow, G.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Holden, I.

  Osborne, R. B.

  Holland, E.

  Otway, A. J.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Owen, Sir H. O.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Padmore, R.

  Hughes, T.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Pease, J. W.

  Hurst, R. H.

  Peel, A. W.

  Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W.

  Peel, J.

  Ingham, R.

  Pelham, Lord

  Jackson, W.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  James, E.

  Philips, R. N.

  Jardine, R.

  Platt, J.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Kearsley, Captain R.

  Potter, E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Potter, T. B.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Power, Sir J.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Price, R. G.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Price, W. P.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Pryse, E. L.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Proby, Lord

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Rawlinson, Sir H.

  Laing, S.

  Reaiden, D. J.

  Layard, A. H.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Lamont, J.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Lawrence, W.

  Robertson, D.

  Lawson, rt. hon. J. A.

  Rothschild, Baron L. de

  Leatham, W. H.

  Rothschild,Baron M. de

  Lee, W.

  Rothschild, N. M. de

  Leeman, G.

  Russell, A.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Russell, H.

  Lewis, H.

  Russell, F. W.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Russell, Sir W.

  Locke, J.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Lusk, A.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Mackinnon, Capt. L. B.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Samuelson, B.

  M' Lagan, P.

  Saunderson, E.

  M' Laren, D.

  Scholefield, W.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Scrope, G. P.

  Marshall, W.

  Seely, C.

  Martin, C. W.

  Seymour, A.

  Martin, P. W.

  Seymour, H. D.

  Matheson, A.

  Shafto, R. D.

  Matheson, Sir J.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Merry, J.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  Mill, J. S.

  Smith, J. A.

  Smith, J. B.

  Vivian, Capt. hn.J. C. W.

  Speirs, A. A.

  Waldegrave-Leslie,hn G

  Stacpoole, W.

  Waring, C.

  Staniland, M.

  Warner, E.

  Stanley, hon. W. O.

  Watkin, E. W.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Steel, J.

  Western, Sir T. B.

  Stone, W. H.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Stuart, Col. Crichton-

  Whatman, J.

  Sullivan, E.

  Whitbread, S.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  White, J.

  Synan, E. J.

  Whitworth, B.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Tite, W.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Wyld, J.

  Traill, G.

  Wyvill, M.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Young, R.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Vernon, H. F.

  TELLERS.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Brand, hon. H. B. W.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Adam, W. P.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Campbell, A. H.

  Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G.F.

  Capper, C.

  Andover, Viscount

  Carington, hon. C. R.

  Annesley, hn.Colonel H.

  Cartwright, Colonel

  Anson, hon. Major

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Arkwright, R.

  Clinton, Lord A. P.

  Baggallay, R.

  Clinton, Lord E. P.

  Bagge, W.

  Clive, Capt. hon. G. W.

  Bagnall, C.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Cochrane, A. D.R.W. B.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Baring, hon. A. H.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Baring, H. B.

  Conolly, T.

  Baring, T.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Barnett, H.

  Courtenay, Lord

  Barrow, W. H.

  Cooper, E. H.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Cox, W. T.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Crosland, Colonel T. P.

  Beach, Sir M. Hicks-

  Cubitt, G.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Cust, hon. C. H.

  Bective, Earl of

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Benyon, R.

  Dick, F.

  Beresford, Capt. D.W.P.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Biddulph, Col. R. M.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Bingham, Lord

  Doulton, F.

  Blennerhasset, Sir R.

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Du Cane, C.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Duff, R. W.

  Bovill, W.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Bromley, W. D.

  Dunne, General

  Brooks, R.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Bruce, Mr. C.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Earle, R. A.

  Bruen, H.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Buckley, E.

  Eckersley, N.

  Bulkeley, Sir R.

  Edwards, Colonel

  Burghley, Lord

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Butler-Johnstone, H.A.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  642

  Elcho, Lord

  Hunt, G. W.

  Fane, Lt.-Colonel H. H.

  Innes, A. C.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Jervis, Captain

  Feilden, J.

  Jolliffe,rt.hn.SirW.G.H.

  Fellowes, E.

  Jolliffe, H. H.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Jones, D.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Fitzwilliam,hn.C.W.W.

  Kelk, J.

  Floyer, J.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Foley H. W.

  Kendall, N.

  Forde, Colonel

  Ker, D. S.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  King, J. K.

  Foster, W. O.

  King, J. G.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Knight, F. W.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Galway, Viscount

  Knox, Colonel

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Knox, hon. Major S.

  George, J.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Getty, S. G.

  Laird, J.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Langton, W. G.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Lascelles, hon. E. W.

  Goldney, G.

  Leader, N. P.

  Goldsmid, J.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Gooch, D.

  Legh, Major C.

  Goodson, J.

  Lefroy, A.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Leslie, C. P.

  Grant, A.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Graves, S. R.

  Lindsay, hn. Colonel C.

  Greenall, G.

  Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

  Greene, E.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Lowther, Captain

  Grey, hon. T. de

  Lowther, J.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Lytton,rt.hn.SirE.L.B.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  MacEvoy, E.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  M'Kenna, J. N.

  Guinness, B. L.

  Mackie, J.

  Gurney, R.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Hamilton, Viscount

  Marsh, M. H.

  Hardy, G.

  Meller, Captain

  Hardy, J.

  Miller, S. B.

  Hartley, J.

  Miller, T. J.

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Harvey, R. J. H.

  Montagu, Lord R.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Heathcote, hon. G. H.

  Morgan, O.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Heneage, E.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J.R.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Naas, Lord

  Henniker, Lord

  Neeld, Sir J.

  Herbert, hon. P. E.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  North, Colonel

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Northcote, Sir S. H.

