Sitting of 4 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Standing Orders, Sir Brook Bridges added; Committee of Selection, Sir Brook Bridges added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Barrack Lane, Windsor (Right of Way).*
First Reading—Barrack Lane, Windsor (Right of Way) * [229].
Second Reading—Naval Stores* [215]; Chatham and Sheerness Magistrate* [211]; Lunacy (Scotland)* [219]; Recovery of Certain Debts (Scotland)* [220].
Committee—Representation of the People [79] [R.P.]; Tancred's Charities * (re-comm.) [207] [R.P.]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* [206]; Sir John Port's Charity* (re-comm.) [217]; Contagious Diseases (Animals)* [196].
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* [206]; Sir John Port's Charity* (re-comm.) [217]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) * [196 & 228].
Considered as amended—Uniformity Act Amendment * [68].

NAVY—CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.—QUESTION.
MR. SEELYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his opinions coincide with those expressed by the late First Lord on the 19th February last, when he said "That the administration of a great department by a Board is a clumsy machinery," and "that the constitution of the Board of Admiralty is inconvenient and not profitable to the public service;" and, if he does agree in opinion with the late First Lord, whether he intends consulting his Colleagues as to how far in their judgment a change may be desirable?
MR. CORRY: My experience at the Admiralty as First Lord has been very short; and I have as yet had no occasion to be sensible of any inconvenience arising from the present constitution of the Board. The subject is one which, if dealt with at all, ought to be approached with great caution, and not without grave consideration. I can only add that I have at present no intention of submitting to my Colleagues any scheme for an alteration of the constitution of the Board.

THE SLAVE TRADE ON THE NILE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR T. F. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report of an interview

  981
  between the Viceroy of Egypt and a deputation of the British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society in Paris, at which the Viceroy stated that "if he were free to act against European Slave Traders, the Slave trade would soon disappear" from, the Nile; and, if he is prepared to give the requisite authority to overhaul and detain Slave traders hoisting the British flag?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, his attention had been called to the report in question, but only by the notice of the hon. Baronet, and he had not received information on the subject through any other channel. He had always been under the impression that the continued existence of the slave trade on the Upper Nile was due, less to the inherent difficulty of putting it down, than to the tolerance—or he might perhaps say the connivance — of the subordinate local officials. As to the hon. Baronet's second Question he would say that that was one which would require a great deal of care and consideration. Of course there could be no wish in this country to protect the slave traders, whether under British or any other flag; but there might be questions of treaty or international rights involved, and also a question whether large and somewhat arbitrary powers could be intrusted to subordinate officials in an Eastern country, and at a great distance from the central Government, without some risk that those powers would not be abused for the purpose of extortion, and would thereby interfere with the legitimate operations of trade. But as that question had never, so far as he knew, been brought before the Foreign Office, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not expect him to express an opinion upon it.

  SCOTLAND —GRANTON AND BURNTISLAND STEAM FERRIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the daily and constant overcrowding of the Steam Ferries between Granton and Burntisland; whether it is in the power of the Board of Trade to prevent the Steam Ferries from carrying more passengers than they are allowed by the Board of Trade Certificate to do; whether it is in the power of the Board of Trade to compel the North British Railway Company (who are the
  982
  sole owners of the Ferry) to run proper and adequate boats for the accommodation of the public; and, if the Board of Trade has not the above power, to whom the public are to look for redress, and whether some means cannot be taken to prevent the boats being so much overcrowded?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, his attention had been directed to the subject by his hon. Friend, and by others on former occasions. The law was clear on the subject of passenger steamers, and was laid down in the 309th and 319th sections of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which enacted that no steamer should carry passengers without a certificate from the Board of Trade. That certificate was granted on the declaration of a surveyor of the Board of Trade that the hull was in a seaworthy condition, that the boilers were sound and properly fitted with safety valves, and that there was a life buoy on board. The surveyor also stated the number of passengers that could be carried with safety; a notice of which was placed in the cabin. Beyond this the Board of Trade had no power to decide whether vessels were "proper or adequate." There were penalties under the Act for neglect of these provisions; that for overcrowding being £20, and 5s., or, if the fares exceeded 5s., then double the fare of every passenger carried in excess. Any person might set the law in motion; but as the informer did not get any of the penalty, there was no inducement to do so except in the case of persons aggrieved. It was not the duty of the Board of Trade to prosecute in such cases. It would be exceedingly expensive to send an inspector to and fro to count the passengers in these boats, and such a course would lead to unnecessary and very objectionable centralization. These ferry steamers were a kind of water omnibuses, and their regulation, like that of the traffic of the streets, might, he thought, properly be left to the local authorities, who had in some cases exerted themselves effectually. If, however, they neglected to move in the matter, then it was perfectly competent for the travelling public who went backwards and forwards in these boats every day in the week to protect themselves by putting in force the provisions he had mentioned.

