Sitting of 14 May 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Devon-port, v. John Fleming, esquire, and William Ferrand, esquire, void Election.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Ralph Bernal Osborne, esquire, for Nottingham Town.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On National Gallery Enlargement nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 10] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— Belfast Constabulary. *
First Reading— Belfast Constabulary * [159].
Second Reading—Re-distribution of Seats [138]; Companies' Act (1862) Amendment * [139]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [170]; Court of Chancery (Ireland) [19].
Committee—Life Insurances (Ireland) * [141].
Report—Life Insurances (Ireland) * [141].
Third Reading—Crown Lands [98]; Convicts' Property * [105]; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) * [118]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) * [89], and passed.

GALWAY TOWN ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Michael Morris, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Town or Borough of Galway.
That Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, baronet, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Town or Borough of Galway.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That the Petition presented by John Orrell Lever, esquire, so far as relates to Michael Morris, esquire, is frivolous and vexatious.
That the Petition presented by Nicholas Stubber, esquire, so far as relates to Michael Morris, esquire, is frivolous and vexatious.
That it was proved to the Committee that John Dillon received £5 from John Kirwan.
That James Mullins received £5 from Michael O'Brien.
That Patrick Needham received the value of £5 in clothes and money from John Kirwan.
That Andrew Coen received £5.
That John Garraghty, Peter Garraghty, John Barritt (senior and junior), Geoffrey Murphy, Benjamin Matthews, Michael Curran, and other Voters, received the value of £5 in money and bread stuffs from James Power Keane, on account of having voted for Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, baronet.
That it was not proved to the Committee that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, baronet, or his Agents.
That the Committee have reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Town or Borough of Galway.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)

THE ANNUAL INDEMNITY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield), he would
  872
  beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill has been passed and the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill having passed both Houses of Parliament, he will consider it necessary in this or in any future Session to bring in a yearly Indemnity Bill, or whether he considers such Indemnity Bill will be unnecessary when the Royal Assent is obtained to the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that the principal object with which the Annual Indemnity Bill was passed had been put an end to since the Qualification for Offices Bill had received the Royal Assent. It was, however, desirable, before entirely dispensing with such a Bill, to carefully consider the various Acts of Parliament which might make such a Bill necessary. The question was at present being investigated.

  POLICE AT THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Police Constables on duty at the Houses of Parliament have lately been raised from the Third Class of officers to the First Class; if so, whether the extra pay of First Class Constables, which was authorized by the Secretary of State has been paid to the House of Commons Police; whether their present remuneration (including the gratuity paid to them for their extra services) is not now as low as it was twenty years ago; whether a half of those Constables—who do duty at the Houses of Parliament during the Session, but receive no extra pay during the recess—will receive during the recess their pay on the First Class scale or on the Third Class scale; whether Police Constables receive an addition to their pay throughout the year for service at the various Government Offices; whether Constables who have contributed to the Extra Pension Fund have not, under the regulations of 1864, been deprived of the privilege of the Extra Pension Fund; and, whether the retiring pension of Constables of thirty years' standing will be calculated on the basis of a guinea a week, or on that of the pay of First Class Officers—namely, twenty-three shillings?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied that the police constables at the Houses of Parliament were promoted, as were other constables, by seniority, unless passed over for misconduct; they were all in the first or second classes as entitled by seniority, and received the pay of those classes—namely, first class, 23 s.; second class, 22 s, raised in each case by regulation of the Secretary of State to an uniform allowance of 28 s. per week. Their pay was the same as was settled more than twenty years ago. It was higher pay than that of any other class, except three constables at the Stationery Office, and equal to a first-class Serjeant's pay. Those constables (about half) who do duty at the Houses of Parliament during the Session, but who receive no extra pay during the recess, then receive the ordinary pay of the class they were in. In a few instances police constables employed at the various Government Offices received additional pay, in the majority of instances they only received the ordinary pay of their class, and they were all paid by the respective departments. The constables who have contributed to the Extra Pension Fund had not, under the regulations of 1864, been deprived of the privilege of the Extra Pension Fund. All retiring pensions were calculated on the pay the constables received according to the classes they might be entitled to by seniority of service.

JAMAICA—BILL OF INDEMNITY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, having before him the Report of the Jamaica Commissioners of Inquiry, he has advised Her Majesty to disallow the Bill of Indemnity passed by the Colonial Legislature for acts done in repressing the disturbances of October last?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that it was quite true that Her Majesty's Government had received the Report of the Jamaica Commissioners, but they had not yet received the whole of the evidence upon which that Report was founded, and therefore they did not think it right to take any steps with regard to the Indemnity Bill.

  ELECTORAL STATISTICS.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-
  874
  chequer, Whether the Government are in possession of any estimates tending to show the relative extent to which urban and rural populations enter into the composition of each constituency under the new Bills and the number of Electors which each franchise would add to each constituency?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the Government had no such statistics to lay before the House. The matter was simply one for argument, and not for statistical proof.

  LOTTERIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.—EXPLANATION.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he rose to explain that in answering the question on the subject of Lotteries for Charitable purposes put to him on Thursday evening by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), he was under the misapprehension at the moment that common informers could prosecute for breaches of the law in reference to lotteries, whereas the Act of 1845 took away the right of private prosecution for such offence.
  RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL.
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Villiers.)

  [BILL 138.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill to the notice of the House, he favoured us with the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the subject of small boroughs. According to the views of Her Majesty's Government, those boroughs are not really liable to the charge that has so frequently been made against them; while, on the other hand, one of the merits that has usually been alleged in their favour was, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not deserved. With regard to the first point—namely, the imputation of bribery, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, and I entirely agree with them, that no charge can be made against the small boroughs particularly on that head. Unfortunately, it is not only the small boroughs of the country that are open to the imputation of venality in election mat-

  875
  ters. On the contrary, we know very well that in the large proportion of small boroughs the elections are conducted in a manner creditable to their reputation. No doubt there are some in which a portion of the constituency are affected by the same improper influences that prevail in some of the larger boroughs. But that is an exercise of bribery which, however it be deprecated and deplored, is at least an evidence of a conflict of opinion. There are, unquestionably, cases of small boroughs in which it has been proved to the satisfaction of this House that venality has been organized and has been generally exercised; but the House has never met with any difficulty in dealing with such cases. Long before the Reform of the House of Commons, the instance of Grampound, among others, showed that our predecessors were perfectly able to deal with such cases, and St. Alban's and Sudbury, in our own time, have furnished similar examples. I shall not refer to the conduct of constituencies now under judicial inquiry, beyond expressing a hope that in the case of any constituency, where the charges made against it before a Committee of the House of Commons are satisfactorily proved before the tribunal appointed to investigate them, the precedents of Grampound, St. Alban's, and Sudbury will not be forgotten, and that we shall not see placed at the head of one of these new groups of boroughs a town which ought, I think, to be provided for in a very different and in a less honourable manner. With regard to the second point—the alleged merits of the small boroughs, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes they are not entitled,—I well recollect the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1859 on the subject of small boroughs—a speech which we, of course, all listened to with gratification, but which, I must say for myself, I heard with some degree of amazement. It appeared to me, indeed, to be the echo of the debates of 1832, which upon that subject were merely traditions of the 18th century. I would not attempt in any way to vindicate the small borough system, because these small boroughs have been the means of introducing into the House of Commons a Pitt, a Fox, and a Canning. In a free country, and under a popular Constitution, such men as Pitt, Pox, and Canning, will always, I believe, find a place in this Assembly. But I cannot help thinking that the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken of the system of
  876
  small boroughs is too contracted and of too meagre a character; and, as I believe that in a right appreciation of the question very important consequences are involved, I would take this opportunity of begging the House most deliberately and seriously to reflect upon the subject and its consequences. Now I apprehend, or will at all events accept, that the real cause of all these Reform Bills which have been introduced since the passing of the great measure of 1832, has been to render this House a more complete representation of the country and of its various attributes. It is not difficult, it requires no profound or adroit statesmanship, to secure for the great producing interests of this country an ample and a satisfactory representation. The counties of England offer to the land, with its various products, and its accumulated capital, a natural and an easy mode of being represented in Parliament. The chief seats of industry furnish competent men in sufficient numbers to represent the wealth, the ingenuity, and the skill of our manufactures. Perhaps the mode by which a merchant may get into this House is not altogether so easy and obvious. But still we know that there are, and that there must always be, influential constituencies connected with the commerce and navigation of the country to whom a merchant of eminence may appeal with confidence for support. But there are a variety of interests in England, and connected with England, not only various but important and material interests, which cannot be ranged under the three heads of land, manufactures, or commerce. There are a variety of important trading interests of that character. There are also classes which are, perhaps, the most educated and enlightened in the country, and most considerable in their influence upon that public opinion which ultimately regulates our affairs—I mean the professional classes. And in employing that term, I do not refer merely to the learned professions, one of which cannot sit in this House and another will not—and, although I should deplore the time when we had not in our active legislation a sufficient number of gentlemen of the long robe, and should regret our again having an indoctum Parliamentum, I would refer particularly to those who, in the present day, carve out their fortunes and obtain their incomes by the application of science to social life, like the great body of civil engineers, for example, men of letters,

  877
  too, and those who pursue the liberal arts as a profession. But, besides all these, we are to recollect that England is the metropolis of a great Colonial Empire; that she is at the head of a vast number of colonies, the majority of which are yearly increasing in wealth; and that every year these colonies send back to these shores their capital and their intelligence in the persons of distinguished men, who are naturally anxious that these interests should be represented in the House of Commons. And last, and perhaps the chiefest, there is our great Indian Empire. It was always the boast of this country that that distant, extensive, and gorgeous appanage was always represented in the House of Commons, and that no question could arise without the House, from the very bosom of its Members, and not merely from official sources, being able to command the assistance and information of men of accurate knowledge, and of the soundest judgments upon the matter. While we are, therefore, upon the second reading of the Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats, I wish to ask in what way these various interests and individuals are to be represented in the House of Commons if you do not retain the small borough system, or furnish some substitute for it? Let the House observe how the present system practically operates. A county Member, as a general rule, must be a resident. It is not merely that it is the custom of the country, but it is a practice which arises from the necessities of the case. The representative duties of a county Member are not confined to this House. They are also local and continuous, and therefore it is most natural that men, for such offices, will elect their neighbours and those who live among them. But the same feeling has of late years been equally characteristic of our great towns and cities. They have increased so much in population, in wealth, in education, and in intelligence, that they are able to find in their own community men capable of representing them in this House, and who possess not only the requisite knowledge and education, but the still rarer gift which before they could not command—leisure. This local feeling is becoming so strong generally that you will find it prevails to a great extent in all our considerable towns and cities. I always watch with interest the proceedings of general elections, and of the last three general elections I have observed this characteristic—that the local feeling is per-
  878
  petually developing itself, and that in great numbers of constituencies where it was previously influential it has now become entirely predominant. What is the practical consequence of all this? Half of the House of Commons is really shut to all the considerable interests which are not ranged under the heads of land, manufactures, and commerce, to all the professional classes now growing daily more influential, and to the due representation of our colonial and Indian interests. These are very serious considerations, and they must be well weighed by the House before they consent to destroy or greatly change the machinery by which so desirable a result has hitherto been attained without, at all events, substituting some method equally efficacious. Now the House must remember that this is not a question as to whether the pride, the vanity, ambition, or even the interests of particular classes and particular individuals should be gratified. The presence of these men in this House may confer importance upon them, but their presence is equally important to the House itself. What I desire is, to see these interests and these views adequately represented, for, depend upon it, we shall lose influence if we are only represented by landlords and manufacturers. The question is one, therefore, which concerns the House of Commons as much or even more than the particular classes and individuals to whom I have referred. Now, I want for a moment to put this question as to the influence of small boroughs practically before the House. I will not indulge in rhetorical routine about Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Canning. I will bring you to the world in which we live, and ask you to form your opinions from instances and examples drawn from daily life. For example, I see before me a gallant Gentleman, a man acknowledged to possess brilliant accomplishments and attainments, but who upon one subject—his knowledge of the East—is perfectly unrivalled. If to-morrow the affairs of Persia, or any question connected with Central Asia, or the farthest Ind, came under discussion, he is precisely the man to whom the House would look for advice; and it is most expedient, therefore, that he should have a seat in this House, although, unfortunately, he sits on the other side. But why is he here? Because he has been sent here by the small borough of Frome, which you are going to disfranchise. [Sir GEORGE GREY: We do not propose to touch Frome.]

  879
  I beg your pardon; it was touched in your first list; but, at any rate, the correction will not invalidate my argument—for to what place were we first indebted for sending the hon. and gallant Gentleman amongst us? It was the small borough of Reigate, which you do propose to disfranchise. There is a question which at this moment is even more interesting than even Parliamentary Reform or peace or war, and that is our monetary state. It is a subject which will probably be under our discussion very shortly, and the opinions of men of experience will be received by the House with interest upon the matter. I see before me a gentleman who, if he is not at this moment, was formerly Governor of the Bank of England. He was, I believe I may say, one of the best Governors that the Bank has ever had, and to what place do we owe his presence in this House? The small borough of Bridport, which you are going to disfranchise. But I will not take my instances entirely from the opposite side. I have below the gangway a friend whom everyone acknowledges should have a seat in this House, and who is looked upon as one admirably fitted for a place in this assembly—not on account of his great wealth, although we recognize him as the prince of British merchants, but on account of his character, integrity, and intelligence. He owes his presence in this House to the small borough of Huntingdon, which you are going to disfranchise. I am of opinion that men in the position of the Governor of the Bank of England should always be Members of the House of Commons. I have had some experience of the advantage of communication with Governors and Deputy Governors of the Bank, to whom I owe much. The Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, with whom I was placed in official communication, are both of them now Members of this House, though sitting on different sides. But they both sit for small boroughs. There is not an important colony at this moment which is not represented in this House by men of local experience, and yet they all sit for small boroughs. And now for India. The representation of India is not as strong as in the last Parliament. One cause of the present deficiency is the loss of a Minister whose absence I think we must all deplore, He had not, perhaps, all those qualities which enable a man to control a popular assembly; but every man must
  880
  acknowledge that for administrative capacity and experience few men are equal to Lord Halifax. He was perfect master of the business of the great Departments of the State, and I have rarely met any man who was his equal in quickness of perception. Yet, when he spoke on Indian affairs, which he thoroughly understood, he spoke under the control and correction of independent Members who were his equals in that knowledge. I remember some who have been very much looked up to in this respect—Sir James Hogg, Sir John Willoughby, and Mr. Prinsep. Sir James Hogg was Member for Honiton, which you are going to disfranchise; Sir James Willoughby was Member for Leominster, which you are going to disfranchise; and Mr. Prinsep was Member for Harwich, which you are going to disfranchise. These are important facts, and the House should consider them seriously. I have, perhaps, as little interest in this question as any Member of this House. I do not owe my entrance into public life to a small borough, nor is there any probable prospect of my seeking refuge in one for the future. Nor do I think the party with which I have the honour to be connected, has any special interest in this particular system of small boroughs. But when we find that the complete representation of this country in its various attributes appears to have greatly depended upon this system of small boroughs, should we not very carefully consider the steps which are taken in regard to it? Thus, if you either destroy or greatly qualify that system, we should at least supply some adequate substitute. That is the point which I wish to impress upon you. Well, by this Bill it is proposed to deal very extensively with this small borough system. The measure proposes to disfranchise seventy-one seats. The assertion that the disfranchisement is not complete is simply a quibble; it is disfranchisement in disguise. Virtually you are reducing the small boroughs by one moiety, for I take it that the small boroughs may be set down as between 150 and 160. The reasons given for taking these seats are two. The first is that representation should be given to communities that have developed since the Reform Act of 1832 was passed. I entirely concur with Her Majesty's Government in that. I acknowledge that since 1832 have come into existence communities which in population, character, and property are worthy of direct representation in this House; and it