  Hogg, Lt.-Colonel J. M.

  O'Neill, E.

  Holford, R. S.

  Packe, C. W.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Packe, Colonel

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Paget, R. H.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Parker, Major W.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Patten, Colonel W.

  Hotham, Lord

  Paull, H.

  Howes, E.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Hubbard, J. G.

  Peel, rt. hon. General

  Huddleston, J. W.

  Pennant, hon. Colonel

  Humphery, W. H.

  Percy,Maj.-Gen.Lord H.

  Pim, J.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Powell, F. S.

  Tollemache, J.

  Pritchard, J.

  Tomline, G.

  Pugh, D.

  Torrens, R.

  Read, C. S.

  Tottenham,Lt-Col.C.G.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Treeby, J. W.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-

  Rolt, J.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Royston, Viscount

  Turner, C.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Tyrone, Earl of

  Sandford, G. M. W.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Schreiber, C.

  Verner, E. W.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Walker, Major G. G.

  Selwin, H. J.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Walrond, J. W.

  Severne, J. E.

  Walsh, A.

  Seymour, G. H.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Simonds, W. B.

  Welby, W. E.

  Smith, S. G.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Whitmore, H.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Williams, Colonel

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Williams, F. M.

  Stanley, Lord

  Wise, H. C.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Stirling-Maxwell, SirW.

  Wyndham, hon. H.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Stuart, Lt.-Colonel W.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Stuckley, Sir G. S.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Wynne, W. R. M.

  Sturt, Lt.-Colonel N.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Surtees, F.

  Surtees, H. E.

  TELLERS.

  Sykes, C.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Taylor, Colonel

  Cave, S.

  Thorold, Sir J. H.

  MR. AYRTON: I apprehend, Sir, that, after the statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the commencement, we have no other course but to report Progress. ["No, no!" and "Agreed!"] I therefore move that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  Several hon. MEMBERS having apparently put questions as to the course of public business consequent on the division,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would state to-morrow the course which the Government would take. [Several hon. MEMBERS: When? At the morning sitting?] To-
  644
  morrow, at six o'clock in the evening. The order for the morning sitting, cannot, I understand, be rescinded, but no Government business will be taken.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill nominated:—Lord NAAS, Mr. MONSELL, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. SULLIVAN, General DUNNE, Mr. SHERRIFF, Captain JERVIS, Mr. CORRY, Mr. LAING, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, and Mr. GEORGE CLIVE; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Stuart de Decies.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Private Bills, nominated. PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* (137).
Report of Select Committee—On Ecclesiastical Commission* (148).
Committee—Exchequer and Audit Departments (108); Landed Property Improvement (Ireland)* (117); Nuisances Removal* (132); Life Insurances (Ireland)* (122); Naval Savings Banks* (129).
Report—Exchequer and Audit Departments (108); Landed Property Improvement (Ireland)* (117); Law of Capital Punishment Amendment* (145); Nuisances Removal* (132); Life Insurances (Ireland)* (122); Naval Savings Banks* (129); Ecclesiastical Commission* (149).
Third Reading—Pensions* (144); Burials in Burghs (Scotland)* (112).
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALFRED ERNEST ALBERT—having been created Earl of Ulster, Earl of Kent and Duke of Edinburgh, was introduced between His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and His Royal High-
2
ness the Duke of Cambridge, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, the Garter King of Arms, the Deputy Earl Marshal, and the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain attending, and was placed in the Chair on the left Hand of the Throne.