INDIA—CENTRAL INDIA PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Central India Prize Money will be distributed, and what has been the cause of the long delay of nine years?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there could be no doubt that long delays in the distribution of prize money were very vexatious, and that every possible exertion ought to be made to prevent them. In the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question referred, the delay had arisen mainly from protracted litigation, for the purpose of ascertaining who were the persons entitled to the money. But that litigation had recently been brought to a close by a judgment delivered by Dr. Lushington in the Admiralty Court; and nothing now remained to prevent the distribution except the necessary communication with the Government of India.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND—THE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will be able to state the names of the Commissioners to inquire into the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland, and the instructions intended to be issued for the guidance of such Commissioners?
  LORD NAASsaid, his right hon. Friend would recollect that a Motion had been made the other day in the House of Lords relative to the appointment of this Commission. The subject was one that required the gravest consideration, and some time must necessarily elapse before the opinion of Government could be expressed upon the matter. No unnecessary delay would, however, take place; and as soon as any decision was arrived at Government would lay the information upon the table of the House.
  MR. MONSELL: Will the noble Lord lay the names of the Commissioners before us before the expiration of the present Session?
  LORD NAAS: It is our earnest desire to do so if we possibly can.

  MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.—QUESTION
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he would beg
  984
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received upon the subject of the alleged execution of the Emperor Maximilian by Juarez; and, if there has, what course the Government proposes to take in order to mark their abhorrence of so great a crime?
  LORD STANLEY: I have not received any official confirmation of the death of the ex-Emperor Maximilian. Indeed, official despatches from Mexico have of late been very few, owing to the interruption of the communications and the generally disturbed state of the country. I find, however, that the report of his death is accepted as true both at Paris and Vienna, and I fear it probably is so, although I have no certain knowledge upon the subject. If it be true it is, no doubt, a very deplorable and a very impolitic act, and not the less deplorable, nor the less impolitic, because, unhappily, acts of that kind have only been too common on both sides in the civil wars of Mexico and other Spanish American countries. As to the latter part of the Question, I think we ought at least to wait for further information before we can say what course would be proper to be taken; and, for myself, I cannot see what expression of opinion is possible upon the part of the British Government.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What arrangements have been made to enable the Members of both Houses of Parliament to witness the Naval Review?
  MR. CORRYsaid, that two large steamers—the Ripon and the Syria—belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, had been taken up by the Admiralty in order to provide accommodation for the Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Ripon would be placed at the disposal of Members of that House, and 450 tickets would be issued for her, which would not be transferable. The Syria would be at the disposal of the other House of Parliament, for which 400 tickets would be issued, and he was not aware that the slightest distinction would be made between the Members of the two Houses. How these tickets should be distributed rested with the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker's Secretary. Arrangements had been made for running special trains between London and Portsmouth and back, of which due notice would be given. The tickets would be