  881
  is wise to give it to them. We have a list of such boroughs in the Bill before us; it is not very considerable in extent, and does not vary much from one which I recommended to your consideration seven years ago. I only regret that they have been denied during those seven years representation in Parliament. But how is that representation to be effected? Should it be effected, in the first instance, by adding to the number of Members of this House? I decline, Sir, upon this occasion, to give any definite opinion upon that point, because it is a complicated question which has never been properly discussed in this House, and would now lead us into discussions inconvenient to this debate. It is a moot point, and we leave it so at present. But there is a way by which representatives can be given to those boroughs without increasing the number of the Members of this House, and that is by decreasing the representative power of existing boroughs. I do not mean to say that that can be done upon any principle. It can only be done by virtue of what the Venetians called "reason of State:" and action from reason of State should be had recourse to with reserve, and only in order to effect an end universally acknowledged to be beneficial. I think we are perfectly justified under the circumstances in following the course which, by-the-bye, we ourselves first proposed to pursue in 1859, and curtail what we may call the redundant representation of some boroughs in order to complete the representation of others. The first object for which this revolution is proposed is to secure representation for those communities, the propriety of whose appearance in this House no one questions. I entirely concur in that proceeding, and in saying that I believe I express the feeling of the House. But the Government propose this great change for another object. It is not merely to give representatives to those places which are not represented, but to add representatives to places which are already represented. Many of the great towns and counties are to receive another Member. For example, three Members are allotted to Leeds, three to Manchester, and to a considerable number of other towns and counties. Well, this involves a new principle in our representation, the principle of plurality of representation. I think it is one to be looked upon with some doubt and suspicion. I do not see how it is consistent with our electoral system, which recoils from plurality of voting. That a
  882
  man shall have only one vote is, I think, a right principle, If our constituencies, for example, were founded upon the rights of man, or upon the rights of numbers, I could easily understand that you must immediately defend the minority; and I do not know that there is any more obvious or easy method of doing so than to establish plurality of voting. In fact, I have always held that if you went as far as universal suffrage, or if you submitted to any very considerable extension of the franchise, plurality of voting would be a necessary consequence. But, if you establish your constituency on the principles that hitherto have been accepted as the Constitution of this country, if you look upon your constituency as a political body or order, numerous and various—very numerous and very various, I hope, but select—then I do not think you can have plurality of voting. Then men should be equal. The elector with £50,000 a year should have his vote, just as the elector of the West Hiding who lives upon his 30s. a week. The law of England recognizes, and I hold, nobly recognizes, equality—not of the man—but of the political citizen, who is invested with duties and privileges for the public good. I know it will be said that an elector with £50,000 a year has a great deal more influence than the elector who lives upon 30s. a week; he has the influence which results from his great fortune and his social following. I do not deny that he possesses that influence, and I say that he ought to have it. But does not the city of Manchester, when compared with one of the small boroughs represented in this House, also possess the extraordinary influence which the man of £50,000 a year has? The city of Manchester has only two Members, and the borough of Harwich has two Members. If, however, the interests of the city of Manchester are assailed, it is not the two Members who rise to support it, it is a score, it is a hundred Members, directly or indirectly interested in or connected with Manchester. But if the interests of the borough of Harwich are assailed what happens? We all know that a little before public business commences, one of the Members for Harwich rises, with representations from that borough; and though his arguments be perfectly irrefutable and his statements as clear as a mountain lake, yet you know they are met by loud cries of "Divide," and shouts of "Question." This is the way these un-

  883
  fortunate men, while vindicating the rights and interests of their constituents, are assailed; and then we are told that in the House of Commons Manchester and Harwich have the same degree of influence! Why, Members are sent to this House to represent opinions, and not numbers. Is it at all necessary to represent your opinions and advocate your interests, that you should have a troop of representatives? There is a constituency quite as great as that of the West Riding since its division, and with a population scarcely less than the population of South Lancashire when its boroughs have been deducted—the Tower Hamlets; and I ask most sincerely, is there any constituency in this House more ably represented than the Tower Hamlets, and by one man? That hon. Gentleman is always in his place, and one of the most valuable and indefatigable attendants on our Committees; when any questions connected with the interests of his constituents are raised, which are complicated and numerous, he is always present discharging his duty, while in general debate he offers his opinions and his arguments in a manner which commands respect. It is ridiculous to ask for numbers to guard the interests of any community; so long as the present arrangements continue they are safe. What would be the consequence if you were to pursue the principles which you are now laying down? You must necessarily have great monotony in this House. If you once adopt the principle that the population and property of places are only to be considered in apportioning Members, you cannot stop at three, and the small constituencies may be by degrees entirely absorbed. You will have trains and troops of Members coming from one county and one place to this House. It is absurd to see six Members for South Lancashire walking into this House, six Members for only one Riding of Yorkshire, and three Members for this town and three for another. By this system the Members will be increased that, instead of this being a classic Senate, it will have something of the turbulent character of a Polish diet. I know it may be said, though I do not think it will be, that plurality of representation is no new arrangement, because it prevailed in the time of the Plantagenets. But that is a mere quibble, and no one will, I am sure, depend upon it. We know very well that when two Members were originally decided upon it was
  884
  not with reference to any political principle or organization of political parties, which did not exist in those days. They were days when men really never acted alone. First of all, they had to travel to town together, because they were afraid of robbers. Then when they had to put up at an inn, they were obliged to sleep in a double-bedded room because they were afraid of ghosts. When taxes and benevolences were voted, with two members one was pretty sure to be present; and, on the whole, it was considered a convenient arrangement. As stated in the Paston Letters, two burgesses going to town from Norfolk would be good counsel to each other. It may be said with more reason that the Reform Act of 1832 did admit the principle of plurality of representatives. That is a graver answer; but although I think it is most wise as far as we can to adhere to the arrangement of that Act it is not immaculate; and the giving of three Members to half-a-dozen counties was not an acceptance by the Government of the day of the doctrine of plurality of Members, but a rough mode by which Lord Al-thorp settled the balance between the counties and the boroughs. It was thought absolutely necessary that there should be a certain number of county Members and a certain number of borough Members; but the original plan was to divide the counties with regard to the whole of England. There still was wanting a certain number of county Members, and Lord Althorp threw them to half-a-dozen—I think seven—counties, which he did not think large enough to divide. But he did not do this for the sake of plurality of representation. That evil precedent which has always been inconvenient, and never popular, appears to have been followed in the case of South Lancashire. Had, however, the suggestion of 1859 been accepted, the House need not have been in the situation to have followed that precedent. We proposed in 1859 that South Lancashire should be divided, and to give it two additional Members, but now you will be embarrassed by six. It may be said that the view I am now pressing upon the consideration of the House is inconsistent with those views which I have so long and so frequently urged as to the claims of the counties for increased representation. I think the House, if it will deign to reflect for a moment, will find no inconsistency so far as I am concerned in the matter. In the year 1847, in answer to Mr. Hume,

  885
  when he brought forward his Motion for Parliamentary Reform, I first in detail laid before the House the claims of the counties. Mr. Hume's argument was this: he said that population was the only principle upon which representation ought to be settled. "Therefore," he said, "you must disfranchise the small boroughs, and give their representatives to the great towns." In general that was the scheme and the theory of Mr. Hume. Well, in 1847, it was my duty to reply to Mr. Hume's annual Motion. I then, for the sake of argument, accepted his premises; but I arrived at a different conclusion—namely, that you must give the representatives taken from the small boroughs, not to the great towns, but to the counties. Mr. Hume was the most good-natured of men, an indefatigable Member of Parliament, but he had certainly one fault: he would deal with every subject, and in dealing with Parliamentary Reform he did not bring to its consideration adequate knowledge, and could not clearly discern the right conclusion to be drawn from his own premises. We went on thus for several years, and when Lord John Russell, in 1852, in his Reform Bill, pro-posed a considerable disfranchisement of the smaller boroughs, he also proposed that almost all their Members, to the number, I think, of forty-five, should be given to counties, and he then said publicly that he did so in consequence of the views which I had placed before this House, feeling it impossible to resist the conclusion at which they pointed. But, although Lord John Russell accepted my premises, I never adopted his conclusions; I never proposed that all those Members should be given to the counties, because I knew that by this remarkable system of small boroughs now under discussion the counties did find a countervailing and compensatory influence, which, though it might not fully satisfy their just claims, did afford, in a certain degree, if not a complete, an ample representation of the landed interest. Therefore, I did not counsel a violent change, such as the destruction of the small borough spstem would involve, bound up as it is with so many other important interests. I was for keeping things as they are, for I have always felt that the partial representation of the landed interest by means of these small boroughs gives some variety, some valuable variety, to the representation, supplies a certain element of independent character, and, on the
  886
  whole, I think, has acted beneficially upon the constitution of this House.
  Having shown that what I have now stated is not inconsistent with the views which I mentioned before, I come to the general scheme of this Bill. How are all these new seats to be obtained? By what arrangement are we to have counties sending in their six Members and cities their three Members, giving so much uniformity of elements and character to the representation in this House? It is to be effected by what is called a system of grouping. This must be considered under two heads. In the first place, I would remind the House that grouping is altogether foreign to this country; in the second place, that the grouping of representative boroughs is altogether foreign to this kingdom. The House is well acquainted by this time with the grouping of boroughs proposed by the Government. My objection to this system of grouping, which consists entirely of grouping representative boroughs, is that it aggravates anomalies, and that by a process of wanton injustice. It succeeds only in producing an incomplete and imperfect local representation. In the first place, view it with regard to expenditure—a most important consideration. When you come to group representative boroughs, you are grouping societies, all of which have organized parties, have traditionary politics, have committees and agents, that for a century and more have managed the political interests of the society in which they live. When you address those coalesced societies, this group of boroughs, you are, in fact, involved in a treble expenditure. Instead of curtailing the vast expenditure which entrance into Parliament unfortunately entails upon a Member, you are legislating in a mode that must greatly increase it. But while you not only pursue a system which must greatly increase expenditure, you aggravate anomalies, and that by a process of what I would call unnecessary and wanton injustice. I will take a case, because, after all, there is nothing like an illustration; and I will take a borough which is represented on both sides of the House. Dorchester returns two Members to Parliament, and it is to be grouped with the borough of Wareham returning one Member. Dorchester and Wareham, now represented by three Members, are to be represented by only one. The united population of those places will be 14,500, represented by one Member and losing two.

  887
  But close by them is Poole, just above the magical number of 8,000, and represented by two Members! Take, again, the case of Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme. These three boroughs are represented now by five Members, and their united population will amount to 15,000. Instead of five Members they are to be represented by one; and close to them will be the borough of Tiverton, which being also just above the magical number will be represented by two Members. This is indiscreet and wanton injustice. I can understand your taking away one Member or two Members from these three boroughs, and to attain a great public object I can understand your taking away three or even four Members; but what I cannot understand is why the boroughs called on to make such immense sacrifices should find their united population of 15,000 represented only by one Member, when a borough close by with 8,000 inhabitants has two. A small borough may be considered an anomaly, and an ancient constitution will be always full of anomalies. But, at any rate, this must be said for the small boroughs, that they are ancient, and that they are convenient; but these groups are neither prescriptive nor convenient. The only result will be that you will create great jealousies, aggravate anomalies, and produce a constituency not homogeneous, and which can be only appealed to by costly and complicated means of corruption. What will result from grouping but the caucus system of America? Some able man will devote his energies—it will become a profession—to securing a majority in two of the boroughs, he will then make his arrangements with the candidate, and the third borough will be neither consulted or represented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this question was influenced by the example of the Scotch burghs, where this system of grouping is successful. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed an error—which I shall also have to advert to on another subject—he reasoned, I think, from a false analogy. There is no analogy between the grouped boroughs of Scotland and of England, as proposed by this Bill. In the first place, our boroughs to be grouped are represented boroughs, and in the case of Scotland they were unrepresented boroughs, or rather boroughs without constituencies. And the difference is very considerable. One of the great mis-
  888
  chiefs in England will be the great distances at which some of these boroughs thus united are placed. No doubt, in Scotland, the distances are as great, or greater; but observe this difference between the two countries. Between the boroughs grouped in Scotland there is generally nothing but the country; but between the boroughs grouped in England, there are flourishing and rising unrepresented towns, which, many of them, far exceed in wealth and importance the boroughs that are thus grouped. All these towns may have submitted for a considerable time, and might yet submit, to what they deem to be the ancient Constitution of the country. But if you choose to change that Constitution, they naturally say, "Do not have recourse to so violent and fantastic a scheme as this, the combining of represented towns thirty miles apart, while we, in the interval, are left utterly unrepresented, being all the time in point of population, of property, and of the future that awaits us, the persons that ought to enjoy representation." I come then to the conclusion that any system of grouping founded on the grouping of represented towns must prove a complete failure, will disappoint all expectations, and is one that this House ought not to sanction. As a general rule, I should say, in periodically, but not too often, reviewing our representative system and making our borough representation more complete and satisfactory, the true principle is in moderation and discretion to reduce the representation of the old boroughs, and to apply that redundancy to the representation of new boroughs, so that no place shall be perfectly disfranchised. It has always been our custom in this country, and one which I trust we shall not depart from, to treat with tenderness prescriptive rights, and I am quite certain that any Minister who dealt in that spirit with the old boroughs, would receive a more sincere support than he possibly can attain by anything so violent and fanciful as the scheme of grouping represented boroughs which is placed before us.
  But am I therefore an opponent of the system of grouping? Far from it. I think it is one that well deserves the earnest consideration of the House; it is a powerful and an efficient instrument, if used with vigour and discretion. But where I think it might be of great advantage would be if we were to leave the present boroughs alone, and yet

  889
  avail ourselves of their redundant representation, applying the principle of grouping to our unrepresented boroughs. Now, I am quite certain if that were done, as I say, with vigour and discretion, you would add considerably to the efficiency of the constituencies, and at the same time you would go a great way towards the solution of those immense difficulties connected with the county franchise which beset every Ministry who attempt to deal with this question, and which the present Ministry have not attempted to encounter. Let me give a striking illustration of what would be the effect of adopting the system of grouping our unrepresented towns. I do not know that the advantage of the system could be put in a more striking manner than by reference to some places with which the House is familiar. Now, take the first of the new boroughs to be enfranchised—and I willingly and cordially approve the proposition to enfranchise them. Let me take the town of Middlesborough, in Yorkshire—a town which has very recently risen into existence, principally from the ironstone of the Cleveland hills. In 1859 it was impossible we could give a representative to Middlesborough; but it is now a town of 19,000 inhabitants, and, no doubt, it is increasing rapidly. That population is not so very large and extensive that its claim to a representative, if there was not a convenient opportunity for entertaining it, should disturb the country by the agitation for a measure of Reform. I do not, however, find fault with the Government for the proposal to enfranchise it, because I have great confidence in its future; but close to Middlesborough is an important and flourishing town, Stockton-on-Tees, with a population of 13,300. I would join the two, which would make an electoral population of 32,300. That is the way in which I would treat Middlesborough. Will the House now allow me to call their attention to Dewsbury. I mention it because it is the only one of those places—with the exception of Middlesborough, which did not exist—that I, as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, did not propose to enfranchise. I was perfectly well aware of its claims, but its population did not warrant such a proposal then. Even now it is only 18,100 There, again, you would not agitate the country for a measure of Parliamentary Reform to give a Member to Dewsbury; but you will find that it is the centre of a cluster of towns, engaged in the same industrial pursuits, and distinguished by the
  890
  same energy. I would take all these towns, the furthest of which is not, I believe, more than five or six miles from Dewsbury. They are almost conterminous—Batley, with a population of 7,200; the parish of Birstall, including Cleckheaton, 44,721; Heckmond-wike, 8,600; Merfield, 9,263; and others, making in all a population of 73,289. Joining these with Dewsbury, you would have a population of 91,389. That is what I call grouping. You would do more by such a system to improve the representation of the people than you can possibly do by those fantastic arrangements through which you are attacking ancient prescription. Let us come then to Burnley. It is our old friend; it was introduced by us in the Bill of 1852; and every one has been trying to enfranchise Burnley ever since. Burnley had only about 20,000 inhabitants when Lord Russell commenced with it. It has now 28,700—no doubt a very respectable population, but nothing extraordinary. You have near it Cilne, with a population of 6,300; Padiham, 5,600; Accrington, 13,800; Todmorden, 11,800–37,500. Add these to Burnley, and you will have a population of 65,200. That is the way to group. Take a fourth borough, one which we have all proposed to give a Member to. The population of Staleybridge has increased during the last seven years; but the population of towns near it—which were of importance in 1859, but not of sufficient importance to justify us in dealing with them—has also increased. There are three towns intimately connected with Staleybridge—Glossop, with a population of 19,000; Hyde, with 13,700; and Dun-kinfield, with 15,000, or with a united population of 47,700. If you join these towns to Staleybridge you will have a population of 72,700. I will say nothing about Hartlepool, because I believe that it is proposed to unite the two Hartlepools, and I am sure that such a constituency will send us good men. Then I would add Dartford to Gravesend, and, the population of the former being 5,300, and that of the latter 18,800, you would have a population of 24,100. By grouping in this way I think you would obtain a very considerable accession to the constituency; and I believe that if you dealt with the question in such a manner you would have the friendly cooperation of the old boroughs themselves. Having touched on the question of grouping, and on the manner in which, if this Bill should be carried, additional Members are to be furnished, what I want to impress