LANCASTER ELECTION—JOINT ADDRESS FOR A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY—ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned Debate upon the Motion made on the 29th of May last to agree with the Commons in the Address to Her Majesty respecting, and to fill up the Blank with ("Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and"): (The Earl Russell: To which an Amendment has been moved to leave out from ("That") inclusive to the end of the Motion, and to resolve,
1st. That the Address to the Crown in which this House is asked to concur by the House of Commons has for its Object to cause the Extent to which corrupt Practices have prevailed in the Borough of Lancaster to be inquired into by a Commission in the Manner provided for by the Act 15th and 16th Viet. Cap. 57.:
2nd. That since the passing of the above Act Inquiries have been instituted under its Provisions as to the Prevalence of corrupt Practices in Ten Boroughs:
3rd. That the Commissioners by whom these Inquiries have been conducted have reported that in Eight out of the Ten Boroughs to which they related, corrupt Practices have been extensively and systematically carried on, and that in Six of these Boroughs such Practices have prevailed for many Years:
4th. That in consequence of the Reports so made by Commissioners of Inquiry Bills were introduced into the House of Commons in the Year 1854 for the Prevention of Bribery in Barnstaple, Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Malden; and in the Year 1858 a Bill for the Disfranchisement of the Freemen of Galway was also brought into the House of Commons; but none of these Bills were proceeded with:
5th. That these Inquiries have thus failed to lead to the Adoption of any Measures for the Prevention of Bribery in the Boroughs to which they related; they have also failed to elicit Information calculated to assist Parliament in passing any general Act for the Prevention of Corruption; and it was stated in Evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in the Year 1860 that they have occasioned much Perjury and Demoralization:
6th. That although these partial Inquiries as to the Prevalence of Corruption in particular Boroughs have produced no useful practical Results, even when gross and systematic Corruption in these places have been established, there is Reason to believe that a comprehensive Inquiry into the various Methods by which Corruption is practised in Elections, and into the best Means of checking it, might afford useful Assistance to Parliament in legislating on a Subject on which its Interference is urgently required:
7th. That this House is not therefore prepared to assent to the Address in which it is asked by the House of Commons to concur, but would be ready to join that House in praying Her Majesty to cause a general Inquiry on the Subject of Bribery at Elections to be instituted by Means of a Commission:
8th. That the above Resolutions be communicated to the House of Commons in reply to their Message inviting this House to concur in addressing the Crown for an Inquiry into the alleged Prevalence of Bribery in the Borough of Lancaster.—(The Earl Grey.)
Debate resumed accordingly.
LORD EBURYsaid, he was desirous of saying a few words on this subject. He had had considerable opportunities during the thirty-five years he was a Member of the other House of observing the working of our electoral system and of the law applicable to it. There had recently been a violent outburst of indignation against bribery and corruption—not that be intended to imply that the indignation was greater than the occasion deserved—but it was invariably the case after a general election. But whatever might be the state of opinion the necessity of expressing an opinion on the subject had been laid upon their Lordships by the Resolutions moved by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and even
4
if they did not concur in the Resolutions they were bound to assign their reasons and state the manner in which they intended to effect that which it was the object of them all to accomplish. Re was inclined to agree with the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) that they should not concur in the Commons' Resolutions, and for the reasons which that noble Earl had stated; but he could not exactly concur in the method by which the noble Earl proposed to deal with the difficulty by a general and not by a special Commission. If these special Commissions had such a demoralizing character as had been attributed to them, why extend the anticipated evil by sending a general Commission to every borough? If the House agreed to the first Resolution, he should be prepared to propose an Amendment to the sixth Resolution, which referred to a comprehensive inquiry into the subject. Some persons considered bribery at elections was on the increase; but he (Lord Ebury) was not aware of the period of purity with which these persons compared these demoralized times. There were times when the electors of a borough, whether the borough was contested or not, received a certain money payment. He remembered that in the first borough which he had the honour to represent, a time-honoured custom prevailed—he did not know if it was to be considered bribery—that whether the election was contested or not, the electors should receive the sum of £10 each from the candidate. He begged to say that upon the occasion of his election the money was not paid, but it was commuted by the patron of the borough, and a town hall was built instead; and he was happy to say that, although the borough still returned Members to Parliament—and there had been since many candidates for that borough—no improper practices had, since that time, been imputed to it. He was most decidedly of opinion that bribery and corruption were not nearly so prevalent now as they were formerly, and he defied any one to point to a borough where such a custom as that to which he had referred was in force at the present day, or where such shameless bribery had been practised as at a certain well-known election in Liverpool. They must all regret the large amount that was now spent in what were called legitimate election expenses, and they ought to deal with it as speedily as possible. He regretted to find that, undeterred by past failures,

5
some persons had revived the cry for treating this subject with very stringent penalties, and he believed they would continue to fail in attaining their object because public opinion did not approve of them and would not concur in them. Much was to be done without having recourse to such stringent measures, and it was on account of what could be done in reference to the expenditure of money that he was induced to address their Lordships on that occasion. Up to 1832 he might say that bribery and corruption was the rule and not the exception, because as borough elections occupied fourteen days and county elections three weeks the respective agents were able to calculate the necessity with the greatest accuracy; but when the period of election was reduced in boroughs to four days, and afterwards to two days, and then to one, a great blow was struck at the system. His opinion was that Parliament should in the first instance pass a Bill which should absolutely forbid the payment of the voters' expenses by the candidate, and next that the employment of paid canvassers should he absolutely forbidden, and, that any one who received payment from a candidate should be disqualified from voting for that candidate at that election. He would also forbid the hiring of an unreasonable number of committee-rooms, and agents being engaged merely for influencing in fact their votes. The constituencies must be no longer treated as spoilt babies—who could do nothing for themselves, and left all for the candidates to do. They should endeavour to establish a sound moral and independent feeling in the constituency. He did not make these assertions in the security of a Peer of Parliament and as one who had no necessity to go to the country, because on a former occasion when he contested Middlesex he informed the electors that if they expected him to expend some thousand pounds he should consider that he sat for his money more than their votes. And the consequence was that they concurred in his views, and he was re-elected. Another remedy to which he attached great importance was that borough or county should pay the expenses of taking the poll by a local tax imposed for that purpose, which would reduce the expenses by two-thirds. He had himself introduced a Bill into Parliament placing the expenses of the polling on the electors, but the measure did not get beyond the second reading. He had
6
never altered his opinion, that if they wanted independent Members they must first have independent constituencies. He would, therefore, propose, as an Amendment to the Resolution affirming the propriety and necessity of a general Commission, the following:—
"That this House is not therefore prepared to assent to the Addresses in which they are asked to concur, but they are ready to join that House in concerting measures for suppressing bribery at elections, which in their opinion is capable of being dealt with with the knowledge they already possess."
EARL GREYthought that as several Peers were present who did not hear the previous discussion on this subject, it would be for their Lordships' convenience if he stated the real nature of the Amendment which he had ventured to propose. His noble Friend (Earl Russell) invited them to concur with the other House in an Address to the Crown, the effect of which, under the Corrupt Practices Act, would be to cause an inquiry to be instituted as to the extent to which bribery had been practised in the borough of Lancaster at the last election; and this, if agreed to, would be followed by a similar step with regard to three other boroughs. Now, he (Earl Grey) asked their Lordships, instead of concurring in those Addresses, to adopt a Resolution pointing out the undeniable fact that the ten previous inquiries that had taken place under this Act had been totally without result, although in eight of those cases gross bribery was proved to have been practised. It was true that Bills were introduced into the other House to disfranchise the electors of certain of these places who were shown to have been bribed; but it was held that such a measure would be inconsistent with the terms of the indemnity under which they gave their evidence, and by a general concurrence of the House the Bills were abandoned. Moreover, it had been stated before a Select Committee of the House of Commons that these Commissions had a very mischievous tendency, and rather tended to promote than to check bribery, for men came forward under the shelter of the indemnity conferred upon them by the Act of Parliament, and actually boasted of the bribes they had received—so that the effect was rather to raise the price of votes than anything else. A noble Friend of his, whom he did not see present (Earl Fortescue), had confirmed this from his personal experience, stating that these inquiries