  985
  issued by the Admiralty, but of course they would be paid for by the Members requiring them.
  Afterwards—
  CAPTAIN VIVIANwished to know whether, in consequence of the sad announcement of the execution of the Emperor Maximilian, it was the intention of the authorities to hold the Review in Hyde Park to-morrow?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The House has already been informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that no official communication of the death of the Emperor Maximilian has been received at the Foreign Office. As yet, therefore, no instructions have been issued from any quarter to countermand the review.
  Afterwards—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Since I last addressed the Committee I have received a communication, the substance of which I am desired to make known to the House, and, seeing that the House is full, I think I could not find a more convenient opportunity for doing so. It will be in the recollection of the House that, early in the evening, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro addressed a Question to my noble Colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, inquiring whether the Review proposed to be held tomorrow would be postponed in consequence of certain rumours which had reached this country of the occurrence of a great calamity. At the time when that question was put no official information had reached the Government on the subject. I am now desired to say that, in consequence of official information of the occurrence of that sad event having been received, it will not be in the power of Her Majesty to be present at the proposed review of her troops to-morrow, where she expected to be supported by her faithful Lords and Commons. Under these circumstances, the Review has been postponed; but only for a few days, when Her Majesty trusts that she will meet not only her troops, but also her faithful Lords and Commons. I have been desired not to lose a moment in making this announcement, which must be my excuse for having done so in a somewhat irregular manner, for which I am sure the House will pardon me. Perhaps under these circumstances it will not be thought unreasonable that a morning sitting should be held to-morrow.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) was one of such magnitude that in order to refer to it he should move the adjournment of the House. Although no official communication had yet been made to the Government of the tragedy which had been committed in Mexico, yet he believed the fact had been so well ascertained that no hon. Member in the House, nor any person out of the House, could for a moment doubt what had occurred. In the history of modern times he believed no calamity had taken place so disgraceful to the name of Christianity as the one they were now called on to consider. He begged to remind the House that at the close of a disastrous war, when all the nations of Europe were suffering from the calamities they had undergone, England had the greatest conqueror of the day in her power as a prisoner, but treated him with the greatest humanity and consideration. Was it therefore to be believed that civilization had made so little progress that an act of clemency was not to be expected at the present day? What was the Emperor Maximilian? He did not go to Mexico as a tyrant, but to establish rule and government in the country, and to heal dissensions. He failed in his undertaking, but to the last moment he was true to the trust he had taken upon him. He thought that that House, which claimed the right of speaking in the name of humanity and Christianity, ought to take the earliest opportunity of expressing, in language which could not be misunderstood, its abhorrence and disgust at this deed of cruelty, and thus set an example to other nations to express their feelings of indignation at the horror and sadness at the catastrophe which had occurred. He would take upon himself—although he was taking a great liberty in doing so—as soon as the official intelligence was formally presented to the House by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to ask the House to permit him to bring forward a Resolution embodying the sentiments which must animate both sides with regard to the deplorable event that had taken place.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Sir Lawrence Palk,)—put, and negatived.

  METROPOLIS—FALSE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State, for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the large number of Tradesmen in the Metropolitan parishes fined for the use of false weights and measures; and, whether he does not think it desirable to legislate on the subject without waiting for the Report of the Commission on the standards at present in use?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, his attention had only been called to this subject in the same way as had that of the hon. Member—through reports in the proceedings in the public press. He had no special information upon the matter. He did not know whether the hon. Member wished him to legislate for the metropolis alone. That would not, in his opinion, be either an advisable or a politic course, and as there were many places where the standards were not verified sufficiently, it would be better to wait, and to legislate once for all on the subject.