  891
  on the House at this moment is the important effect which dealing with the subject in this manner—if the Government would adopt it—would have on the vexed question of the county franchise, which I recommend to the earnest consideration of the House. Do not let us look on this Bill as a mere party measure, or as a Motion such as that of the hon. Member for Surrey, which may be carried or not this year, and for which, if it be carried or should fail, a remedy may be found next year. Let us feel that our legislation on this question of Parliamentary Reform will affect the future of this country. Generations after us will feel the consequences of what we are doing at this moment; and, for my part, I should be sorry that when I have left the scene my name should ever be recalled as that of one who supported a measure which injuriously affected the character of the Constitution of this country—a Constitution to which we are all so indebted. On a former occasion, though I did not evade the other portions of the proposal of the Government, I touched particularly on the subject of the county constituencies, because I thought it had not been sufficiently treated. I asked the House to consider what the effect would be on our county constituencies of a great reduction of the franchise when, at the same time, causes were in operation which were continually changing the distinctive character of those constituencies. Though I was ready, as I always have been ready and am ready now, to treat this question in a large and liberal spirit, what I contended for—not in the interests of party, not in the interests of this side of the House, but in the interests of the country—was that you should maintain the distinctive character of the county constituencies. If that be true which was said by the great master of politics—it is wise that the energy and enterprize of cities should be tempered by the repose and steadfastness of the country—if that be true, it is the interest of every one in this House that we should, if possible, make the character of the county constituencies really what it assumes to be. Unquestionably one of the means by which the character of the county constituencies is perverted is this—that in the counties there are a great number of towns which have distinctive interests of their own, and which ought to be represented, but are not represented. There can be no doubt that these towns very much change the character which otherwise would be pe-
  892
  culiar to the constituencies of the counties; but if you were to group on the system which I have pointed out you might do much to get rid of that perversion of the character of the county constituencies.
  There is another way of doing it which I placed before the House at great length on a former occasion, and which I will now merely allude to—that is, the revision of the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs. I was told at the time that when this Bill was brought forward we should find an arrangement which would meet objections of that kind. But I must say I have been entirely disappointed in that expectation. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that head has been utterly unsatisfactory. I stated that the Parliamentary boundaries was the second great cause why the character of the county constituency is perverted. It is difficult to contend against that even with a high occupation franchise. But when you lower the franchise you aggravate all the sources of injury, and at the same time you offer no remedy whatever for the evils which exist. Now, what do I find? The Government repudiates altogether a general revision of the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs. But it says,, on the other hand, "We have a scheme, and that is that the boundaries of Parliamentary and municipal boroughs should be identical." [Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to express dissent.] I read in the Bill that the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are to be identical. It is a slight matter, for, having gone through all the cases—I will not trouble the House with details, for I have taken up too much of its time already—where the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are different, the instances are so rare that they will not at all affect the main issue, nor will they remedy the grievance of which we complain. According to the rest of the scheme, you propose to call the extra municipal population into the circle of the Parliamentary borough, if that population desire it. But that they would desire it, that the extra municipal population would become Parliamentary, appears to me to be very doubtful, because the reason why people build their mills and their houses without the municipal boundary is that they should not be subject to municipal rates. As the desire of the extra municipal population is to be the moving point of the arrangement, I believe that very little will be done.
  Now, these are the two heads under

  893
  which the great evil of which we complain is aggravated. That great evil is that since the boundaries have been settled there has been an increase of 3,000,000 in the urban population, and from that population the county electors are to be qualified by this new Bill. There was an extraordinary argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I allude to it because it is another instance of the false analogy in which he indulges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"Take care how you revise the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs. Take care not to press the matter too far. If we revise the boundaries of Birmingham and the great northern towns, we must revise the Parliamentary boundaries of other boroughs in England to which agricultural districts have been appended." Sir, that is no answer what ever. What I say is this, "Support the settlement made by the Reform Act." The balance of influence that was settled by the Reform Act, is what we want you to maintain. That settlement was not made in favour of the Conservative party. It was made by a Liberal Government—a Liberal Government supported by an immense Liberal majority, and therefore we have a right to conclude that very little favour was shown to us. We find that the boundaries for 1832 have in the large towns practically been entirely violated, and violated to the injury of the legitimate influence of the county population. And what is your answer? Where the population has not increased, because in that part of the country in which the agricultural boroughs are situated the population has not increased, in answer to us, who are seeking to maintain the settlement of 1832, and to save ourselves from the violation of our boundaries, you reply, "Oh ! we must examine the boundaries in the other parts of England where they have not been violated."
  Well, Sir, I have asked the House to consider those questions, which are particular points in the Bill we are asked to read a second time, and which refer principally to the borough franchise, but upon the right understanding of which the county franchise particularly depends. We are called upon greatly to reduce the county franchise. We complain that even as the franchise is now arranged there are certain evils which call for a remedy. There is a large mass of the population to whom we do not grudge the franchise, but to whom we say, "Exercise it where your
  894
  industry, capital, and interests are placed." We complain that even with the present occupation franchise the legitimate influence of the counties is interfered with. You do nothing in this Bill, whether by the grouping of boroughs or the settlement of boundaries to give us relief. You offer no remedy in any way for that most anomalous grievance by which the freeholder of a borough votes not for the place in which his freehold is contained, but for a place with which he has no connection. That evil you immensely aggravate by the present Bill, because all those boroughs which we are going to enfranchise now possess a great number of freeholders, and there again you obtain a great increase of the county voters. In addition to this, you menace us with legions of town leaseholders. How are we to deal with the Government when they meet us in such a spirit? How are we to meet them? If the Government came forward and said, "This is a great occasion, and we are perfectly aware of the justice of your claims. In our judgment you may take an extreme view on this point. But we feel there is propriety in your requisition. At any rate, you may depend upon our anxiety to meet in a legitimate manner the different wants and wishes of all classes in the community." But the position in which we have long been placed, and which is an unjust position, is now to be agravated. You have additional sources of injury to turn against us. Now lot me remind the House of the circumstances under which these measures have been introduced to us. What I am about to say is known to every Gentleman on this side, and I believe to the vast majority on the other. If, when Parliament met, a measure for the improvement of the representation of the people, temperate, well-digested, and tolerably fair, had been brought forward, it would have been my duty, with the entire advice and concurrence of all with whom I act, to have agreed to the second reading. No secret was made of that. It was unnecessary to intimate it. It was the course we have invariably pursued. In 1860, when Lord John Russell introduced his measure, that was the line of action which we followed. We immediately consented to the second reading, and that measure, though defeated, was not defeated by the Conservative party. Lord John Russell himself admitted that. He has left it on record, and I shall repeat his words. In his own terse language he says—

  895
  "I was defeated by the Liberal party—and not only by the Liberal party, but by those Members of the Liberal party who represent great constituencies."
  I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State impute to us in 1860 that we loaded the paper with Amendments. What more natural? Is it not always understood that you are to exert yourselves to the utmost to improve a measure of this kind and make it generally advantageous! What an extraordinary charge! We had agreed to the second reading; and, singular proof of the hostility of the Opposition, we absolutely put Amendments on the paper. I say, then, that the extraordinary delay as regards this measure is not to be attributed to us. It is difficult to know to whom it is to be attributed—I would not say it is difficult, but it is disagreeable. My object to-night is to touch upon things of another kind. I will not advert to the unfortunate conduct of the Government in the management of their Bills. A great deal of time has undoubtedly been lost; but to whomsoever the fault may be attributed this I will say, it is not want of time that will prevent this Bill being fairly considered, and, if a good measure, being passed. We can all of us make a great effort if time be the only thing wanting. We could sit in the morning and in the evening. We could cheerfully devote ourselves to a task which was necessary, which the country required, the object of which was clearly understood by us, and which was clearly understood by its projectors. The House of Commons would soon make up for lost time. But, Sir, the cause of the Bill not advancing, the cause of the uncomfortable position in which the country, the House of Commons, and the Government are placed with regard to this measure is other than loss of time. I am sure I do not at this moment wish to say anything which could disturb the self-complacency of any individual in this House, but there are moments when one must be frank. When there is so much at stake—when there is so much at stake as the future of a great Empire, one must speak out; though so far from wishing to offend any one, I say that, to use an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I do offend any one, I apologize for it beforehand. But it is not time, it is not want of time, that prevents our legislating in the matter. It is something else—I say it sincerely, and I wish to speak temperately—it is the want of maturity both in design and in preparation which has attended
  896
  the measures of the Government in this matter. Now, Sir, permit me very briefly to prove that statement, for it is of importance when we are called upon to read a Bill of this magnitude for the second time after only a week's consideration. Talk of wasting time. At any rate, that was a course that was compensatory for such laches. When Parliament met we were promised information—papers upon the position of the borough franchise. They were not given to us for a considerable period. I wish to speak my own opinion sincerely with regard to those papers. I think them very valuable papers, and though they may have been, and unquestionably it was proved that they were, hurriedly prepared in some cases, I believe they were bonâ fide, and prepared with ability and sincerity. Well, Sir, those papers were placed before us; though the House will recollect the almost despairing expressions of the Secretary of State when we pressed him for those papers, which conveyed to the House little prospect of their ever appearing, only a few days or hours before the introduction of the Bill, when wet from the press, and confessedly, I think, not read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were placed upon the table. They were, as I say, very important papers, and I, for one, received them with that respect which was due to the source from which they originated. Let it be remembered, however, that not only were they hurriedly prepared, but that the principal patron of the Government, the highest authority on the subject, after having examined them, rose in his place and informed the House that they were utterly untrustworthy. Well, Sir, there is another branch of information which was required upon this important subject, and that was information respecting the condition of the county franchise. None was given to us, to the great disappointment and surprise of the House. But, although no information, no statistics, no papers respecting the county franchise were given, it would be unfair in me if I did not admit that we were amply and frankly informed of the views of Her Majesty's Government on that important subject, especially with reference to the point which is the origin of this legislation—namely, the position which the working classes occupy in the constituencies. The papers which the Government hurriedly placed before us with regard to the borough franchise produced a considerable sensation in the House, because they proved, and

  897
  proved, I think, conclusively, that the working classes already possessed a considerable status in the borough franchise. But Her Majesty's Government, though they gave us no papers respecting the county franchise, did frankly and explicitly give us the result of their deliberations on that subject, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief organ of the Government in this House, and especially on this subject, informed us that in the county franchise the working classes were an infinitesimal quantity; and, in fact, that no papers wore produced as to their position with regard to the county franchise, because, in their opinion, they possessed no share in that franchise. You remember the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, in an unhappy moment, not wishing to give any offence, made an observation across the table—I will never make one again—and on account of that observation I was violently denounced by the right hon. Gentle man, in fact, I was frightened out of my wits, "There may," he said, "be some few working men in your county who have votes, but in county constituencies the working man is as the fly in a pot of ointment." Those were his words—I never shall forget his glance. Well, Sir, from that moment I have been engaged, with the assistance of some gentlemen who are practised in such matters, in endeavouring to obtain information upon this subject It is entirely foreign to my habit ever to offer to the House any statistical information which, as a private Member, I may obtain. I think that in our debates, as a general rule, nothing is more salutary than that we should argue, and certainly that we should legislate, only from authentic and official statistics furnished by the Government. But there are cases, when the Government makes statements which you doubt—when they do not furnish you with information—when they decline to furnish you with information—when they scoff at you for asking for information—there are cases when you are thrown upon your own resources, and I should be grateful to any man who had been long sitting in this House, and who had been not altogether unaccustomed to the management of such affairs, if, with the becoming modesty which such a situation would require, he offered—not for the adoption of the House, but for its consideration—such results as he may have arrived at. What, therefore, I am going to say I do not want the House
  898
  to accept with any unreasoning credulity, but in that spirit in which I would accept them when in Parliamentary life I received such communications. We have—I will not yet say completely—but thoroughly investigated the subject, and we received communications from many parts of the kingdom. We received them from men in official positions who could give us authentic information, and I am bound to say we have received that information from Gentlemen of Liberal opinions as freely and as numerously as from gentlemen of Conservative opinions. We have only had one object, which was to arrive at the truth; and the result at which we have arrived at is this—of course the details are in some instances imperfect, but in others they are very ample—the result is this, and I believe it will eventually be demonstrated if the Government, as I hope, will give orders for an official investigation into these matters—that the working men of England have a larger share of the county constituency than they have even of the borough constituency, and by which the Government were so startled I ask the House, then, is not this another evidence of the immaturity in which all these matters have been dealt with? Let me presume to say that in dealing with this portion of the subject—namely, the county franchise—a Government who really believed that the working classes had no share whatever in the constituencies were scarcely qualified to address the House in the manner in which we have been recently addressed, and told that if we did not pass these measures instantly Parliament should never be prorogued. And now I pass to the third subject, on which I venture to say the same immaturity has been exemplified, and that is the subject of Parliamentary boundaries. It is quite clear that when the Bill was first brought forward in this House this subject was one which had hardly occurred to the Government, and had occurred to them only as one of comparative insignificance. It is no answer to me to say, "You did not vigorously deal with it in 1859."We did something, but the years that have succeeded 1859 have immensely aggravated the circumstances; and what the House has to decide is not upon the comparative laches of one Ministry and another, but upon what ought to be done for the public good. I say, then, that the manner in which that subject has been treated, and now hurriedly dealt with by the Government, is a third proof of the immaturity

  899
  of their proceedings in this matter. Well, Sir, the fourth proof, I think, is the Bill before the House. If there be a subject which can most tax the depth and discretion of a Ministry, it is the distribution of Parliamentary seats, which is, in fact, the distribution of political power in this country; and I say that it was impossible to have produced a scheme upon the subject more troublesome, more vexatious, and which, at the same time, produced less satisfactory results. But are we to be surprised at such consequences? Is it not notorious that when the Franchise Bill was introduced the Minister who introduced it never even contemplated a Bill for the redistribution of seats; and that this vast subject, which required so much thought, so much research, so much temper, at the same time such forbearance and such firmness, was never considered except in the few hasty days—or hours rather—which they snatched from other engrossing labours during the agitated fortnight between which it was promised and produced? Is this, or is it not, another proof of the immaturity with which all these measures have been prepared?
  Well, Sir, I am told as I walk down to the House of Commons every day—by the man in the street as I walk down Parliament Street—ibam fortè viâ sacra—somebody tells me, "I hope you are going to settle the question." Sir, ignorance never settles a question. Questions must be settled by knowledge, and it is not the vexation of an opposition, from whichever side of the House it may come, that prevents this Bill from advancing. It is that we none of us see our way. I say it with a frankness that I trust will be pardoned, I do not believe the question of Parliamentary Reform is thoroughly understood by the country—is thoroughly understood by this House; and although I dare only utter it in a whisper, I do not believe that it is thoroughly understood by Her Majesty's Government. I often remember with pleasure a passage in Plato where the great sage descants upon what he calls "double ignorance," and that is where a man is ignorant that he is ignorant. But, Sir, in legislating there is another kind of double ignorance that is fatal. There is, in the first place, an ignorance of principles, and, in the second, an ignorance of facts. And that is our position in dealing with this important question. There is not a majority in this House that can decide upon the principles upon which we ought to legislate in regard to this
  900
  matter; there is not a man in this House who has at his command any reliable facts upon which he can decide those principles. But then the question arises—What are we to do? I admit the difficulty. I do not shut my eyes to the position in which we are placed. The country, the House of Commons, the Ministry, are—it is a classical although it may seem an idiomatic phrase, as it was used by Dean Swift—in a scrape. I should despair of escaping from this perplexity and this predicament had I not an unlimited confidence in the good nature and the good sense of the House of Commons. We must help the Government. We must forget the last two months. The right hon. Gentleman must re-cross the Rubicon, we must rebuild his bridges, and supply him with vessels. The right hon. Gentleman is in a position in which he can retire from this question of Reform for the moment with dignity to himself and to his colleagues. He must not sacrifice his country, his party, or his own great name to a feeling of pique. He is still supported by a majority; he is not in the position of a Minister whose reputation and the fortune of whose Cabinet are staked upon individual measures in a House wherein it is known that he is in a minority. That has been the unfortunate position of others, but it is not his. He occupies a far different position. In deference to what I believe to be the wish of the country and the desire of the House of Commons, what has he to do? It seems to me that the most advantageous and the most dignified course for him to adopt would be this—Let him at once give instructions that complete and accurate statistics shall be prepared with regard to the borough franchise—not hurriedly, but with time and with attention, and in an impartial manner, so that no person shall be able to rise and say that we are called upon to legislate upon this question upon facts which are utterly untrustworthy. Let him, recognizing the unfortunate admissions which the Government made under the mistaken views which they adopted with reference to the county constituencies, give immediate orders that the most ample information should be acquired as to the share which the working classes of this country possess in the county franchise; let him direct that such information should be provided with care and discrimination. I think such inquiries may be trusted with safety and security to these persons who have provided us with the information we now hare relat-