7
took away any little shame that might have formerly attached to the receipt of bribes, that they led men to boast of their proceedings, and that they made persons who had not hitherto shared in such corruption anxious to participate in the advantages. That such was the practical effect of these special inquiries was a fact which he (Earl Grey) believed no one could deny, and he therefore asked their Lordships, instead of concurring with the Commons in the Address to the Crown, to agree to a Resolution setting forth the failure of former Commissions, this be followed up by a Resolution proposing a more general inquiry. Now, the nature of that proposal had been greatly misunderstood. It seemed to be supposed that what he suggested was a roving Commission to travel about the country and inquire into the prevalence of bribery in various places. Nothing, however, could be more foreign to his intention. What he proposed was, that a Commission should be appointed to assist Parliament in the very difficult task of legislating against bribery. For that purpose it would be necessary to obtain evidence as to the method by which bribery was now commonly carried on, the devices by which the law was evaded, and the best means of meeting those devices. Such an inquiry, if intrusted to competent persons, need only last a very short time. The witnesses whom it would be advisable to call would be a few Parliamentary and electioneering agents and barristers who had had personal experience of these special Commissions. All the necessary information would thus be obtained to enable the Commissioners to judge by what means the law could be best improved. It appeared to him that every discussion on the subject had shown the desirability of a general inquiry of that kind before Parliament proceeded to the work of legislation, for he believed there was no subject in the world on which legislation was more difficult. The law, it was true, was stringent enough if they could only bring it into full play; but so many devices were resorted to, and money was given by such indirect means, that bribery was extremely difficult of detection. Moreover, when speaking of bribery, they ought to consider not merely what came strictly within that category, but the general expense of elections. The enormous cost of elections at the present time was, he thought, one of the greatest evils which had to be contended with. Printers, public-house keepers, proprietors
8
of hackney carriages, and other persons had a great interest in keeping up contests for the sake of sharing in the money that was expended, and a general inquiry such as that he proposed might properly inquire into the means by which that expenditure could be reduced. It had been said, indeed, that they had already sufficient information on the subject, and that it was the duty of the Government to propose measures for dealing with the question. But it should be remembered that on questions of a much less difficult nature both the Government and Parliament had derived great assistance from the investigations of Commissions as to defects in the law, and the means by which those defects could be remedied. Everybody admitted that the last Act on this subject had been utterly useless, and in many respects worse than useless; and he was quite sure that though the responsibility of proposing a measure on the matter must ultimately rest with the Government, they had a right to claim the assistance that could be given them by qualified Commissioners. Every discussion that had taken place showed how very vague were the ideas that were entertained as to the nature of the remedies that were required. He believed the effect of increasing the stringency of the penalties on bribery would be to revolt public feeling against the law and increase the difficulty of obtaining evidence to convict those who were guilty of the offence. He was not one of those who were very sanguine as to the entire success of measures for putting a stop to it. He was afraid the causes of it were such that it was impossible to suppose the evil could be entirely eradicated. Still, the evidence which had been obtained did prove that there were measures which might be adopted that would have a great tendency to diminish the disposition to give and take bribes, and at the same time to diminish the great cost of elections, which in itself was a kind of corruption. His noble Friend (Lord Ebury) had pointed to one of these—namely, the preventing of candidates paying for the conveyance of electors to the poll. But if that measure were adopted in a large constituency where men were much occupied, except where a very great interest was felt in the result of the contest, only a very small percentage of the electors would come to the poll. It would, besides, have a very unfair effect in many contests. On one side there might be no difficulty whatever in providing private carriages or other means of convey-