  ARMY—CAMPS AT ALDERSHOT AND COLCHESTER.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL HAMLYN FANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has now received such necessary information as will enable him to state whether he intends to carry out the recommendation of the Recruiting Commission as to retaining the troops during the winter in the huts attached to the camps of Aldershot and Colchester? He wished also to put a Question of which he had been unable to give notice—whether any information had reached the War Office that some cavalry going from Aldershot to London had found themselves at Hounslow Heath at 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon without rations for either man or horse. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman could not answer the Question now he would do so at a future day?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was afraid it was not in his power to give so conclusive an answer to the first Question as he could wish; but he might say that, considering the large amount of public property at Aldershot, it was highly desirable that the permanent barracks at that camp should continue to be occupied during the winter. With regard to the huts it was in contemplation, as far as possible, that
  988
  they should not be occupied in winter, but that the troops should, as far as practicable, be sent to other quarters. In answer to the latter Question, he could merely state that he had as yet heard nothing upon the subject.

  GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON.—QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Government has been called to the discontent at present prevailing in Ceylon on account of the unfavourable contrast presented by the constitution and operation of the existing Government in Ceylon as compared with those of Jamaica and Trinidad, and of the West Indian Colonies generally; and to the fact that several of the most eminent non-official European residents and influential natives have formed a "League" with a view of still further pressing for some alterations in the constitution and powers of the Legislative Council by increasing the number of un-official Members and making their office elective, and by giving to the Council so constituted that freedom of control and appropriation of the public Revenue drawn alone from the Colony which has before been promised but never granted; and, whether any Memorials from the Colony or other Papers will be laid before the House?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that a memorial had been received, signed by certain native Cingalese, requesting that Ceylon might be changed to a Crown colony, with representative institutions. The answer given to that memorial was that the request was wholly inadmissible. Ceylon was so much more Indian than colonial that the House would be unanimously of opinion that such a request could not be acceded to. He believed that a "league" had been formed in the colony in order to obtain a control over the appropriation of the revenue, by which they might spend the public money in improvements, and leave English taxpayers to pay the whole expense of the military defence of Ceylon. He had no objection to lay the memorial on the table.

  IRELAND—FENIAN DRILLING IN WICKLOW.—QUESTION.
  MR. FITZWILLIAM DICKsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether there be any truth in the report which has appeared in some of the London and Dublin papers of a number

  989
  of Fenians having been detected by the police whilst drilling, last week, in the neighbourhood of Wicklow; and, in that case, how far the drilling in question has been carried out?
  LORD NAASsaid, that two policemen who were strolling out at night came upon a party of men who appeared to be drilling. The night was dark, and the police heard the word of command given by one man, who was arrested. The remainder, to the number of about twenty, ran away. Two persons had since been arrested, and made amenable for this outrage. He believed that the only words of command heard by the police were "right about face; quick march!"

  WALES—TREATMENT OF MERCHANT SEAMEN.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether any application has been made to his Department on the subject of the imprisonment in Beaumaris Gaol, county of Anglesey, as deserters, of seamen who have refused to go to sea on the ground of the unseaworthiness of the ships in which they entered; and, whether he intends to introduce to Parliament any measure to insure an efficient and impartial survey of ships complained of as unseaworthy?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he found that a memorial from the Anglesey Justices was transmitted to the Board of Trade by the hon. and gallant Member himself so long ago as November, 1864, complaining of the burden on the county, and injustice to crews, which were caused by the justices being obliged to commit to the county gaol, as deserters, men who refused to proceed to sea on the ground of the unseaworthiness of ships, but who were unable to bring sufficient evidence of their assertion, and enclosing a Return of thirteen vessels whose crews had been so imprisoned, six of which subsequently were lost, failed to arrive, or put back in distress. The law was certainly defective in this matter. When the crew went ashore to make a complaint of the ship, the master was in such cases usually beforehand with a counter-charge of desertion. The evidence before the justices generally consisted of hard swearing on both sides. If the justices required the evidence of a surveyor, they had no power to enforce it. The master would
  990
  refuse the admission to his ship of any person whom he did not himself approve, and would treat him as a trespasser. The Government proposed, therefore, to insert in the Merchant Shipping Bill now in the House of Lords a provision that, if required by either party, the justices should call upon a surveyor of the Board of Trade to survey the ship, whose Report should be received as evidence, and who should have full power to go on board and make his inspection. The hon. and gallant Member must, however, bear in mind that the seamen were not always in the right. Some made it a practice to get their advance note and leave the ship, on pretext of unseaworthiness or some similar excuse, on the first opportunity. The Board of Trade had recently before them the case of a man who had done so successfully no less than thirteen times. He was glad, however, to inform the hon. and gallant Member that a Report received from Beaumaris the day before yesterday stated that there were only ten prisoners in the gaol, not one of whom was a seafaring man.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Secretary Lord Stanley.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]

  COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS JULY 2.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause (Payment of expenses of conveying voters to the poll illegal).
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before we proceed further with the discussion of the clause moved the other day by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), I would take the liberty of calling the attention of the Committee generally to the position in which this measure is placed; and I will conclude with a Motion, so that any hon. Gentleman may be enabled to favour us with his opinion on the subject. Although the Government, I hope, have at no time unreasonably pressed the Committee to prosecute their labours in regard to this Bill, I am quite sure there must be a general wish on the part of the House that the other House of Parliament should have ample time afforded it for giving it their

  991
  calm and deliberate consideration. Her Majesty's Government, after having taken into their consideration the opinions expressed on the subject of re-distribution by the Committee through the divisions which have occurred, think they are justified in placing this interpretation upon them—that, subject to the modified clause of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), the feeling of the House is in favour of the general scheme for the redistribution of seats which we have proposed. If that be the general feeling of the Committee I would suggest—and of course it is a line which we can take only with the general concurrence of the Committee—I would, I say, suggest that, after settling the clause of the hon. Member for Oldham, we should be permitted to go into the consideration of the Schedules. I do not myself anticipate that the consideration of the Schedules need be of that lengthened and laborious character which some hon. Members have supposed. But, until the Schedules are concluded, I feel that there is a vagueness as to the time when we may reach the close of our labours which is very detrimental. I think that, after discussing and settling the Schedules, we might consider — perhaps even with more advantage — the clauses which hon. Gentlemen have still on the Paper, and which they could then bring up on the Report. I invite the views of hon. Members on this suggestion. It is one, of course, which Her Majesty's Government could not think for a moment of endeavouring to force upon the Committee. Indeed, they would wish that it should meet with very general concurrence. But it is our opinion that, under all the circumstances, this is a course it would be desirable to follow. It is necessary that there should be a clear understanding that, with regard to these Schedules, we do not in any way put them on the table of the House as being so perfect and mature that the Government are of opinion they should be treated by the House as measures which we wish to have passed unmodified. The House will recollect the circumstances under which the Schedules were prepared. The period allowed the Government was very brief. It was only during the Whitsuntide recess. They were prepared with great care, from information existing in the Government offices, by persons who were competent for the duty, and who were not under the influence of party opinions in
  992
  politics. But no doubt there was not necessarily that most recent local knowledge in reference to these Schedules which might have been of advantage. All I can say is that they were framed with an anxious desire to place before the House the best scheme which could be laid before them, and one which was necessary to complete the Bill. Besides our general confidence in the machinery we have proposed to the House, we have submitted to the Committee, and the Committee have adopted provisions, granting large powers to the Boundary Commissioners. It seems to me, then, that if the House generally approve, which they appear to have done, the scheme of the Government with respect to re-distribution, we may leave, with perfect confidence to the Commissioners, many points of detail which properly qualified persons will be able to urge before them with much greater advantage than could be done in Committee of the whole House. I do not therefore apprehend that any great period of time need be expended here in settling the Schedules as far as we can. It is only a provisional settlement. All of these Schedules will be immediately submitted to the consideration of men who will have every means of forming a correct opinion. Therefore, I trust the House will not require much time to consider them. Thus far as regards the county Schedules. As to those for the boroughs, it will be found that a moiety or more than a moiety of these seats are for places which are already represented; so that there will be no probability of any great question arising in respect to these boroughs. There then remain the thirteen new seats which we proposed to give to boroughs, but which must now be reduced to nine. So that we should have before us only nine new seats to consider. The four new places that to which, after due deliberation, we find that we cannot recommend, under the altered circumstances in which we are placed by the votes of the Committee, that representation should be granted, would be St. Helen's, Keighley, Luton, and Barnsley. In respect to the nine remaining places I hope there will not be found to be any important elements of controversy. The Committee will bear in mind that it will be open to the Boundary Commissioners to examine these places exactly as in the case of the counties. None of us may be prepared to relinquish our right ultimately to form a judgment on these subjects,