  901
  ing to boroughs, and which I believe to be imperfect merely on account of the hurried manner in which it was produced. Let the right hon. Gentleman, then, to-morrow, after consultation with his colleagues, give orders that sub-commissioners, acting under the Inclosure Commissioners, should visit all the Parliamentary boroughs of England and examine and report upon their boundaries. Let the right hon. Gentleman give up this scheme of grouping represented boroughs, which he must see is repudiated by both sides of the House; let him boldly acknowledge that the proper way of dealing with the subject is to appeal to the spirit of justice of the represented boroughs to spare him a few Members from their superfluity; let him prepare a well-digested and complete scheme, which will give representation where required upon the principle of grouping the unrepresented towns of the country; and, having done all these things, let him consider the results with his colleagues, and when Parliament meets again he will have the opportunity—which I am willing to give him every credit for—of submitting to our consideration a measure which will command the sympathies of the country, and which will obtain the sanction of Parliament.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, whoever undertakes to submit to this House a measure intended to reform the present system of the representation of the people must he prepared to encounter many difficulties and much criticism, involving many plausible objections, which, on a first hearing, it may be difficult to answer, because we are dealing with the most complicated form of government known to history; and it is a condition of the problem that we shall not found our argument upon abstract principles, but upon principles laid down by our Constitution; and we must endeavour, by amendment boldly made, to deal in a practical way with the great difficulties that Time, the great innovator, has permitted to grow up. If this is the natural expectation, the history of former Reform Bills shows that it is confirmed by experience. The great Reform Act of 1832 was met by objections far more formidable and criticism far more searching than that which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced against the present measure. Yet of that Bill the right hon. Gentleman himself was the supporter, and is now constantly the eulogizer and the advocate; and the noble Lord at the head of the party opposite, with the noble Lord
  902
  at the head of the present Government, were among its most powerful and most eminent supporters; and it is now universally admitted to have been one of the most beneficial measures that has passed the Legislature within living memory. If we look at the Bills proposed of late years, we find that each of these Bills has been met in a similar manner on its introduction into this House. The first of those Bills—that of 1852—proposed to deal with the small boroughs precisely as the right hon. Gentleman has recommended to-night—it proposed to unite with the then existing boroughs the smaller unrepresented towns. Yet that Bill never lived to see the light of day; it was never put to the test of discussion in this House—and I believe it was a fortunate end, for its premature decease saved it from the trouble that wa3 in store for it. If it had been debated in this House it would have been the most unfortunate of the whole series, for it had the largest number of enemies and the smallest number of friends of any Bill ever introduced upon the subject. Again, the Bill of 1854 was prepared with the most consummate care by two of the principal authors of the first Reform Bill. That Bill proposed a large disfranchisement of the small boroughs and a redistribution of seats. It was defeated, and we were told that it was unsuccessful on account of the large measure of disfranchisement it proposed. On the next occasion parts were changed, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite sat here, and we had our places on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in his Reform Bill proposed a very small measure of disfranchisement, and it was that small amount of disfranchisement that formed one of the principal objections to the Bill. Then in 1860 it became our turn, with the experience we possessed, to prepare another Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in criticizing that Bill, said that it cither went too far or not far enough, but did not tell us which. Now we come to the present Bill, which is framed upon a different model, and has avoided all the objections that have been taken to former Bills; and the right hon. Gentleman, whom I do not understand to move the rejection of the Bill because he did not make any Motion at all, with the kindness and consideration which we might expect from him, advises us to withdraw it on the plea that we are ignorant of all the principles upon which it is founded, and of all the facts upon which

  903
  those principles should be based, and tells us that should we withdraw it we shall be acting a part consistent with our honour, and with what the House expects from Government. I do not, however, think it a course the Government is at all likely to take. When the right hon. Gentleman himself sat in this place he felt it to be his duty to propose and submit to the House a Reform Bill. He did not then think that the House was in ignorance either of principles or facts, and he entered into a long statement, the effect of which was that the subject was ripe for consideration, that it called for decision, and that, although the Conservative party were in power, they would be wanting in their duty if, with their knowledge and experience, they made no attempt to settle the question. If that was the case at that time, how far more must it be the case now? and if with all the experience and knowledge since accumulated the House and the country are not able to dispose of the question, then I think the whole subject should be relegated not, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, to a future Session, but to the indefinite period when there will be no prospect of passing any such measure. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by what I had supposed to be so antiquated as to preclude the possibility of its being again heard in this House—an elaborate eulogy upon the advantages which are believed to be offered by the small boroughs. There sits beside him a noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who, in advocating the Bill of 1859, avowed with great frankness and great truth that if that Bill made a very small disfranchisement, that smallness arose not from the possibility of defending small boroughs, but from the fact that, looking at the question in a practical view, and knowing the difficulties which attended any large proposal of disfranchisement, it was not thought desirable to hazard the passage of that Bill by incurring those difficulties. I appeal from the right hon Gentleman to his noble Colleague, and to those who have written upon the history and the constitution of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has said there are two kinds of Reformers—those who would give all power to numerical majorities, and those whom he regards as true and constitutional Reformers, who would adapt the Act of 1832 to the England of 1859. But what was the Act of 1832? In the Act of 1832, the abolition of small boroughs was the principal feature. The principle of the
  904
  Act of 1832 was the removal from small boroughs, subject either to nomination or corrupt influence, of the power of representation in order to confer it upon those great centres of wealth, intelligence, industry, and knowledge which constitute the real public opinion of this country. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the characteristic of the true Reformer is to adapt to the circumstances of our own day the Act of 1832, then I contend that this measure which the right hon. Gentleman supposes to be founded in ignorance of principle and ignorance of fact, is a measure of sound and constitutional Reform; and that the course which the right hon. Gentleman has recommended to the House is opposed to the principle of the Act of 1832. In dealing with the subject of the smaller boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the doctrine which may be called the doctrine of "young men." He admitted that when young men of ability seek their entrance in this House, the small boroughs are not the principal or the only means by which they can attain that result; but he insisted upon another argument, equally, I think, unfounded in fact, for he said that there were in this country a great number of interests and professions which it was most important should be fully represented in this House, but which, being neither mercantile nor agricultural, could not command representation either in the counties or in the great commercial towns of the country. Then he proceeded to give us instances, some of which I took down at the time as he spoke. He first referred to professional men, who, he said, were unable to enter this House unless elected for small boroughs—forgetting, I suppose, his own Attorney General and Solicitor General, the one a Member for a great county, and the other of a great city; the one in England, and the other in Ireland. He seemed to have forgotten that the present Lord Advocate represents the capital of Scotland, that Manchester is represented by the leader of the Northern Circuit, and that the present Solicitor General is the Member for a large seaport town in another part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman passed on to speak of those who, having spent their time in India or the colonies or in foreign parts, are acquainted with interests upon which, but for their knowledge, we might not possess much practical information, and he referred more particularly to my hon. Friend who now sits for Frome (Sir

  905
  Henry Rawlinson), and who was first elected as a Member of this House by Reigate. It was the Act of 1832, the spirit of which we now seek to follow, that first constituted Frome, and confirmed the representation of Reigate. With respect to the Members for Bridport (Mr. K. Hodgson) and Huntingdon (Mr. T, Baring), every one knew that the Gentlemen who represented these places could not be kept from the House longer than they themselves desired. They are the merchant princes, to whom the right hon. Gentleman himself has said this House is always open. The right hon. Gentleman then spoke of the small boroughs as being the only mode by which those acquainted with our colonial affairs could find access to this House; but, as showing that this is not the case, I would refer to the most recent election—that for Cambridge—where a Gentleman well acquainted with one of our most important colonies was returned as a Member to this House (Mr. Gorst). He then referred to India and said, you are going to lay hands upon Honiton, Leominster, and Harwich, boroughs which have sent to Parliament men of eminence and well acquainted with Indian matters. If this Bill passes, we are certainly going to follow the course alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman did not remember that in the Bill which he himself introduced in 1859 all boroughs possessing populations of less than 6,000 inhabitants were to have the sacrilegious hands of the then Government laid upon them; and it does so happen—for I have just referred—that these three boroughs, Honiton, Leominster, and Harwich were included in the list. As far, then, as the illustrations of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned—and illustrations, as he says, are superior to arguments—they have not added much force to the argument which he desires to recommend to the House. But, after all, what is this argument? Are we to have it seriously contended that in order to perfect the representation of this House we are to retain a large number of these small boroughs, which everybody knows, if not more accessible to corrupt influences, are far more accessible to nomination than larger constituencies? The fundamental principle of the Reform Act was the abolition of those smaller constituencies, and the substitution in their places of those great communities, the centres of wealth, the depositories of skill, industry, and of commerce, the Members for which when
  906
  they come to the House bring with them, not only their personal qualities, their learning, and their intelligence, but bring also those influences which rightly enough are inseparable from the representation of great constituencies. If we are to act in the spirit of the Bill of 1832, let us just for a moment consider what are the changes with which, in the altered circumstances of the country, it is necessary to deal. The right hon. Gentleman himself, when undertaking the advocacy of a measure of Reform, did not then deliver a eulogium upon the smaller boroughs. He stated then that the true and the constitutional Reformers were those who walked under the guidance of the Constitution, who adapted the Reform Act of 1832 to the circumstances of 1859. If that was true in 1859, how much more true is it at the present time? No doubt in 1832 the great communities which received representation were large and flourishing; but if it were right in 1832 that Gatton and Old Sarum should yield up the franchise in order that Manchester and Leeds might be enfranchised, it is equally just in our day that the boroughs sacrificed in this Bill should be so dealt with, in order that larger and more worthy communities should receive the privileges which this Bill proposes to confer upon them. But the right hon. Gentleman spoke of aggravating anomalies by the present Bill. Really I have some difficulty in ascertaining what the right hon. Gentleman understands by anomalies. To me it seems an anomaly that the great constituency of South Lancashire should be so meagrely represented as at present; yet he seems surprised that we propose to give six Members to South Lancashire, and says we are making the House of Commons like a Polish Diet. It appears to me to be an anomaly that the constituency of South Lancashire, with its 627,000 inhabitants, should have no greater number of representatives than the towns of Honiton and Lyme, which have exactly 6,500. The time was when that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself. In his Bill of 1859 he proposed to make the same division of South Lancashire which we propose to make in the present Bill. And does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an anomaly that the Southern division of Devon, with its 413,000 inhabitants, should have only the same number of representatives as the borough of Totnes, which has a population of 4,000? Those

  907
  constituencies which in 1832 received representation were, indeed, great towns in comparison with those deprived of the franchise, but they were small in comparison with what we now see around us. In 1832 the only railroad opened in the country was that between Liverpool and Manchester, and no trans-Atlantic steamers were in our ports. In the interval which has elapsed villages have risen into great towns. It is acting in the spirit of the measure of 1832, and in order to carry out the policy indicated by that Act, that the present Bill has been proposed to you. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the system of grouping; but we have acted in accordance with the principle which I believe he has always asserted should be followed by those who would frame a Reform Bill. We have not first inquired how many seats could be obtained by disfranchisement, but how many were demanded for the purpose of enfranchisement. The right hon. Gentleman has commended the choice of additional towns which we have made, and the proposals which he has himself made to the House sustain our arrangement with respect to South Lancashire and Yorkshire. But the right hon. Gentleman has addressed us upon what he calls plurality of representation. I do not know from what source he has gained enlightenment as to the philosophy of English representation; but if he had consulted Mr. Hallam he would have found that, when speaking of large and small constituencies alike having two Members, Mr. Hallam says it is an arrangement easier to wonder at than explain. At the time of the Reform Bill 150,000 was the amount of population considered to entitle a county to a third Member, and 150,000 is the number adopted in the present measure. Then the right hon. Gentleman complains that the system of grouping is foreign and new, that it causes expense and contributes to bribery, and that it is likely to be mischievous in its results. Although the right hon. Gentleman complains much of the ignorance of those who have framed this Bill, he cannot have paid much attention to the history of grouping, if that be his opinion. The system is not foreign and new to England and Wales, much less is it new to the representation of Scotland. It has not been found productive of expense; the Returns made by the agents of candidates for membership show that groups of small boroughs are the cheapest. The sum re-
  908
  turned by the agent of Sir George Lewis, when the representative of the Radnor Boroughs, was one of the smallest ever recorded in connection with the £10 franchise. Then, with regard to bribery, does the right hon. Gentleman expect grouping will increase bribery and bring about a system of caucus similar to that prevailing in connection with American elections? I believe there is only one instance of a Member having been unseated for bribery in all the elections that have taken place for the groups of boroughs in Scotland. But Scotland, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is not a case in point, inasmuch as by the grouping proposed in this Bill large intermediate towns of importance will be passed over. But if the right hon. Gentleman had been more familiar with Scotland he would have known that Greenock—a not unimportant place having its separate representation—lay in the middle of a district of grouped representation. The experience which we have had of grouping in Scotland shows that it is not a source of expense, but rather a source of economy—not a source of bribery, but rather of purity of election—and if these have been its effects in Scotland we have good grounds for supposing that it will produce the same effects in England. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we might have proposed to take a single Member from some comparatively small boroughs which have two; but would be not have objected to that system when regarded in the light of its effect upon his own followers? Those who examine the question will find that in order to provide without the system of grouping a sufficient number of Members for the constituencies which it is proposed to enfranchise, it is absolutely necessary to resort to actual disfranchisement, or so extensive a removal of second Members from smaller boroughs as would cause great dissatisfaction. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman merely to gain fifteen seats withdrew the Members from every borough containing less than 6,000 inhabitants; but in order to gain fifty seats we must have taken them from boroughs comprising much larger populations, if it had not been for the adoption of the system of grouping. I acknowledge that I am not one of those who would be particularly unwilling to see this one-sided disfranchisement carried further. With my views of Parliamentary Reform, it seems that a town with more inhabitants than 8,000 might very well be

  909
  called upon to sacrifice its second Member. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how, with his views, he would give adequate representation to the larger constituencies by any other plan so easily as by that proposed? Why have we proposed this Bill? Have we done so without experience? The right hon. Gentleman speaks in bantering terms of the ignorance of those who have proposed this Bill. We may have been ignorant; but we were not ignorant, at any rate, of the fate which befell the Bill of 1854; we were not ignorant of the inadequacy of the Bill of 1859; we were not ignorant of the fate of the Bill of 1860. We were navigating waters, which had been already buoyed. We wished to avoid running this ship upon the former rocks; we desired to submit to the House a mea-sure which we might honestly recommend, as deserving the confidence and the support of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has to-night come forward, not merely to criticise the measure of the Government, but to expound, with generosity and frankness, the views he entertains upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. We know now what his views are, and what will be the policy aimed at in any Reform Bill which may hereafter be propounded by the right hon. Gentleman. The first aim will be to maintain all those smaller channels by which people now find their way to this House, whom larger constituencies would not send. Another aim will be to eliminate everything connected with commerce and industry from the county constituencies, and to make them purely and entirely rural. The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the Bill of 1859, spoke a great deal of the duty of which fell upon the Ministry, and even a Conservative Ministry, to bring forward such a measure as would settle the question of Reform; but I should like to know whether what the country expects as a settlement of the question is the maintenance of the small boroughs and the elimination from the counties of all traces of commercial into rest. The present measure has not been brought forward in ignorance, and it is not a measure which it is consistent with our honour to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman further says we have neglected our duty in the matter of boundaries. What we have said is this—let the people be represented, not according to class notions, but according to the community to which they actually belong. In an able speech the other night the right hon. Gentleman the
  910
  Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) said that we did not want class representation, but that we wanted the representation of communities. That was a sound doctrine, and upon that doctrine this Bill proceeds in the matter of boundaries, If a community is associated in municipal affairs, if it contributes to the same municipal burdens, primâ facie it ought to have the same representation; but places like Croydon or West Bromwich, which were comprised in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, being parts of counties, and paying the county rates, ought to remain in the counties for the purpose of representation. The right hon. Gentleman says there ought to be a marked distinction between a rural and an urban constituency; but I differ from the right hon. Gentleman both as to the principle and the possibility of applying it. The argument of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), when defending in 1859 the proposal of Lord Derby's Government for an uniform £10 franchise, was in favour of the practice we propose, for he said of dividing a borough from a county that that is just the thing you cannot do, and that towns extend themselves so gradually and imperceptibly that you cannot tell where the town ends and the country begins. I think the doctrine of the noble Lord is preferable to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. Upon principle, I object to this marked distinction between classes. I do not object to the policy which gives a generally rural constituency, or a generally commercial constituency, the choice of representatives; but I say it would be a great misfortune, it would cut very deep into the principles of our representation, it would tend to create an antagonism of interests and a war of classes, if all our Members, or even a large proportion of them, came to this House as distinct representatives of a special interest. A certain number of such Members may he beneficial; but equally beneficial and equally important in this House are those Members who, being connected with a combination of interests, as many of us are, wield the force both of rural influence and commercial influence, and independent influence, and are able to form their views upon wider principles, and to mediate and moderate between those who take more special and restricted views. But this argument about boundaries is a dilatory and obstructive argument. It is not long since we were told that the House