9
ante to the voters; while the other, having little or no connection with the gentry of the county, would have the greatest difficulty in bringing the voters to the poll. Other suggestions had been made. It had been strongly urged by two or three gentlemen of great experience on this subject, that instead of having votes given at the poll some authorized and responsible public officer should leave voting papers at the houses of the electors, and after a reasonable time allowed for having them filled up call for them again. This would not only prevent that form of bribery which consisted in carrying voters to the poll, but also those payments for loss of time which the friends, in spite of the most earnest wishes of candidates, could hardly be prevented from making. It was, undoubtedly, an immense hardship where a man was earning not more than was required for the wants of his family that he should lose half a day's wages in order to give his vote; and in London and many other large places, according to the evidence of electioneering agents, it appeared that half a day's labour would be lost in many instances. His noble Friend (Lord Ebury) had also called attention to the fact that bribery very often first showed itself in cases where parties were very nearly equally divided. That was the case the other day in Windsor. Where parties were nearly balanced, a number of persons held back to the last moment in order to make the most of their votes. As these persons had it practically in their power to turn the election, one party began to purchase their votes, and the other was almost sure to follow the example. In such cases bribery was a very contagious disease. When a man saw his neighbour get a £10 note, he said to himself it would be a great convenience to him, it would pay his rent, exempt his family from much privation, and he might as well have it as his neighbour. Another suggestion was that voters should be able to give as many votes as there were candidates, and either divide or give them all to one candidate. That would diminish the number of contests and the enormous expense of elections. It had been stated that at the last general election the sum expended was not less than £2,000,000. This had not only been wasted but spent to a great extent in demoralizing the people. He had mentioned these suggestions not because he was prepared to recommend the adoption of any one of them, but because the fact that they
10
had been made showed how desirable it was that the whole matter should be carefully scrutinized and considered. With that view lie had ventured to recommend that they should propose to the other House that, instead of having partial and useless inquiries into the extent of bribery in particular boroughs, they should have an inquiry into the means by which corruption and expense at elections generally might be best avoided. But in the first instance that was not the question before them. The first question was whether they should concur with the House of Commons in the Address to the Crown proposed. If their Lordships declined to concur in that Address they would not be in the slightest degree pledged to adopt all or any one of his Resolutions. These Resolutions would afterwards be separately and deliberately considered, and of course they were liable to be amended—especially the sixth, on which his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) stated he had an Amendment to move, to which he had no objection except that his noble Friend proposed legislation before inquiry had taken place. These Commissions were not only useless, but did mischief. But it might be said it was a strange thing for that House to refuse its concurrence in measures taken by the other House on such a subject. He could not, however, see the force of that objection. The Act of Parliament rendered the concurrence of both Houses necessary to the issuing of these Commissions. Their Lordships therefore had a discretion to exercise on the point. They also learnt from the ordinary channels of information that these Addresses were adopted rather as a matter of course on the Motion of the Chairman of Election Committees. Very different opinions in regard to them had since been expressed in the House, many Members declaring that they could lead to no possible useful result, and that they were adopted only to beget an impression on the public mind that Parliament had a holy horror of bribery while taking care to do nothing real on the subject. Their Lordships were not only at liberty, but were bound, to exercise their discretion in considering whether these Commissions of Inquiry were or were not calculated to check bribery. If they thought that the Commissions were not calculated to effect that result, then it was their duty to withhold their concurrence in the proposed Address to the Crown.
EARL RUSSELLthought that there would be great difficulty in refusing to

11
concur with the House of Commons in an inquiry of this kind. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had said truly that, as the law stood, their Lordships had to concur in an Address to the Crown before any inquiry such as this could be set on foot; and it was perfectly true that it was never meant that their Lordships should be bound by the decision of the House of Commons in these matters; and that if their Lordships thought that in any particular case there was not sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry by Commission, that would be a sufficient reason why they should refuse to concur in the Address to the Crown. The question now was whether, their Lordships having no measure before them to diminish or check bribery, there was any sufficient ground for refusing to join in this Address, and leave these boroughs, in which it was alleged extensive corruption prevailed, to perfect impunity. It did not matter how these inquiries were conducted. Formerly they were carried on at the Bar of the House of Commons, and forty-seven years ago he himself conducted an inquiry, which was carried on at the Bar of the House, and he examined the agents and other witnesses as to the bribery committed. But at the present time it would hardly be possible, with the great increase of business before the House of Commons, to carry on inquiries such as these at the Bar of the House, and therefore of late years Parliament had adopted the mode by which these inquiries could be delegated to Commissioners. The question was whether they should have an inquiry, and not as to the mode of the inquiry. They must either leave these boroughs with perfect immunity from a punishment for the great corruption which was said to exist, or they must join the House of Commons in the Address to the Crown. With regard to Totnes, the Committee reported that corrupt practices prevailed at the last election, and that on former occasions corrupt practice had extensively prevailed. Were their Lordships to say, because that there was no general measure ready to check corrupt practices they would not join in proposing the only mode of inquiry that was open to them in reference to this particular borough? Such would be the effect of their refusing to pass the Resolution. With respect to the efficiency of this mode of inquiry, he might mention the instances of three or four boroughs. In the cases of Shoreham and Aylesbury, the result of inquiry was that the boundaries of these boroughs were enlarged; and in the
12
cases of Sudbury and St. Alban's the result was the disfranchisement of those boroughs. The Members for the disfranchised boroughs were transferred to the county of York and the borough of Birkenhead, and he challenged any one of their Lordships to say that the bribery which formerly prevailed was transferred to these places. If he were right in his opinion upon this matter, then it was plain that the remedy which had been provided in those cases was efficient. He did not say that measures might not be adopted to render the law as to bribery still more efficient; but in the absence of a remedy of a different character, he thought their Lordships ought to agree to apply the remedy that existed. He had no objection to inquiry into the general law as to bribery, but their Lordships had not taken any steps towards such an inquiry. If there had been a Commission which had made a Report, and a Bill had been founded upon that Report, he could then have understood this Amendment in favour of adopting improved remedies instead of having the old mode of inquiry. They ought not, however, to abandon the old and accustomed mode of inquiry until they were prepared to adopt some other mode in its stead. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had said that the expenses of election had much increased, but he (Earl Russell) conceived that they somewhat exaggerated the existing evil from a forgetfulness of the extent of the evil as it prevailed in past days. He remembered that on one occasion when Lord Fitzwilliam contested the county of York, each party spent the enormous sum of £100,000. Of this sum he had heard that no less than £7,000 was spent in supplying the ribbons to the wives and daughters of electors, which was in itself a kind of bribery. He remembered also speaking to Lord Fitzwilliam, when his Lordship said that he and his father had determined to be more economical at the then coming election; and when asked how much they intended to spend, he said that they had agreed not to spend above £30,000. He (Earl Russell) therefore said that when it was said that matters had become much worse of late years, there was some exaggeration in the statement. His belief was that no general measure would extinguish bribery at elections. A gentleman did not go to a borough with the intention to commit bribery; but wishing for the great distinc-