  911
  would not deal with the question until it had the whole measure before it. If you had had both Bills before you, the answer would have been, "It is very true you have told us that there are to be the Members for counties and there are to be the Members for such and such boroughs, but you have not thought proper to inform us what is to be the limit between county and borough; it is impossible for us to know what your plan of representation is, because you have not told us where the line is to be drawn between £14 on the one hand and £7 on the other; and therefore it is impossible for us to deal with your measure." But the right hon. Gentleman himself, while raising all these objections to our system of grouping, has recommended a new system of grouping of his own. He says it would be wise to group the small unrepresented towns into new boroughs. What, then, become of his objections to the system of grouping that it is foreign, that it is expensive, that it leads to bribery, and to a system of caucus? He forgot to explain why the grouping of new towns would be domestic, while that of old towns was foreign—or why the evils of expense, of bribery, and of caucus, so strongly present in the one case, would be absent in the other. I say, then, that the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, that we have neglected our duty in this matter of boundaries, is completely disposed of. We should have acted in a spirit contrary to that of the Reform Act of 1832 if we had sought to draw the closest line of demarcation possible between all the borough constituencies and the county constituencies in the kingdom, and should have involved ourselves in endless difficulties, with no prospect of bringing the matter to a final settlement. Neither can I admit the charge that the kind of grouping proposed is either foreign or expensive. It appears to me that if you want to put an end to the idea of Reform, and that if you wish to withdraw it and to throw it over to the Greek Kalends, there is scarcely a suggestion you can make more likely to effect that object than the suggestion that you should set to work and not take in the existing and well-known boroughs, boroughs which are fixed by statute, but the small towns scattered throughout the country, and endeavour to organize them into new constituencies, and give them a new representation. I say that if you undertake that duty, you will be involved in another which will require all these inquiries which the right hon. Gen-
  912
  tleman has suggested before a Reform Bill can be brought in. As I before observed, I sincerely sympathize with the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that we want representation by communities, and not by classes; and I quite agree that just and reasonable consideration ought to be given to the classes of which the future constituencies are to be composed; but I think that we are carrying that investigation too far when we speak of them as necessarily antagonistic interests. I am old enough to remember a time when class interests were much more conflicting than they are now; but the wise legislation of the House for the last twenty-five years has been such as greatly to diminish the violence of those conflicts, and almost to extirpate the causes of animosity themselves. I remember when it was otherwise—when the Duke of Wellington went down into Lancashire to open the first railway, and was encountered by the working classes with a manifestation of feeling growing entirely out of sentiments that have long passed away. I remember also the struggles which took place between different sections of the wealthier classes in this country, the various interests being marshalled one against the other with an amount of jealousy and animosity that happily exist no longer. In the year 1830 Mr. Huskisson, when making a speech in this House, pointed out how much class feeling guided the legislation of that day, and how much the burdens of the country were levied in conformity with class views and class interests. But for the last twenty-five years, by the wisdom of this House, every measure of legislation has been directed with a view not to the benefit of any particular class, but to the benefit of the whole community; and the result has been a change of public feeling, and a good understanding between every class of the community which it is delightful to witness, and to which in this argument we ought to bear constant testimony. I, therefore, trust we shall be less given to dwelling on class interests and class distinctions in this debate, and that this measure which is notdrawn with a view to the interests of any particular class, will be found to be equally beneficial to all. I have concluded the remarks which I now propose to make. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to give practical effect by any Motion to the suggestions which he has made. The right hon. Gentleman himself, seven

  913
  years ago, explained to the House the reason why it was his duty to give effect to the promises which have been held out on the subject of Reform. It was very kind and very considerate, and no doubt exceedingly well intended on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, to recommend us to withdraw the present measure. But if we were to fail in prosecuting our duty, I think we should hear from him comments upon the course which we had pursued. My earnest hope is that this question may now be settled. I think it was our bounden duty, in this the first Session of a new Parliament, to submit the question to the best of our judgment and ability to the House. And I earnestly trust that by the moderation of all parties, and by that on which the right hon. Gentleman has justly as well as confidently relied—the good sense and right judgment of this House—the present Parliament may be able, in the present Session, to bring to a just and satisfactory conclusion the long agitated question of a Reform in the representation of the people.
  MR. WALSHsaid, he trusted the House would extend its indulgence and kindness to him while he addressed to them a few remarks. This was not the first time that the small boroughs had been attacked; they had survived former assaults, and he trusted they might survive the present. These boroughs had never wanted able and eloquent defenders, and among the most eloquent and most able was the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. In 1859 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "I must frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious to the efficiency of the House of Commons. You must not consider in this matter the question only of the electors. You must consider quite as much who are likely to be the elected.…If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return Members of Parliament.…you will not find it possible to introduce adequately into this House the race of men by whom the government of the country is to be carried on."—[3 Hansard, cliii 1054.]
  In the course of a speech made last summer the right hon. Gentleman, in addressing, he believed, the electors of Chester, held similar language, and said if this country wished to be served well it must return young men to Parliament; and, with all deference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had said, except in the case of some few favoured individuals, he did not
  914
  see how this result was to be brought about unless through the medium of small boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer it might be said, in words which were applied to another great statesman, that all parties were proud of him; and though he had quitted one side of the House and gone to sit at the other, he congratulated his new supporters on possessing such a distinguished advocate. But were they quite sure that that imagination, which in early youth had been dazzled by the splendour of Canning, and now in its maturer years was caught by the glitter of Birmingham, had finally settled? Were they quite sure it would not make another gyration? With a verbal alteration, he would address to them advice similar to that which fell from the injured father of Dosdemona—
  "Look to her, Moor; have a quick eye to see;
  She hath deceived her father, and may thee."
  To exhibit the vicissitudes of party warfare and to show how difficult it was for even our most distinguished statesmen to keep their hold upon the larger constituencies, he need only remind the House that the late Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and many others had been unable to keep their hold on the large constituencies, and would have been kept out of Parliament but for the smaller boroughs, and that it was owing to the little borough of Tiverton that the singular wisdom and genial authority of Lord Palmerston were preserved to that House so long. Since the Reform debates had commenced the Opposition had been deluged with good advice by Gentlemen sitting opposite, who suddenly manifested the most affectionate interest in their well-being as a party. Their advice, however, partook largely of the character with which in childhood they had all been familiar. Having in vain besought the Conservative party to shut its eyes and open its mouth and swallow the good things Lord Russell would send it, they were now told how much better they would be from taking the dose, they were promised a nice game of Downing Street afterwards, and that the Reform stick should be hid away in the cupboard. But he contended that any settlement to which the House was asked to agree ought to be fair and to have some prospect of finality about it. This Bill affected the seats of seventy-nine Members, forty-eight of whom were Conservatives, and thirty-one Liberals; and nothing had surprised him more

  915
  than the number of 8,000 which had been fixed on as the electoral limit. In these days of decimal figures 10,000 would surely have been the natural limit. But on looking through the Returns with the assistance of Dod, a very easy explanation presented itself of the grounds for selecting 8,000 in preference to 10,000. He found that the seats with a population of between 8,000 and 10,000 which would have been affected by choosing the higher number were seventeen, and of these sixteen were held by Liberals and only one by a Conservative Member. The moderation, therefore, of the Government in fixing the limit at 8,000 no longer surprised him. He had only one more observation to address to Members who, like himself, represented one of the doomed boroughs. It was quite evident now that it was a question between their existence or that of the Government, and not merely of those boroughs in the present schedule—because once the principle established that mere numbers were to overrule the property and intelligence of the country, boroughs of 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 inhabitants might number their existence by moments. Let them not be killed in detail. Very often offence was the best defence; let them join, therefore, in defeating a measure which, he believed, would be subversive of the best interests of the country, and in furnishing the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill) with a practical illustration of the way in which a minority could make its wishes respected and its interests cared for, even in the face of a powerful majority.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: I can fully understand the very great difficulties which a Government must encounter in endeavouring to deal with such an important and intricate subject as that of the Re-distribution of Seats. I can well believe that an Administration, however conscientious, must inevitably lay itself open to the charge—or at any rate to the suspicion—of inconsistency and unfairness, considering the numerous and conflicting interests which this Bill touches; and considering too how much, as in this case, is left to the arbitrary discretion of its promoters. I should, therefore, be unwilling to attach too much importance to the curious chain of concidences which in the Bill now before the House does, undoubtedly, expose it to the accusation of being formed as a party measure. I will not unduly insist on the curious fact that the figure of 8,000, ar-
  916
  bitrarily fixed upon as being the minimum population which is to return two Members, cuts off a very large proportion of Members who sit on this side the House, while the obvious and intelligible limit of 10,000 would, I believe, deal with exactly the same number of Liberal and Conservative seats. I will not ask why almost all the seats thus placed at the disposal of the Government go to places which will support this Government. I will not ask why, after the returns of population- and electors which have been made with such care, we should go back five years, to the last census for the purposes of this Bill, and make no use of the knowledge we have of the numbers or character of our electors. I will not ask what precedent there is for the obnoxious proposal of grouping boroughs already represented, and thereby increasing all their alleged defects and taking away their obvious benefits. Going more into detail, I will not ask why Bewdley, with its decaying population already under 7,000 is left untouched, and with its 391 Liberal electors not grouped with Droitwich with its 407 Conservative electors; these two towns being ten miles apart and in the same county, while Woodstock is brought twenty miles from its own county to be amalgamated with Wallingford. I will not ask why Brecon and Radnor, with their population under 8,000 and their Liberal representatives remain unaltered. The Government has reserved to itself the right of dealing arbitrarily with all these questions, and let us not blame them too much that their justice is tempered with the charity that begins at home. But, when a strict and definite rule is laid down, and when, curiously enough, the only exceptions made to it are made to the disadvantage of Conservative constituencies, then, I say, it is time for every honest man, and for every Member who has an especial interest in the seats injuriously affected, to come forward and demand an explanation of the circumstances. The Government Bill lays down the rule that every constituency which had in 1861 a population of more than 8,000 is still to retain its right to return two Members to Parliament. By thi3 rule the towns of Chicester, Guildford, Lewes, Mal-ton, Poole, Stamford, Tavistock, Wycombe, and Windsor, all of which have a population between the mystical number 8,000 and 10,000, keep their privilege; well and good. Now, there are ten groups of boroughs which have more than 9,000

  917
  inhabitants. It is obvious, therefore, that by this rule all the groups should at least retain the above-mentioned privilege; but, an exception is made, and these ten groups, not one of which would return two Liberal Members, and certainly five of which would return two Conservative Members, are not to have two representatives unless their population amounts to 15,000. Now I ask how, in the name of consistency and fairness, can this exception be supported? I will take the case of the group of boroughs in which I am personally interested, Ludlow and Lominster, and ask why are we not to have two representatives unless we have a population of 15,000? Is it because our electors are few? Our united electors number 765, while not one of the ten privileged towns I have named has more than 719. Is it because we are accused of corruption and undue local influence? Such a suggestion has never even been whispered, and while the names of Windsor and Lewes, of Tavistock and Malton, are so notorious, we can safely say that that is not the reason. Is it because we are decaying places? No: both constituencies are flourishing and increasing steadily in proportion, while the comparatively recent railways are just beginning to develop new sources of wealth and influence. Is it because we have no vested rights. At this moment Ludlow and Leominster return four Members to Parliament, and in the latter place, at least, we point back with pride to a long line of distinguished representatives. No ! the only-method on which this spoliation of small boroughs has been conducted is—
  "The good old rule, the simple plan,
  That they should take who have the power,
  And they should keep who can,"
  We small boroughs hold in our hands a banner. It is not so imposing and brilliant as that which still floats from the Treasury Bench. Our warriors are few and comparatively unskilled in the combat, but we have the advantage of having justice on our side, and we wage the battle of right against might. This Bill may be passed through the House by a small majority, and we know the tender mercies that are extended to the weak in Committee; but I shall have this satisfaction, that the first words I have uttered in this House—words which if this Bill become law may be my last—have been against as illogical and tyrannical an injustice as has ever been contemplated by any Government.
  MR. JOHN HARDYsaid, it was hard that the borough of Dartmouth, which he represented, and which had been tampered with by the Reform Bill of 1832, should again be singled out for attack. If the right hon. Gentleman who framed the Bill had grouped Dartmouth with other towns on the coast having similar interests, such as Brixham, and Paignton, and Teign-mouth, he might not have complained; but what had Dartmouth to do with such way-side boroughs as Ashburton and Totnes, the last of which was of no good repute, and the other was so completely out of the way—for nobody went there—that if a man found himself thereby chance he would have to ask where he was. Dartmouth, too, was one of those boroughs which had won its charter and done the State some service long before many of the larger boroughs had been heard of; and, although a man ought to submit to see a small borough disfranchised with equanimity, if the country were likely to be benefited by the sacrifice, it was rather hard to have one's seat handed over to a Democrat, and to be called upon to make way for the Scotch Radicals. For his own part, he was not in favour of making any addition to the number of Members already in the House, The House could not well contain a greater number, and the great majority of the present Members were unable to express their opinions on any important debate. But, beyond that, the Bill was full of anomalies, which he would illustrate by the single instance that one Member was to be taken away from the cathedral town of Lichfield, while Tam-worth, with 200 or 300 electors less, was left untouched. When the Franchise Bill was brought forward there was the usual cry that it was an honest Bill. But he called nothing honest that did not tell the truth. He would not detain the House longer, as he would have opportunities of attacking its details in Committee, but he could not avoid taking this opportunity of expressing his opposition to the Bill,
  MR. KERexpressed his dissatisfaction with the mode in which it was proposed in the Irish Reform Bill to deal with Downpatrick, the borough which he represented.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in order in discussing the Reform Bill for Ireland, as that measure was not before the House.
  MR. KER, under those circumstances, would reserve his observations till the Irish Bill came on.
  MR. BUTTONsaid, he was not disposed to object to the second reading of the Bill, because he was of opinion that a Committee composed of half-a-dozen Members from each side of the House might in a very short time make this Bill into a very useful measure. His own opinion was that instead of grouping boroughs already enfranchised, it would have been a wiser course to have partially disfranchised all boroughs of under 15,000 population, and thus acquired sixty seats, which could have been distributed among the populous places which were at present unrepresented. He thought that the system of grouping boroughs adopted by the Government would be very unsatisfactory to the residents in these boroughs, and most inconvenient to the hon. Gentlemen who represented them. In some cases of proposed grouping it was extremely difficult to see any reason for the grouping, geographically or otherwise. In reference to his own case, he could not conceive why Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham should be joined. The people of those towns knew nothing of each other, and any person going the round of the three towns would have to travel over several branch lines, to go a distance of forty miles, and to change carriages five times. In reference to two boroughs in his own county, Lymington and Andover, he thought that it would have been far better, instead of being grouped, that they should have one Member each, and that unrepresented towns should be thrown into groups. In reference to the distribution of seats he found that South Hants was not to have a third Member, though from the large population and from the rapid increase of the constituency in consequence of the large towns, such as Portsmouth and Southampton, that division of the county had upwards of 100,000 inhabitants, more than the number considered to entitle other counties to the extra Member. He was glad that the Bill was to be allowed to go into Committee, and he had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side in a spirit of fairness, and that on the other hand the proposals of the Government would receive due consideration; for without mutual concession no measure of this kind could be carried, and he was anxious to see the much-vexed question of Parliamentary Reform settled during the present Session.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he should be glad to know the position in
  920
  which the House stood with regard to the Motion of which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had given notice. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice that in the event of this Bill being read a second time, he would move—
  "That it be committed to the same Committee with the Representation of the People Bill, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do make both the said Bills into one."
  The course to be followed with regard to this Bill might be materially affected by the decision which the House might arrive at on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The right hon. Gentleman was not then in his place, but it would be convenient that the House should know in what position they would stand in the event of this Bill being read a second time without a division. There was no disposition, as far as he knew, on that side of the House to object to the second reading; but they would be glad to know whether the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman could be made when the Committee on this Bill was fixed; whether the Government were prepared to assent to that Motion; and if it should be agreed to, in what position the House would be as regarded any Amendments on the question, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." He was not aware that it was intended to move any Amendment on the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, but it was desirable there should be a clear understanding as to the position in which the House stood. There was no wish on the part of the Opposition to gain time or take any unfair advantage of the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the question of the hon. Baronet was a perfectly fair one. When introducing the Bill he said that as regarded the question of procedure he would endeavour to gather the feeling of the House, and he naturally looked to the termination of the discussion on the second reading as the period at which the Government would have received a sufficient indication of that feeling. They had supposed from the course matters had taken previously, that there would have been a longer discussion on the second reading; but the information they now had led them to believe that it would, on the whole, meet the views of the majority of the House if the two Bills should be combined together. As a matter of fact, he believed that was the only point which had remained

  921
  in any doubt; and on the part of the Government he had to say that he was prepared to accede to the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. He supposed that Motion would be made on going into Committee, which, with the permission of the House, he would fix for that day fortnight.
  MR. SPEAKER, in reference to one of the questions asked by the hon. Baronet, said, that an Instruction to the Committee was not in the nature of an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee; and, therefore, Amendments on that Motion had not been interfered with by the Instruction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 28th May.

  CROWN LANDS BILL— [BILI, 98.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read (Queen's Consent signified).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that among the other provisions of this Bill was one giving power to Her Majesty to retain Claremont for her life. He had wished a few nights ago to make a few remarks when the Report on that Bill was considered; but having understood that it was not intended on that occasion to proceed with the Bill, his accidental absence had deprived him of an opportunity of doing so. He now, however, wished the House to consider seriously what they were about to do in this matter. They were violating a very important principle which had been laid down with reference to the disposal of public property and public revenue by the Crown. It was a long time since the Crown had possessed the power of disposing at its pleasure of the lands or the revenues which constituted its hereditary revenue. It was found that so many abuses had crept in through the freedom in that respect which had been reserved by the Sovereign, and that he was liable to so many importunities, that Parliament was at last compelled to enact that no grants should be made of Crown lands to any person except under the most stringent conditions. But the general revenue was also in former times left to a large
  922
  extent at the disposal of the Crown; and that likewise was liable to so much abuse that at length Parliament determined that the whole of the revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that only a certain sum should be placed at the disposal of the Sovereign for the purposes of the civil Government, or, as it was described, for the expenditure of the Civil List. In the early part of the reign of George III. even that modified system still left the door open to very great practical abuses. It was found to be so difficult for the Sovereign to resist the arts and importunities of persons about the Court that large sums had been granted by way of pensions, and that all sorts of secret contrivances were resorted to to conceal them from the knowledge of the public. It was therefore determined that the best mode of securing the due appropriation of the money set apart as a Civil List for the benefit of the Sovereign and the use of the nation was, as far as possible, to repress the practice of allowing the Sovereign to grant any monies or pensions to any person whatever except under conditions then laid down, of the most precise and stringent character. One mode of checking abuse was to prevent any pension being granted secretly, to be paid in a covert manner; and it was required that every pension should be paid to the Exchequer. It was further provided that no grant should be made except upon a Message sent by the Crown to Parliament, in order that it might be patent to the public to whom any such grant was made. That extended, however, only to the larger class of pensioners; and all those under £1,200 were still left at the absolute discretion of the Crown. But, to restrict the power of the Crown to grant these pensions, the Civil List was divided into classes, and a certain sum only was placed at its disposal to be appropriated according to its pleasure for pensions or other gratuities. That state of things continued, with some modifications, until the accession of the present Queen, when a new arrangement was entered into, by which the practice of putting a large sum in the gross at the service of the Crown for pensions was abolished, and the still more precise method was adopted of allowing the Queen to grant pensions to persons who had earned them by some kind of merit to an extent not exceeding £1,200 in any one year. That system, therefore, having been found necessary in order to prevent the misappropriation of the public revenue, it had resolved itself

  923
  into this—that Her Majesty should not have the power of granting away any part of the public revenues except upon a public announcement in the House of Commons of the person to whom the grant was to be made; and it was necessary to have the assent of the House in all cases save those coming under the provision that he had mentioned; while, on the other hand, where any discretion was left to the Queen respecting the grant of the smaller pensions, those pensions were made under the very stringent conditions of a Resolution of the House of Commons, which was incorporated in the Act passed for the settlement of the Civil List upon the accession of Her Majesty. Now, without any regard to these proceedings, it was proposed that an estate of £1,200 a year, being part of the land revenue that nominally belonged to the Crown, should be placed at the unfettered discretion of Her Majesty without the House having any communication whatever of the objects and purposes for which that grant was to be made. Probably the precedent in respect to Frogmore, which had ceased to be occupied by a member of the Royal family, but was afterwards resumed, would be relied upon in that case. But when the application for Frogmore House for the use of Her Majesty was made, it was distinctly represented that it was absolutely necessary for the convenient enjoyment of Windsor Castle that the Frogmore property should be deemed and taken to be part of the honour and manor of Windsor, inasmuch as it would be extremely disagreeable if that property were let out to a stranger who might become a very near neighbour of Her Majesty, almost participating in the enjoyment of Windsor Park. On that representation the House was pleased to acquiesce in the Bill by which the mansion and domain of Frogmore was not granted to Her Majesty as a separate estate, but was annexed to Windsor Castle, to be held and enjoyed as part of that property for the personal use of the Queen. All these facts were stated most precisely in the Act of Parliament to show the ground on which such a grant was made in addition to the settlement of the Civil List. But on the present occasion there was no statement whatever in the Bill of the reason why the grant was to be made, and they were entirely departing from all the principles which had regulated the management of the Civil List since the measures of economical reform passed at the instance of
  924
  Mr. Burke. Before they opened the door to the abuses of former times they ought to have a clear explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had been told that that grant was not exactly for the personal use of Her Majesty, but for the use of somebody or other; but, in accordance with the spirit of the Acts to which he had referred, the House was entitled to have a distinct statement of the persons and purposes to which that property was to go, and also of the circumstances under which it was proposed to reverse their past policy and legislation in these matters. His object was that there should be an emphatic declaration on the part of Parliament that the property was to be granted only to some person who had a claim upon the nation on account of meritorious services rendered to the State. If granted as a matter of private favour, it was the bounden duty of the Minister to communicate to the House before the grant was completed the object and purposes for which Her Majesty desired that this property should be placed at her disposal. It was with that view that he moved that the Bill be re-committed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 27,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no complaint to make of the history fraught with constitutional lore which had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. The practical question to which his hon. Friend referred was one of great importance—namely, how the revenues for the support and enjoyment of the Crown had been made by other persons a means of private enjoyment and public abuse. He quite admitted if his hon. Friend could show that there was anything in the proceeding now proposed that bore any affinity to that subject he would be entirely justified in asking the House to adopt his proposal. But the first objection he had to make to the proposition of his hon. Friend was, that it would be, in his opinion, entirely inoperative. As far as he could judge, the section of the Act of 1 &c 2 Vict., which related only to grants of pensions—that is, of money—would not be applicable to any grant by Her Majesty under the Bill, not of the revenues of Claremont, but simply of the use of the

  925
  House. Nevertheless, he could not agree to the insertion of the words of his hon. Friend's Resolution, for reasons which he endeavoured on the previous occasion briefly to state, but which he feared he had not conveyed to his hon. Friend. He did not mean to impute that circumstance to a want of apprehension on the part of his hon. Friend, particularly on a night when a very high and just eulogium had been passed upon him by a distinguished authority in that House. That eulogium would entirely secure his hon. Friend from any censure from him upon that occasion. His hon. Friend complained that there was no recital in the Bill determining the motives of the grant. But the reason was that there was no analogy between this grant of Claremont and any previous grants. In the case of Frogmore, for example, it was proposed to make an addition, for the sake of Her Majesty's own comfort, to the number of palaces, houses, and mansions, which were at the disposal of Her Majesty, and were to be maintained for Her Majesty at the public charge. That might fairly be called an uncompensated grant to the Crown, and if there wore now any intention to make such a grant, it would be right to give a full explanation to the House. But the case of Claremont was a peculiar case in this respect—that it had been a place of residence of Her Majesty in the earlier portion of her life, and had for a long time been enjoyed by the late King of the Belgians under peculiar circumstances; because, while entitled by Act of Parliament to an income of £50,000 a year, some £35,000 a year had been regularly paid back into our Exchequer for a long series of years. The consideration that it would have been painful to the King of the Belgians that his palace at Claremont would be made a mere matter of merchandize for the purpose of obtaining a small sum for the public revenue was one which if it were necessary to dwell upon would have great weight with the House. But the ground upon which Her Majesty's Government had asked this grant from the House was extremely simple—it was, in fact, a mere matter of business. It was that the grant formed part of an Act which was highly beneficial to the public—an Act in which questions of great importance connected with the Crown lands were solved to the public advantage. Questions relating to improvements of the Crown lands and to their minerals would for the future be decided upon principles common to set-
  926
  tled estates. The bargain would be for the benefit of the public, and he hoped also of the Crown Estates. But that arrangement could not have been legally made without the full and free consent of Her Majesty. Then there was the question of foreshores—that long-vexed question not only in that House, but in the country. In Scotland at this moment it formed a subject of very 3erious controversy. Well, that question of foreshores would be put in a train of settlement most satisfactory to the interests of the public by the provisions of the Bill. There would be no longer any rights of the Prince of Wales as reversioner of the Crown Estates—those rights would no longer interfere with those arrangements which, on the ground of public policy, might be thought best by the Government of the day. It was well known that upon many occasions when they had been debating in that House the management of the Crown lands it had been the duty of the Government to urge upon the House—and the House had never been slow to admit the fact—that, whatever might have been true as to the propriety or necessity of the renewal from time to time of the arrangements which placed his property in the hands of the public, yet, while the rights of the reversioner remained, they were bound to respect them absolutely; but that absolute respect in many instances had been a bar to their taking measures which, on the grounds of public policy, would be perfectly justifiable. But the difficulty with respect to the foreshores would be removed by this Bill. Again, these arrangements with respect to the New Forest would be mutually beneficial with respect to the shooting, as it would confer the rights necessary to give to Estates of the Crown in the New Forest their full market value. That arrangement would have the effect of bringing revenue to the Exchequer which it did not now enjoy. It was a part of this plan that in consideration of these great benefits the Government felt themselves justified in doing that which they would not otherwise have felt justified in asking Parliament to do—namely, to make over to Her Majesty the use and enjoyment of Claremont for her life. This, however, would not involve any new demand on the liberality of Parliament. The concession made by this Bill would not entail any burden whatever, and it would not he necessary to ask an annual Vote from Parliament for the maintenance of the house and grounds. As an

  927
  act of policy advantageous to the public interest it was recommended to this House, and he felt sure it would not be the less acceptable because it was also agreeable and convenient to Her Majesty and the Royal Family. It was obvious, therefore, that the grounds upon which the proposal stood were entirely new and distinct, and he hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with that explanation, and would not press his Motion to a division.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, "put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  [BILL 19.] SECOND READING.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [9th May],"That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Whiteside.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he had had the honour to serve on the Commission on whose recommendations a measure of this sort had been adopted. There were some details of the measure which might not be consistent with the Report of the Commission, and which he thought might be the subject of Amendment when the Bill was in Committee. But the Bill was one which he thought would produce the greatest possible benefit in Ireland. He hoped it would lessen expense and delay, and would confer upon Ireland some of the benefits which had resulted in this country from the reforms in Chancery. He was anxious that the Bill should become law, subject to some changes in detail.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer

    BELFAST CONSTABULARY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to authorize the Town Chuncil of Belfast to levy and pay charges in respect of extra Constabulary, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. AT. TORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Marquess of Westminster.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Burials in Burghs (Scotland) * (112); Drainage Maintenance (Ireland) * (113).
Second Reading—Inclosure * (107); Harbour Loans * (104); Superannuation (Officers Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards) * (91).
Committee—Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) 1866 (60): Contagious Diseases * (95).
Third Reading— Labouring Classes Dwellings * (69), and passed.

MINUTE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.

  QUESTION.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he would now put to his noble Friend the President of the Council, the Question of which he had privately given him notice respecting "the Conscience Clause" of the Education Code. He brought this question forward in no spirit of hostility, but with the sincere desire that this long-vexed question might be peaceably settled, and he hoped that the answer the noble Earl might give would tend to that effect. The questions he was about to put arose out of a correspondence which had lately taken place between two clergymen of the Church of England and the Secretary of the Committee of Council on Education. The Rev. Mr. Caparn put two questions—first,
  "Whether the Apostles' Creed was one of the formularies of the Church which a parent might require his child not to be taught; and secondly, whether the managers of a school might make the daily reading of the Bible absolutely necessary for all children."
  The reply of Mr. Lingen, the Secretary of the Committee of Council, was in these words—
  "In answer to your first question I am directed to state that the Apostles' Creed being a formulary of the Church of England, might be required not to be taught to a child by its parent who belonged to a communion wherein that Creed was not used. In answer to your second question, whether the clause aforesaid allows the promoters of the school to make the daily reading of the Bible by every child an absolute rule of the school, I am directed to state that the clause allows the managers to do so, so long as the text of the Bible is not employed to enforce doctrine which (ex hypothesi) is that of the Church of England, but is not also that of the parents."
  That answer was interpreted to signify that no clergyman was to be allowed in the ordinary teaching of a school to lay down
  848
  any doctrine of the Church of England to which the parents of any child might object. Of course, if that was the case, not only might any doctrine of the Church of England be excluded from the teaching of the school, but the very first article of belief in the existence of God might be excluded. The second correspondence took place between the Rev. Mr. Scott and Mr. Lingen. Mr. Scott was very anxious to ascertain what obligations would be imposed on him if he accepted the conscience clause. He stated that in the case of the schools he had presided over
  "The practice was to allow the children to attend at whatever Sunday school and at whatever place of worship their parents preferred; also, if desired by the parents, the teacher allowed the child of a Dissenter to omit the Church Catechism, or at all events, that part of it to which Dissenters chiefly object; but he had a strong objection to bind himself not to teach the doctrine as well as the formularies of the Church."
  Mr. Lingen's answer was that the managers were bound to make such orders as would extend the benefits of the schools to such children as, not being connected with the Church of England, were not desirous of being instructed in its formularies, and that otherwise the managers were not to interfere with the teaching of the formularies of the Church as by law directed. Mr. Scott expressed his wish that their Lordships would allow the omission of the words "doctrine or" in Clause 2. He said—
  "My objection to the insertion of the word 'doctrine' is its latitude. In the doctrine of the Church of England is included the whole range of Christian truth; so that by engaging that children may be exempted from being taught the doctrine of the Church of England we should, in fact, be engaging that in a Christian school superintended and in a great measure supported by a Christian minister, children should, on the demand of an infidel, be brought up without any Christian instruction at all."
  Mr. Lingen answered—
  "The principle of that clause is that no child ought to be compelled to receive religious instruction contrary to the profession and declared wish of its parent."
  Mr. Scott declined altogether to accept the conscience clause on that interpretation. It was with the hope of arriving at a more definite explanation of what the clause really meant, and the obligations imposed by accepting it, that he wished to ask the noble Earl the Question of which he had given him notice—namely, Whether a clergyman of the Church of England would meet the requirements of the conscience

  849
  clause by exempting the children of Dissenters from, attendance in school during the reading of the formularies of the Church, or whether he would be bound to abstain from teaching in the schools any doctrine of the Church of England which the parents of a child might desire should not be taught to his child?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was hardly necessary for him to state that he never apprehended that this question was likely to be put in a hostile spirit; and he was induced to hope that a settlement of the question, which could not long be delayed without injury to all concerned, would soon be arrived at. There was some hope that the matter might be dealt with in a manner to give satisfaction to the clergymen of the Established Church. Some inconvenience had arisen in connection with this question from the fact of individual promoters of schools putting abstract questions to the Council Office on matters with which they were not called upon to deal practically, but which were of a speculative character; and the consequence was, that the Council Office were sometimes compelled to give answers which, when applied to facts, might seem ambiguous. At the same time, there was the greatest desire on the part of the Council to give the most perfect information. With respect to the first question, put by the most rev. Prelate in two parts, he could not answer either part in absolute terms. With respect to the first part of the question—whether a clergyman of the Church of England would satisfy the requirements of the conscience clause by exempting the children of Dissenters who objected from attendance in school during the reading of the formularies of the Church?—it was clear that that description did not meet the requirements of the conscience clause; for it would not be acting justly to the Dissenters if the managers of Church of England schools were to allow the children of Dissenters to withdraw while the formularies of the Church were being read, and to be brought in again to hear the doctrines of the Church taught. He would read the following extract from The Church and, State Review of November 1, 1865—
  "We cannot help thinking that, if Dissenters were aware how little effect the mere Catechism has in the creation of Church people, they would not make such a fuss about a conscience clause; and we are quite certain that, unless our dogmatic teaching is to be of a very different kind in future from what it has been heretofore, we may just as
  850
  well save ourselves the trouble and the odium of struggling against its imposition. If, instead of puzzling their brains with lists of Old Testament kings, our children were impressed with the lesson to be learnt from the fate of Korah, with the application of it to our own times as enforced by St. Paul and St. Jude; if they were carefully instructed in the perpetuity of the ministry founded by the Apostles; in the necessity of that ministry in order to the validity of sacraments, and to the existence of a true Church; in the unchangeable-ness of the one faith, and the character assigned by St. Paul to all' new gospels,' and deviations from it; in the guilt of schism, as part of that one faith; in the primitive and apostolical mode of maintaining that one faith, by means of synods and councils; in the distinction between the Church and the world, and the independence of the former society from the rules of the latter; in the mutual equality and yet inter-dependence of bishops; in the Scripture way of salvation, and the necessity of a heavenly life if we are to attain to Heaven;—if such were considered as necessary a part of the instruction of the children of the Church as the three R's, which she has nowhere been commissioned to teach, we venture to think that the rising generation would be very different from the present."
  He did not say that the opinions put forth in this article represented the real opinions of any considerable portion of the Church of England; but it was quite clear that a small number of Churchmen might be able, in schools unprotected by the conscience clause, to outrage the feelings of a great number of Dissenters in this country. He, therefore, thought it was evident that doctrines as well as formularies should be included within the scope of the conscience clause. It must be obvious to their Lordships that not only did the conscience clause not interfere with the religious instruction in the schools, but it absolutely required that no interference should take place by forcing that instruction on the unwilling. This was clearly shown in every letter which emanated from the Council Office, and the conscience clause did not in the slightest degree touch the religious teaching of the Church of England in schools promoted by the Church of England. The only thing it enforced was, that a child should not attend that portion of the religious instruction to which his parents objected.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought that on the whole the noble Earl's answer was satisfactory. It appeared to throw a considerable light on the question and it would relieve many clergymen from great anxiety. He understood that if a clergyman accepted the conscience clause he would not have the general instruction of his school in any way interfered with; but that if a parent