13
tion of being a Member of Parliament, he trusted to his agents, who applied the money placed in their hands for bribery. He remembered asking Mr. Charles Austen, an able advocate before Committees, how he would prevent bribery and the answer was, that he would not bring up before the Committee three or four wretched persons who had received bribes, but he would go to the bankers and ask how much money had been deposited with them, and if they confessed that they had received £3,000 or £4,000, and paid it over to the election agents, and those agents were afterwards proved to have been guilty of bribery, the whole truth of the matter would be ascertained. His (Earl Russell's) own opinion was that one of the chief means of checking bribery at elections was, no doubt, the presentation of a petition against the return of the member elected under its influence, but then it often happened that the defeated candidate was not in a position to incur the expense which the adoption of that course would involve. If, however, an inquiry before an Election Committee was instituted, and that Committee reported that they had reason to believe that in several instances bribery had prevailed in a particular borough, a Commission might then be appointed to take evidence upon oath; and if the result of their investigation proved the Report of the Committee to be justified by the facts of the case a Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough might be introduced. That was at present the most effectual mode of putting a stop to corrupt practices, although it was hardly to be hoped that it would do away with them altogether. He quite concurred in the opinion that too great immunity was now given to persons who confessed themselves guilty of bribery under the existing Act, which, while it guarded them against the consequences of a penal prosecution, did not prevent their being disfranchised by Parliament. He would not say that he was very sanguine that any steps which the Legislature might take would completely check bribery, but he had less faith in the suggestion made with that object by his noble Friend who moved the Amendment than in the course which he invited the House to adopt. That being so, he hoped their Lordships would give their assent to the original Motion.
LORD BROUGHAMwas of opinion that the issue of a Commission, whatever punishment might result to individual boroughs,
14
would scarcely prove to be otherwise than a most inefficient and partial remedy for the evil against which it was directed. The bribery which had of late prevailed was a scandal to the country; it affected the character not only of the Legislature, but that of the people at large. He had no doubt that when the House of Commons was anxious and determined to put an end to it, it would find that it had to a great extent the means in its own hands: for he could not help thinking that if every Member were obliged, in conformity with a Standing Order of that House, to make, on taking his seat, a declaration to the effect that no money beyond the legal expenses had been laid out by himself, or so far as he was aware, by his agents, to procure his election, a considerable check would be placed on the commission of an offence of which there was so much reason to complain. No person could make this declaration who had paid a large sum for the purposes of his election, because he must be perfectly aware that such sum could not be expended in legal expenses. He was told, however, that legislative measures, in addition to the declaration, were necessary, and that these measures should provide for the punishment of the bribers. He might remind their Lordships that previous to 1811 the profits accruing from the slave trade were so large that the measures taken to put it down had proved ineffectual, but that things assumed a very different aspect after passing the measure which he had in that year introduced, making the trade in slaves a felony. He did not, indeed, mean to contend that bribery should be placed in the same category; but then it might be made a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. If that course were taken, he was certain that candidates for Parliament would not run the risk, not only of losing their money, but of being put upon the treadmill.
On Question, Whether the Words proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 77; Not-Contents 17: Majority 60.
Resolved in the Affirmative: Then the Original Motion was agreed to.

CONTENTS.

Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Somerset, D.

Bristol, M.

Cleveland, D.

Normanby, M.

Devonshire, D.

15

Airlie, E.

Churston, L.

Bantry, E.

Clandeboye, L. (L.Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Belmore, E.

Caithness, E.

Chichester, E.

Clermont, L.

Clarendon, E.

Dacre, L.

De Grey, E.

Feversham, L.

Devon, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Ducie, E.

Effingham, E.

Hatherton, L.

Granville, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

Lucan, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Keane, L.

Manvers, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Minto, E.

Minster, L. (M.Conyngham.)

Morley, E.

Nelson, E.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Powis, E.

Russell, E.

Mostyn, L.

Stanhope, E.

Northbrook, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Oxenfoord,L. (E. Stair)

Strafford, E.

Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

De Vesci, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

Eversley, V.

Falmouth, V.

Portman, L.

Halifax, V.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Hawarden, V.

Lifford, V.

Saye and Sele, L.

Stratford do Redeliffe,

Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

Torrington, V.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

London, Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Stuart de Decies, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Abinger, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Belper, L.

Taunton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Camoys, L. [Teller.]

Wensleydale, L.

Chaworth, L. (E.Meath.)

Wrottesley, L.

Churchill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Albemarle, E.

Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

Fortescue, E.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Ebury, L. [Teller.]

Shrewsbury, E.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Zetland, E.

Northwick, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Oxford, Bp.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Blantyre, L.

Stratheden, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Wenlock, L.

Then the Joint Addresses in respect to the Great Yarmouth Election, Reigate Election, and Totnes Election were severally agreed to.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL—(No. 108.)—(Earl Granville.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Granville.)
  LORD BELPERrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He had stated some objections to the Bill on the second reading, and he could not consider the answer which he had then received as satisfactory. The Bill proposed an important change in the constitution of the Audit Board, and the principal question which their Lordships had to consider was whether the duties of audit could be better performed by a Board as hitherto, or by a single individual as proposed by the Bill? The Lord President bad referred to the constitution of other public departments as an authority for the present measure. But it must be remembered that those departments had been constituted for executive or administrative purposes, whereas the Audit Board possessed no executive powers, but was entirely a deliberative body; and it was important that this distinction should not be overlooked. He should endeavour to show—First, that the duties of the Audit Board were such as could not be satisfactorily discharged by a single person; and second, that even were this possible, that person would not be in a position to exercise due control over other departments, and to resist the pressure which would be brought to bear upon him. He would shortly explain the nature of the duties of the Board. The examination of the public accounts was in the first instance intrusted to inspectors with the assistance of clerks, whose duty it was to ascertain—First, that there was due previous authority for making every payment; and second, that there was a proper receipt or voucher for every payment when made. But questions of some difficulty and importance often arose in the performance of these duties. There might be doubts as to the construction of the Act of Parliament containing the authority for the payment; or in cases where an ordinary voucher could not be produced, questions might arise as to the evidence of the payment which should be required; or, lastly, the payment might, on the face of it, appear to be so extravagant or improper as to require further explanation. In these, and all similar cases, the question was referred for the decision of the Board,—in ordinary cases to two of the Commis-

  17
  sioners; but in all questions of difficulty or importance to the whole Board. The question was then fully considered and discussed, and the decision of the Board was given in writing and was signed by the Commissioners. Under the Bill it was proposed that the whole of these duties should be transferred to one man—namely, the Auditor General; the Assistant Auditor being authorized to act only in the absence of the Auditor General. It would be for their Lordships to consider how far it would be practicable for these duties to be performed by a single officer, who would thus be deprived of the advantage of consulting with colleagues equally responsible with himself, and of hearing the question thoroughly sifted and discussed by intelligent men of different views. He was assured by those who must be best qualified to form an opinion on this subject, that it was impossible that these duties could be satisfactorily performed in such a manner. He might also refer to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on Public Monies, which sat a few years ago, and which inquired very fully into the duties of the Board of Audit. This Committee made no recommendation for reducing the number of the Commissioners; but, on the contrary, it had been stated by the noble Lord near him (Lord Northbrook) on the second reading of the Bill, who spoke with authority as Chairman of the Committee, that in the opinion of the Committee the Board would require to be strengthened in case additional duties should be thrown upon it. If, therefore, he might thus assume that four Commissioners were not more than sufficient for the discharge of these duties at present, how were they to be satisfactorily performed by a single person? It was true that the Auditor General might get through his business by signing, after little inquiry, the papers which might be laid before him by the Inspectors; but it would be for their Lordships to consider how far it would be desirable that the decision of these important questions should be practically left to subordinate officers, who were subject to no responsibility in such matters, and who had been appointed with a view to very different duties. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that these duties could be satisfactorily performed by a single person, how could it be expected that any one man could resist the pressure that would be brought to
  18
  bear upon him, or could act as an effective check and control on the Treasury and other great public departments? When an important question has been fully discussed by four intelligent men, differing probably in their politics and characters of mind, they have come to a unanimous decision, which has been recorded in writing with their signatures attached to it, it must be difficult to set aside such a decision. The members of such a Board will be a check upon, and also a support to, each other in the performance of their unpopular duties. But how could any single person set himself in opposition to the Treasury on any such question? He might reasonably distrust his own opinion when he found it opposed by such an authority as the Treasury; and he would feel that it would not be likely to have weight either with Parliament or the public. If it was intended to make the Audit Department entirely subordinate to the Treasury, the Bill would, no doubt, have that effect; but if it was desired to uphold its independent jurisdiction as a check and control on the Treasury and other departments, he believed that the Bill would be an entire failure. It was obvious from the Report of the Committee on Public Monies, to which he had already referred, that that Committee had never contemplated the abolition of the Board; and he thought that he was justified in assuming that they would have been opposed to its abolition altogether. It was true that that measure had been approved by the Committee on Public Accounts, though on what grounds they had come to that conclusion did not appear. But even that Committee had never recommended a single Auditor. The Bill, as reported by that Committee, contained provisions for the appointment of two Auditors under the names of Auditor General and Assistant Auditor, who were both to hold patent offices, and to possess co-ordinate jurisdiction; but the Bill had afterwards been altered in the House of Commons so as to deprive the Assistant Auditor of all such powers, and to confine his functions to the representation of the Auditor General in his absence. It seemed strange that, when two Auditors were considered necessary for the accounts of every joint-stock company and charitable institution throughout the country, the duty of superintending the audit of the public accounts of this great nation, and of deciding all questions relating to them, should be intrusted to a single person.

  19
  Before he sat down he would briefly refer to other clauses of the Bill which confirmed him in his apprehension that it was intended to render the Audit Department subordinate to the Treasury. The Public Monies Committee had spoken of the Audit Board as a great Department of the State which was responsible to Parliament alone, and they had accordingly recommended that the Board should communicate with Parliament direct. But by the Bill it is expressly enacted that they shall communicate with Parliament only through the Treasury. There are also various other clauses giving the Treasury the power of directing them, and interfering with them, in the performance of their duties. He thought it right also to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that by this Bill it was proposed to unite permanently the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer with that of Auditor General. The question of the union of these two offices had been very fully considered by the Committee on Public Monies, who had come to a different conclusion. He thought, therefore, that the grounds upon which their decision was to be set aside ought to be explained. The question, however, to which he more particularly wished to call the attention of their Lordships was that of the abolition of the Board of Audit. Previously to the establishment of that Board, the subject had been fully considered by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Huskisson, and the Bill for its establishment was carried by Lord Henry Petty sixty years ago. During that time the system was admitted to have worked well, and to have been a great improvement on the previous system; and he would be sorry to see the present Board abolished unless it could be shown that a better tribunal would be substituted in its place. As it would be impossible to consider the details of such a Bill in the whole House, he proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had been told that the alteration of the Bill by their Lordships would be inconsistent with the privileges of the House of Commons. But if that should prove to be so, and if the Bill should be found in the Committee to be liable to the objections which he had stated, he was of opinion that it would be much better to withdraw the Bill altogether, and to introduce an amended measure hereafter. In conclusion, he wished to state that he had felt great reluctance in addressing their Lordships on this subject, and that
  20
  he had done so only under a strong sense of duty.
  An Amendment moved, to leave out from the word ("That") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.")—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he fully concurred with the noble Lord as to the importance of the subject, but he thought the arguments employed by the noble Lord were insufficient to convince their Lordships of the inexpediency of adopting the course he proposed. He had it from the highest authority in their Lordships' House and in another place that there was hardly any alteration they could make in the Bill which would not involve its rejection as an interference with the privileges of the other House. The Bill dealt with the audit of Public Accounts, and that was a function which belonged peculiarly and primarily to the House of Commons, by whom the provisions of the measure had been fully discussed at each of its various stages. It had also received consideration, he believed, at the hands of the Public Monies Committee, composed of such men as Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Laing, Sir Stafford North-cote, Mr. Walpole, and other Gentlemen, who had paid great attention to the subject. He thought, therefore, that if their Lordships did deem it necessary to make any alterations in the measure, such as were likely to induce its rejection by the House of Commons, it was due to the other House that such alterations should be proposed and discussed where their opinions were heard, rather than that they should be made in a Committee upstairs, where their decisions constituted the only information afforded to the public. There could be no objection to the Report going through the Treasury, instead of going direct to the House of Commons through the Board of Audit, as it would be impossible for the Treasury to garble such a document. At all events, the matter was not of sufficient importance to be made the ground for endangering the Bill. Another question of more importance related to the proposal for the combination of the offices of the Comptroller of the Exchequer and the Board of Audit. The matter had been fully considered by the Public Monies Committee, and, with the exception of Sir George Bowyer, scarcely anybody would agree with the noble Lord behind in the strong opinions he held upon the question. The weight of authority was decidedly against the separation. The other impor-