  851
  chose to withdraw his child from any part of the instruction he was at perfect liberty to do so.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that there never was a time when he did not consider the principle of the conscience clause was not only consistent with, but was absolutely required by common justice and charity; but there was also a time when, while he assented to the general principle, he did not see the necessity of its compulsory imposition. The object of the clause, as he always understood it, was not in the slightest degree to restrict the liberty of religious instruction in any Church of England school, but simply to secure liberty to parents who objected, to withdraw their children from a certain portion of the instruction given in the school. He believed that the object of the Question which had been put by the most rev. Primate was to ascertain from the highest authority whether there was or had been anything to prevent clergymen of the Church of England from accepting the conscience clause, and making it the rule of their conduct in the religious instruction they gave in their schools. There was a time when he was not convinced of the necessity of the compulsory imposition of this clause, because his own experience in his own sphere had led him to believe that the principle was so uniformly adopted in practice that it was not necessary to resort to other measures. But recent proceedings had convinced him that he was wrong in that respect. He deeply deplored that those proceedings had issued in the present most unhappy breach between the Committee of Council and the National Society, but he hoped that it was not too late for that breach to be healed. The answer given by the noble Earl would contribute in a considerable measure to that most desirable object. He must say that it was the absolute duty of the Committee of Council to insist on the conscience clause.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONexpressed his regret that a discussion should have arisen on so grave and important a subject, under circumstances which precluded the possibility of its being satisfactorily-dealt with. His sole object in rising to say a few words upon it was to guard against the supposition that he, at all events, accepted the views with respect to it which had been laid down by his noble Friend the President of the Council, or the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken.
  852
  He denied that the questions arising under the conscience clause were so easily disposed of as the noble Earl seemed to imagine. If time had allowed, he should have been prepared to enter into the whole question, and he trusted an opportunity for doing so would before long be afforded. Meantime he would content himself with observing that the clause referred to was one which had never been formulated in a Minute of Council, which had never been laid before Parliament in any shape, and which rested on no other authority than that of the President of the Council himself.
  LORD LYTTELTONalso expressed a hope that their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing the question on a future occasion.

  ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND), 1866, BILL—(No. 60).
  (The Lord Chelmsford.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.—(Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion he said-that he regarded the principle of the Bill as a sound one, inasmuch as it proposed to assimilate the law in Ireland on the subject with which it dealt with that of England; but he had subsequently received communications from Ireland which led him to entertain serious doubts as to the expediency of passing the measure. In that country the Society of the King's Inns was presided over, and had been for more than two centuries, by the Lord Chancellor, all the Judges, a certain number of Queen's Counsel, and other distinguished legal functionaries, who exercised authority not only over the Bar, but also over the attorneys and solicitors. Unlike the case of England, solicitors might be members of the Society of the King's Inns just in the same way as barristers; proper lecture-rooms were provided for them, and lectures given, and they paid a certain sum to the Society in return for the accommodation thus afforded. The present Bill, however, proposed to do away with that system, and to take away from the Society, as now constituted, the funds out of which the lecturers were re-

  853
  munerated. The proposal was one, he could assure his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), which was regarded with considerable dissatisfaction by the Judges and high legal functionaries in Ireland, and it was, under the circumstances, one which he did not feel himself justified in supporting.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that when he undertook the charge of the Bill he was under the impression that there would be no opposition to it, and he was surprised to learn that it was looked upon with disfavour by the Benchers of the King's Inns and other distinguished legal functionaries in Ireland. When his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack informed him that such was the case and furnished him with the Report of the Committee of Education of the King's Inns, which put forward the objections of that Society, he felt disposed to withdraw from the Bill altogether, But on reflection he deemed it to be his duty not to do so unless he found that the opposition to it was well founded; and he was bound to state that although the Report of the Committee of Education of the King's Inns had attached to it the signatures of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Blackburne, he did not think it furnished any conclusive argument against the proposal which he asked their Lordships to sanction. The Society of the King's Inns was not, he might add, established by charter or by Act of Parliament, but constituted a purely voluntary association, of which the Benchers were the governing body. There was also an Incorporated Law Society, composed of solicitors and attorneys, in Ireland, as in England, but all the solicitors were obliged to become members of the King's Inns; but had never for more than a century been permitted to form part of the governing body (which was self-elective), although they paid fees amounting to more than double the sum paid by the same class of persons in this country. They had, in fact, no share whatever in the management of the affairs of the Society, and no control over the administration of its funds. The original constitution of the King's Inns, it was also necessary to state, gave the Society no authority over the solicitors, and it was not until 1710 that it began to exercise that authority. In the year 1792 the Society obtained a charter giving them certain powers over Attorneys, which they had long exercised in fact, and that charter was confirmed by
  854
  Act of Parliament; but so strong an opposition to that charter was raised both by the Bar and the solicitors that the Act was in the following year repealed, and the Society reverted to its original condition—that of a voluntary association. The Benchers, notwithstanding that, however, made in 1794 rules and regulations for attorneys, founded, not upon any legal right, but upon long usage, and among the other regulations laid down was one to the effect that every person who was admitted as a solicitor should become a member of the Society, and should pay certain fees. Those fees were exacted from them from 1794 to 1838, when a question was raised as to the legality of the exaction, and it was pronounced by Mr. Serjeant Warren (himself a Bencher,) to whom the case was submitted, to be his opinion that the Society of the King's Inns was a mere voluntary society, and that the Benchers were not entitled to exercise control over attorneys or their apprentices, except in so far as they, by becoming members of the Society, had subjected themselves to its rules and ordinances. The Benchers, however, still continued to require that all attorneys should be members of their Society; they took fees as before on the admission of apprentices; and from a Return which had been made to the House of Commons in 1856, it appeared that the total amount of the fees received by the Society from attorneys between 1794 and that year was no less than £87,000. What did the Benchers of the King's Inns do for that large sum which they had received from the Attorneys? They certainly gave them a building called the Solicitors' Buildings in the Four Courts; and probably they had laid out in its erection about half the money they had obtained from the Solicitors. But they had another most important duty to perform—namely, to make regulations for the training and education of apprentices, and to institute an examination for the purpose of seeing that they were duly qualified before they were admitted as attorneys. In their Report the Benchers said they had done that duty—that, in addition to the making of general regulations for the binding of apprentices, they now maintained and had maintained for years a Professor for the purpose of delivering lectures, and an Examiner for conducting the legal examination of apprentices before they were admitted to the profession. The words "for years" almost necessarily implied that for a very

  855
  long time that course had been adopted; but the fact was that from the year 1794 down to 1860 there was no provision whatever made for the examination or the instruction of those apprentices. In 1846 a Committee of the House of Commons inquired into the state of legal education in Ireland, and in their Report they said that for the solicitor's apprentice there was not any opportunity afforded for obtaining a legal education; that he was treated chiefly as a mechanical agent for carrying out the practical processes of the profession; and that consequently whatever higher or more comprehensive education he might acquire, he owed almost exclusively to himself. Master Lyle, in his evidence before this Committee, said—
  "No attendance at a University, a college, or any other institution was required; no course of legal lectures was insisted upon; and his attendance at the Courts of Law need only be of a purely formal nature."
  The present Judge Longfield being asked whether he would exempt the solicitors from the payment of fees to King's Inns, answered—
  "Yes; that he thought there was no fair object in requiring them to pay them; and that he could not see on what principles of justice solicitors should be obliged to pay fees to an institution from which they derived no benefit."
  In 1855 the Solicitors presented a memorial to the Benchers of the King's Inns praying them to make some arrangement for the examination of apprentices applying for admission to practice, and calling their attention to the fact that no course of studies was prescribed. In their reply the Benchers admitted that they had failed to devise a plan of that kind; and they added that the only course by which that could be done was by establishing law lectures—a proceeding which the state of the Society's funds rendered impossible. At last the Solicitors got a Motion made in the House of Commons for a Committee of Inquiry into the subject. That Motion was vehemently opposed by the Benchers, and it was only after the Committee of Inquiry was granted, that in 1860 that Institution appointed for the first time a Professor with a salary of £100, and an Examiner with a salary of £30. So that the whole sum voted by the Benchers of the King's Inns for the purpose of legal instruction, which was so essential, was only £130 per annum; whereas from the year 1794 down to 1856, the Solicitors had contributed to their funds no less a sum
  856
  than £87,000; and this was the way in which the Benchers had discharged their duties to the Solicitors. Scanty as the provision was it was only extracted from them after long years of patient endurance. Yet, in their Report, the Benchers claim credit for having discharged their duties properly, and maintained that it would be quite wrong to take away from them powers which had been so well exercised. But their authority having commenced in usurpation, the duties which it involved had been entirely neglected. But the Solicitors of Ireland were not desirous of withdrawing themselves altogether from control; all they sought was to place themselves in precisely the same position as their brethren in England occupied. In England the solicitors were under the control, first of all, of rules and regulations made by the three Chief Justices and the Master of the Bolls. Examiners were appointed by the Incorporated Law Society, who examined candidates for admission to the profession. What the attorneys of Ireland proposed was that they should be placed under rules and regulations framed by the Lord Chancellor, the three Chief Justices, and the Master of the Bolls before indenture and before admission, and that they should be examined by the Examiners of the Incorporated Law Society. He did not know why the Benchers of the King's Inns should be so extremely desirous of retaining their powers over the Solicitors, unless it was on account of the large fees which they had so long obtained from them. The Solicitors had little imagined that there would be any objection to that measure. In answer to a letter addressed to him on the subject, Mr. Serjeant Armstrong, one of the Benchers, promised that the Bill should have every aid in his power. With such strong evidence before him, therefore, he (Lord Chelmsford) did not feel warranted in abandoning the measure, and he trusted their Lordships would now pass it through Committee.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he knew nothing of the Bill except what he had just heard from the two noble and learned Lords; but if, as had been stated, the Benchers of the King's Inns had no legal right to collect these fees, and yet the Bill transferred them from one body to another, that would be giving to them a Parliamentary recognition, and would have the effect of creating a new text.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that

  857
  after the speech of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) he would no further say anything against the Bill; as it seemed to him that his noble and learned Friend had made out a case fully justifying its introduction.
  On Question, agreed to: House in Committee accordingly; an Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

  FINANCE OF RAILWAYS—RAILWAY LEGISLATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD REDESDALE, in calling Attention to Matters in connection with the Finance of Railways, and particularly in reference to Legislation on the Subject, said, that just before Parliament adjourned for the Easter holidays he called their Lordships' attention to the subject he now begged to resume—namely, the state of the railway system of this country as regards the manner in which its financial operations were carried on. He then stated that when he again brought the subject under their notice he should direct their Lordships' attention to the state of legislation in respect to it, and would propose for their consideration the advantage of amending certain of their Standing Orders, with a view to create a new and improved system on which the finance of these companies should be conducted. Since that time he had received various communications from different parts of the country, highly complimenting him on the course he had taken, and pointing out the advantage of bringing the matter before the public. He believed that at that period the extent to which the evil had spread was not generally known, and if he had delayed for a time to take the matter in hand again, it was because he was satisfied that his case must be strengthened during the interval, and that expectation had been completely realized; but he had hardly expected that his anticipations would have been borne out to the extent they had been by what had since occurred. When he last addressed their Lordships a railway contractor of great eminence and respectability had just failed. They had now learnt the failure of perhaps the very largest of all these contractors; and he was convinced that the system on which the construction of our railways had been carried on for a very long period had completely broken down, and they could not hope that it
  858
  would be possible to re-construct it on the same principles. It was in 1864 that the difficulties began to arise, the railway contractors then experiencing pressing difficulty in obtaining money for their undertakings; and certain "finance companies" were formed for the avowed purpose of providing the capital which would enable contractors to carry out their schemes. Last year all the schemes which were brought before Parliament by Bills more or less looked to these finance companies for assistance. But what had occurred must have satisfied their Lordships that not only had the finance companies failed to support the railway system, but that the railway system had in a great degree contributed to destroy the finance companies. He was convinced that when the history of the great firm of Overend & Co., which had recently failed, came to be known, it would be found that their difficulties had been in a large measure occasioned by advances made by them to railway companies or to contractors on railway securities. When they considered the nature of those advances, and how these affairs were carried on, their Lordships would see that there was no foundation for expecting any soundness in those transactions. What was the system? It was a paper creation of credit, founded on works that were not completed, and which of themselves offered no security at all. The system not only led to great difficulty in completing the works—it also led to great delay. Even short lines of only twelve or fourteen miles in length were sometimes five or six years in the course of construction. During that time the interest of money had to be found, and that interest accumulated upon the cost of construction. It was only necessary to show that the system allowed of such latitude on the part of contractors and those interested in raising the money, and the only wonder was that the system had not broken down before. There was a case brought under his notice which he would state to their Lordships as it appeared from the statements made at a meeting of the shareholders—he alluded to the Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway Company. The original capital of the company was £300,000 in shares. There was a further sum of £93,400 in borrowed money. At that meeting it was stated that of the original capital only £29,000 was ever subscribed. That

  859
  £158,780 was raised by preference shares and £60,355 by debentures. In addition to this there was raised £733,833 in Lloyd's bonds: making the total capital £983,968 for the construction of a line for which a capital of only £393,400 had been allowed by Parliament. So that nearly three times as much had been spent upon the construction of the line as the authorized capital. There was another remarkable instance of the operation of the system, in the case of a very large concern. It had been working for a considerable period, and was a very energetic line, which stopped at no expenditure in carrying out its objects. He mentioned it because it was connected partly with the contractors who had recently failed, and when their Lordships heard the proceedings that had occurred in regard to the raising of the capital of the line, they would not be surprised at the failure of the contractors or the financial embarrassment of the company. Last year there was a new scheme for the extension of that line into the City, for which a separate capital was raised for a large amount. In the course of the year those contractors went to the Credit Mobilier Company for £1,100,000. [A noble LORD: What was the name of the Company?] The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. They raised that sum on the following terms:—For £21 cash there was given £40 of fully paid-up stock—thus sacrificing £19 to obtain £21. It was, in effect, getting £577,500 by a sacrifice of £522,500. And this was noted at the time as a most successful operation on the part of Messrs. Peto and Company, who were quite satisfied at getting the money on such terms. During the present year the value of money had increased, as had also increased, most probably, the embarrassment of contractors. It was therefore announced that £100 stock could be had for £27 10s.—and by this means, on a capital of £2,270,000, a sum of £624,250 was raised at a sacrifice of £1,645,750. When they heard such facts as these, was it possible to suppose that a system so reckless could ever stand, and was it either reasonable or proper to allow it to go on? They were all feeling at this moment the state of the money-market, which he believed had been largely occasioned by such operations. Speculation had been carried on for some years to an enormous extent, and even three or four months ago, before the alarm was given,
  860
  it was notorious that the rate of interest in this country, notwithstanding its vast capital, was much higher than it was in France. This was a system which interfered with all legitimate undertakings, because it made it so much the more difficult for persons who were carrying on a sound business to obtain the money they required on reasonable terms. Formerly, before any new work was undertaken, the persons who were to form the new company were expected to enter into a subscription contract for a considerable portion of the capital required for the works. The old Standing Order required that three-fourths of the capital should be subscribed beforehand. In the early history of railway enterprize those contracts really represented a large amount, if not the whole, of the capital required. But the mania of 1845–6 led to the starting such an enormous number of schemes with large capitals that fictitious subscription contracts were made, and Parliament became dissatisfied with a system that seemed to offer a very imperfect security for finding the capital put down, and not very wisely abrogated the system of subscription contracts, substituting for it what they thought a reality—a system of deposits. But the deposits not being connected with the subscription contract, and not necessarily forming part of the capital required, the result was that while the subscription contract was really founded on a sum of money which was provided by those who had got up the scheme, the deposits were advanced by those who got out their money on bond after the Bill had passed. Thus the latter system, instead of being an additional security for the construction of the line, was mischievous rather than otherwise, because the money was borrowed at great cost, and was of no good to the promoters of the line. For a time he had thought that to make the deposits a reality would be sufficient in order to secure a sound system for those undertakings; but what had occurred lately, and further consideration of the subject, had satisfied him that Parliament must revert to the old system of subscription contracts, and make them a reality by attaching to them a real deposit. He knew he should be met by the assertion that if that were done new railways would not be constructed, and an end would be put to that branch of national enterprize. He thought it very possible that under the change he proposed a temporary check would be in-

  861
  terposed. The very formation of a subscription contract required time, and some little time would elapse before people could accommodate themselves to the new system. But their Lordships would agree that a little repose in the railway world at the present moment would be attended with considerable advantage. He would say to noble Lords who might have to attend on Committees on opposed Railway Bills that it would be their duty under present circumstances to be very careful how they gave their sanction to very speculative lines that required large sums of money. They were passing through a very trying time—although, perhaps, not so bad as had been apprehended—and unless something was done to prevent the country from being flooded with this system of false credit, the greatest injury would be likely to arise; and he did not know but what a moderate check to such schemes would be extremely desirable. He was aware that some of those who were interested in railway undertakings, and who had good opportunities of forming an opinion on the subject, but who at the same time were apt to look upon it under the influence of prejudices—he meant gentlemen of the Bar and Parliamentary agents—he was aware that these parties would object to the alteration he proposed, and thought that it would injuriously affect railway enterprize altogether. But he asked their Lordships to consider whether what had been done once could not be done again. It would also be well that their Lordships should bear in mind that even now the line was the foundation on which credit was obtained by the contractor; but if they asked for an advance of money on Lloyd's bonds, the security given was shares issued at 40 or 50 per cent discount. He believed- that if his proposal were adopted, the schemes would be more cautiously got up, with the view of inducing' people to advance their money upon them; more careful surveys and calculations of traffic would be made, and there would be no difficulty in raising the money from those who were always looking out for investments. Capitalists were ready to subscribe very large sums for all sorts of schemes all over the world, and when a new and sound system of railway construction was established money would be found as in former times for these projects. The old subscription contract was for three-fourths of the capital. What he should propose was, that it should be for two-
  862
  thirds of the capital; and he took that amount because borrowed money was now allowed by Parliament to the extent of one-third; and if two-thirds were first subscribed, and the one-third required under the estimate for the completion of the line was authorized to be borrowed, the remainder of the share capital would soon be forthcoming. One objection to the present system was, that practically there was now no company at all. A very small capital was subscribed, and subsequently, perhaps, one or two country gentlemen were put nominally upon the list of directors, but in many instances the contractor was practically the sole director. He gave a certain number of shares to his nominees, in order to enable a meeting of the company to be held for the purpose of making calls—and of doing nothing else whatever. How could things go on under such a system? One of the advantages of the change he proposed would be, that persons would be put into the management of the line in whom the public would have confidence. The next point to which he would refer was the amount he thought desirable to have for the deposit. He proposed that one-eighth of each share subscribed should be subscribed as a deposit. He selected that amount upon the subscription contract because it was as nearly as possible the same proportion as was as present required—namely, 8 per cent upon the whole capital. For example, on £.'300,000 capital a deposit on the plan proposed would be £25,000, while on the present plan it was £24,000. In addition, he proposed that the shares subscribed for should not be transferable until three-fifths of the amount were paid up. As it might be thought that the first deposit and the restriction on the disposal of shares might operate against persons entering into subscriptions, he should propose a clause authorizing the payment of interest out of capital on calls at the rate of 4 per cent; the payment on the deposit to commence from the 15th of January, and on calls, of course, from the day on which payment was made. That was an alteration of the principle hitherto adopted by Parliament in not allowing interest on calls; but if they adopted the system of subscription contracts, it would be desirable to depart from the present practice, and to offer inducements to parties to subscribe—by that means they would probably get more sound subscription contracts. He knew it would be said that landlords and others who were

  863
  interested in a district would not care to subscribe more than they do at present, although they benefited their estates by the construction of the line. The present system had a tendency to discourage such subscriptions, as in almost every instance an issue of preference capital became necessary, whereby those who came forward to construct a line, and who subscribed 20s. in the pound, were the parties to suffer most—if they did not, as in too many in stances they did, really lose all the money they had advanced. A system of preferred and deferred shares had been introduced, which enabled persons desirous to promote the interests of a company at some personal sacrifice on account of the advantage to be secured to their properties, to subscribe to the same amount, or to a larger amount than they might be disposed to do at present without incurring greater liabilities. Under this system a share was divided into two parts, and when a portion was paid on one-half the other half was thrown upon the market with a secured preference. The effect was, that a person was enabled to increase his subscription without increasing his risk, that the necessity for raising preference capital was probably avoided, and the money required being found, the line would be constructed without delay, the shareholders knowing what they are about. Another matter, in respect of which he desired an alter action of the Standing Orders, was one of very great importance: he referred to the amalgamation and the sale of lines. He proposed to require that the terms upon which these amalgamations and sales were to be made should be stated beforehand. The rule at present was for general powers to be taken to enable line A to absorb line B by lease or purchase; but the proprietors of the railways really knew nothing about these transactions, and had not the means of inquiring into them before their companies were bound to the terms, whatever they might be. In each case notice was given of a general special meeting to sanction an agreement which had been entered into between the one company and the other for the transfer of one concern to the other; but the share holders were not told anything about the terms; they had no means of making inquiries; and he had no hesitation in saying that the grossest jobberies had been perpetrated by means of amalgamations, purchases, and arrangements effected in this manner. He proposed that notice of
  864
  every proposition for the amalgamation or sale of a line should appear in the November Gazette notices, and that the terms upon which the arrangement was proposed to be carried out should be set forth in the notice. There would then be time for the shareholders and others interested to make themselves acquainted with the terms, to ascertain what were the receipts of the line it might be proposed to purchase or lease, and to consider how far it might be advantageous that the amalgamation should be carried out. It was also desirable in these matters to increase the control of Parliament, which was allowing such control to pass too much out of its hands. Arrangements ought to be entered into in a more formal way than they were at present. These were the alterations in the Standing Orders he wished to submit to their Lordships, affecting the points to which he had called attention. He would lay on the table the formal alterations he proposed, but he would not ask their Lordships to agree to them without full consideration; and therefore, without positively pledging himself to the day, he would name that day three weeks as the day on which he would move the new Standing Orders.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that their Lordships were much indebted to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having brought the subject under their notice. It was one of very great importance. At the same time, the proposals which the noble Lord had signified his intention to submit involved changes of the greatest magnitude, and he was inclined to think it would not be desirable that their Lordships should come to a decision upon them without entering into some communication with the other House of Parliament. No doubt there were abuses in the existing railway system, but in remedying them care must be taken not to throw unnecessary impediments in the way of the construction of railways which might materially benefit the country. He would appeal to their Lordships in their capacity of landowners to consider the bearing the matter might have upon the construction of lines in which they were peculiarly interested. The lines contractors now made were chiefly such as opened up country districts in connection with great trunk lines, which were often opposed by them; and if great difficulties and impediments were thrown in the way of their construction they

  865
  might not be made at all. He was not sure that if measures were adopted to make a deposit a more effective reality, the desired object would not be to a large extent attained; and if it were required that the money deposited with the Treasury should not be taken away until the line, or a considerable part of it, was constructed, the public would obtain the security that could be required for the construction of a line. One of the suggestions which had been made by the noble Lord was founded upon reason and propriety—he referred to the suggestion that the terms of an amalgamation should be set forth, so that the subscribers or shareholders interested in the matter might learn what they were.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he thought that the alterations proposed in the Standing Orders did not go to the root of the matter. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had referred to the failures that had taken place recently; but how had such disasters in relation to railways originated? They were due to the fact that we had from the first gone upon an entirely wrong system; that very system which his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees proposed to bolster up and to restore in certain details which had been unwisely abandoned. To say that a Committee of that House could enter into the full consideration of everything appertaining to a railway speculation for the accommodation of the country was, from beginning to end, an absurdity. In matters of this kind there ought to have been some supervision on the part of the State; the Government ought to have had a control which might have been exercised for the benefit alike of the country and of speculators, and which might have been a source of great public economy and convenience. The money estimated to have been laid out in the construction of railways in this country he believed amounted to about £450,000,000; but the accommodation which the public had received might have been given for £250,000,000. What had made that great difference? It had occurred because our railways had been made higgledy-piggledy, one at a time, without any comprehensive plan, and under no supervision, which, if it had been properly applied from the first, might have given us gradually a system of railway accommodation, without the close competition, the battles of the gauges, the struggles of town with town, and the
  866
  jealous rivalries which had done so much injury. Had there been any supervision by the Board of Trade, or by a Department of the State, lines would also have been laid out with more regard to the public convenience, and the evils of unregulated competition might have been avoided. One result of our want of system and of supervision was that we were paying high fares, although, with the exception of Belgium and some parts of France, fares ought to be cheaper here than in any other part of the world. We were paying extravagant fares, and monstrous sums had been expended on our railways. Yet it was now proposed that speculation should be checked and the construction of railways stopped. Why should that be done? Nobody could deny that railways had led to very beneficial results, nor could any one doubt that the great increase in the wealth of the country of late years had been greatly owing to railways. See, too, how they had brought out the wealth of France. Indeed, they formed one of the requirements of the civilization of the present age, and the country ought, therefore, to be properly, gradually, steadily, and wisely supplied with them everywhere. He agreed, however, that that could not be done under the present system, and thought, therefore, that far greater alterations should be made than those proposed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. The Select Committees now appointed to consider Railway Bills knew nothing whatever of the country through which the railways were to pass. For instance, the last Committee of which he was a member was appointed to inquire into a scheme for constructing a railway in the east of Yorkshire. He had no interest in the country, and knew nothing about the matter; the noble Lord who presided came from Cornwall, and two other noble Lords who sat on the Committee were, like himself, from Ireland—in fact, all the members were selected because they were supposed to have no interest in the line, and to be perfectly ignorant of everything connected with it. In the case to which he had just referred it was only proposed to make a line from Goole to Doncaster, but it turned out that all the northern and western counties and their railways were interested in the subject. Now, he maintained that such a scheme ought to have been submitted to some person who was thoroughly conversant with all those systems of railways. The Committee on that occasion came to a con-

  867
  clusion totally different from that which had been arrived at by the Committee appointed by the House of Commons, and the parties were in consequence sent back for a whole year—in the course of which, however, the matter in dispute was satisfactorily settled; but the Committee might have settled it in a very unsatisfactory manner indeed. No one appeared on the part of the public, though some resistance was offered by a few landed proprietors. Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen were chosen to sit on the respective Committees simply because they had no interest in the matter and knew nothing about it. He was afraid that the Government of the late Sir Robert Peel did wrong when they refused to place the railways under State control, for at that time a general supervision of the railways might have been provided by the State. He thought their Lordships ought to proceed very carefully in the consideration of a proposal to place fresh obstacles in the way of making railways. If railways ought to be made, he did not see why the construction of them was to be stopped. He did not believe that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees could, by the proposed system of deposits and paid-up calls, put a stop in toto to such proceedings as he had described. You might impose a fine, and thereby put an obstacle in the way of persons who wanted to make a railway; but what was called "financing" would still go on, for means would be found of driving holes through any Standing Orders which might be made. He hoped their Lordships would consider whether a system could not be devised much better than, and totally different from, that which had prevailed up to the present time. He was aware that all statesmen, whether in or out of office, would be averse from undertaking such a task, but still it was their duty to do so.' The penalty paid by men in high office, or who had attained political distinction and renown, was the dealing with difficult questions like this one—which, he might remark, was not in any way a party question. In conclusion, he urged upon their Lordships the necessity of considering the whole matter with great care and circumspection.
  LORD OVERSTONEwas understood to express his thanks to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having brought this subject before the House, and for the valuable and prudent observations with which he had accompanied his
  868
  proposal. He would not at present give any opinion as to the proposed alterations—he would only say that he quite approved their general object and purpose. It was painful to contemplate the commercial immorality which had prevailed in this country of late years, and which he feared could end only in disgrace to our national character. He attributed the position in which we were now placed in regard to our railway system to the imperfection of previous legislation, the con-sequences of which he had foretold long ago; and he welcomed the suggestions of the noble Lord, not only because he thought they would improve legislation on the subject of railways, but because he looked upon them as a first step towards a return to more sound, more healthy, and more just views than those which had prevailed for a very long time past.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he joined in acknowledging that the House owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Chairman of Committees for the luminous and valuable statement which he had made, and he quite concurred with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) as to the unsatisfactory legislative proceedings of both Houses of Parliament with regard to railways. He could not help feeling that successive Governments and successive Parliaments had been drifting too much and steering too little with respect to railway legislation. There had been too much fear, or too much neglect, in laying down general principles for the guidance of the Committees on Railway Bills. It seemed to him extraordinary that after so many Railway Bills had received the sanction of Parliament no general principle should have been laid down by either House for the guidance of its Committees, and that at this very moment no one could tell, except from his knowledge of the individual opinions of the members of a Committee, whether the fact of a line being competitive was to be held as a recommendation or an objection to the Bill authorizing its construction. Years ago he did hope, when he was a Member of the other House, that the Government of Sir Robert Peel, under the guidance of a much lamented and most able Member of their Lordships' House (the Earl of Dalhousie), would have laid down some general principle for the guidance of Parliament in legislation on this subject. Millions and millions had been wasted since that time; scheme after scheme had been passed, and

  869
  scheme after scheme had been rejected by different Committees on the same ground—that the line was a competitive one. He ventured to hope, before it was too late—before the remaining links in the railway communication of the United Kingdom were connected—some general principles would be laid down for the guidance of projectors and Committees, and, above all, that Parliament would authoritatively decide whether competition should be considered an objection or a recommendation to a line.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREwished to direct attention to the manner in which the borrowing powers of companies were exercised. The public were told that Parliament had put a limit upon these borrowing powers; but they all knew that under the semblance of this limit, money was every day borrowed beyond the authority which Parliament had given. The question was, what remedy they could apply to this state of things. He did not want to try to make it safe for people to jump in the dark—you cannot do that, but he thought that every company ought to be compelled to make periodical Returns, coupled with some system of registration, which should be open to public inspection; this would enable the public to judge for themselves. Last Session he introduced a Bill on this subject, which passed their Lordships' House, but, owing to the lateness of the Session, did not go further. This Session a Bill, which was substantially the same as his, had been introduced into the other House, and had gone as far as the second reading; but its further progress was postponed for the present, until a Bill brought forward by the Government on the same subject would reach the same stage. He trusted the Government would have no objection to refer both Bills to the same Committee, in order that a principle of registering the securities of railway companies might be considered.
  LORD REDESDALE, in reply, said, that his object in proposing these alterations was the same as that of the noble Lord on the cross-bench (Lord Overstone)—his desire to see a sounder system of finance in respect of railways. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) seemed to be of opinion that no legislation could put a stop to "financing," and that whenever a speculator desired to borrow money for his schemes some means would be found for driving a hole through any Standing Orders that might be made. But the effect of having the required capital
  870
  to begin with would prevent the necessity for having resort to these measures for raising money, which became more objectionable at every step, and which raised money by offering more and more ruinous terms. With regard to what fell from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley), he did not desire to make the subscription contract more stringent—what he wished was to add the deposit to the subscription contract in order to test its soundness. The money would, of course, be applied to the completion of the scheme, and was not to be returned to the person who had subscribed it. He should deprecate any direct communication with the other House on this subject. The other House had constantly altered their Standing Orders without any communication with that House, and he did not see why their Lordships should not do the same. But he should be sorry to do anything without giving the whole House and the public the means of knowing precisely what alterations he proposed. If they were likely to be beneficial there was every reason to anticipate that they would be adopted by the other House. Yet there were interests that did operate to prevent measures which were thought desirable from being carried into effect. More than two years ago measures were proposed in the shape of Standing Orders, with a view of carrying out a system of efficient deposit available for the construction of lines; but they were defeated. He should therefore recommend their Lordships to wait and see how the proposals he made were received by the other House and the public; and if they saw that the alterations proposed would be advantageous, he hoped they would have prudence and courage to adopt them, in order to insure that some change should take place in a system which, if suffered to go on, would lead to the greatest and most serious inconvenience.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.