  21
  tant point that was raised by the noble Lord was whether it was right that a single person, with an Assistant, should be substituted for a Board. On this subject he must repeat the opinion he had expressed on the previous evening—namely, that where it was necessary that knowledge of a special and different character should be represented at the head of a Department—such as the Admiralty or the Indian Department, a Board might possibly be desirable—though even that was a question on which different views might be entertained; but that where as in the present case the duties to be performed, although difficult, were straightforward and uniform, they would be best discharged by an individual. From his own experience, and the experience of almost all with whom he had conferred on the subject, the responsibility of the office would be much more deeply felt when thrown upon one single individual than when shared by four, five, or six persons. The noble Lord said the other day that the duties of the Audit Board had been greatly increased of late, and that, therefore, an individual would not be capable of properly discharging them. It should not, however, be forgotten that the head of the Department would be assisted by inspectors, examiners of accounts, and assistant examiners of accounts, by whom all the business would be prepared for the eye of the chief. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) said the other day that the difficult questions arising in the Department were decided by a Committee of either two or four Members of the Board; but in truth they were usually determined by a Committee of one Member of the Board. But it was quite clear that when the business was brought up to a certain stage one competent man assisted by a highly paid subordinate could easily perform all the duties that would be required of him. The noble Lord (Lord Belper) had also suggested the possibility that if an individual were substituted for the Board he might not be able to endure the pressure which would be periodically put upon him by the Treasury. The noble Lord had requested him to consult the officers of the Audit Board as to the pressure put upon that Department in getting up the Report of the Public Accounts for Parliament. He had not spoken to those officers upon the subject, but he was authorized to state that the Report was drawn up exclusively by two Gentlemen connected with the Department, one being Mr. Macaulay, who had written with so
  22
  much ability upon the subject of finance, and the other being Mr. Vine, who was well known to be thoroughly conversant with the subject he had to deal with. Under these circumstances, the extra pressure would not be felt by the individual at the head of the Department. The noble Lord further argued that the decisions of a Board carried more weight than did those of an individual: but surely the instances of the Courts of Law, where single Judges sat daily to decide most important judicial questions, was a sufficient answer to such an argument. The House of Commons, whatever opinions they might formerly have entertained upon the subject, were now almost unanimously in favour of the Bill, and the Committee of the House which had passed a Resolution in favour of an Amendment rather adverse to its principle had since informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they now desired that the Bill should proceed in its present form. It had been suggested that the Department should be under the control of two persons having equal authority; but if the business were to be properly conducted, it must be conducted by one responsible head. The Bill proposed to substitute for a Board a person of high position, who would receive a large salary, who would be responsible to Parliament for the manner in which he performed his duties, and who would hold his office for life. He appealed to their Lordships whether it was desirable to send the Bill before a Select Committee, after the opinion that had been expressed in its favour by the House of Commons.
  LORD NORTHBROOK,having stated objections to the details of the Bill, said, that his main objection to it was that the Auditor appointed under the Bill would be virtually the servant of the Treasury, and would not have that control over the public expenditure which he ought to possess.
  On Question, Whether the Words proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Then the original Motion was agreed to: House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS.

  STANDING ORDER NO. 184.
  Select Committee nominated, to consider Alterations in Standing Order No. 184. proposing that a Subscription Contract shall be entered into in certain Cases by the Promoters of Second Class

  23
  Bills: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. President

  E. Stradbroke

  D. Cleveland

  V. Eversley

  M. Lansdowne

  L. Redesdale

  M. Salisbury

  L. Somerhill

  M. Bath

  L. Portman

  E. Lucan

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Belmore

  L. Overstone

  E. Grey

  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, who had reserved to himself the power of nominating the Committee, had certainly not neglected the opportunity of selecting the names of Peers favourable to his own view. He felt it necessary to give notice for Monday of the addition of four other names.
  LORD REDESDALEdenied that the Committee was a packed one.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought both sides of the House should have been equally represented.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that nine of the Members had been taken from the Ministerial side of the House and only six from the other.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwould make this compromise with the noble Lord: he would be satisfied with the addition of three names: Lord Taunton, Lord Halifax, and Lord Bessborough.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.