  993
  though, generally speaking, I believe the decision of the Boundary Commissioners will give satisfaction. Under these circumstances, I beg to move that you, Sir, report Progress, in order that any hon. Gentleman who desires to do so may favour the House with his views as to whether we should proceed to the Schedules in the manner I have indicated.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair." — (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had a new clause to propose, and he feared he would propose it at a disadvantage on the bringing up of the Report. It appeared to him that Members having new clauses would labour under great disadvantage if the only opportunity they were to have for discussion were to be the occasion to which he had referred. He did not know that it was the custom of the House to postpone new clauses until after the Schedules had been disposed of, but if that was to be the course he would respectfully suggest to the Committee to take the Schedules then, on the understanding that the clauses were merely postponed. The clause he had to propose was of great interest to his own constituency, and he should be sorry if by any chance it fell through. At the same time he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in wishing to facilitate the progress of the Bill as much as possible.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to say that I think there is a great deal of reason in the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just submitted to the notice of the Committee. Everybody who knows anything about the question of Reform must be aware that hon. Members might go on proposing clauses for several weeks, and that points would still remain which would not be satisfactorily adjusted. I would therefore recommend the Committee to take the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer advises us to adopt, and to proceed with that which is really the great question before us, because it is impossible for us to settle every point which may suggest itself to Members of this House. But while I say this, I feel extremely dissatisfied, and I am sure the Committee must feel dissatisfied, with the course which the Government propose to take with regard to those four seats which are to be given to the four large towns. When this question was first brought before
  994
  the House by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), it was with the distinct understanding that in order to provide six seats for six large towns, as he suggested, certain small boroughs should be disfranchised or grouped together. That proposal was negatived. After that there was much discussion among Members on both sides of the House, and I think the general feeling was that a greater number of Members ought to be allotted to the large towns. A proposal with that object was accordingly submitted to the Committee, not by a Member sitting on these Benches, but by a devoted and intelligent adherent of the Government—the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall)—who was supported by his Colleague, as well as by one of the hon. Members for Leeds (Mr. Beecroft), both followers of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The proposal; was entirely in accordance with our views, and we were almost unanimous in concurring in its adoption. But then arises the question where the four seats are to be I found which it was decided should be given to the four large towns in the North. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to strike out of the Schedules for the purpose four towns which he has acknowledged, I by the fact that he has placed them in the Schedules, to have a claim to be represented. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down this principle—I do not agree I with it, but it may for this case be accepted—that you should proceed in any scheme of re-distribution on the rule of discovering places that have claims to be, and require to be, enfranchised, and that having found them you should enfranchise them, and supply them with Members by taking those Members from smaller be roughs which have not the same claims to be represented which the others possess. Having applied that rule, the right hon. Gentleman came, after careful consideration, to the conclusion that St. Helen's, in Lancashire, Keighley, in Yorkshire, Barnsley, in Yorkshire, and Luton, in Bedfordshire, ought to be enfranchised. They were precisely the class of towns he has always spoken of in his speeches, and he knows perfectly well where—in accordance with the principle he has laid down in a dozen speeches both in the present and in former Sessions—it is the duty of the House to look for those four seats, and that is in some of the small boroughs which it would be a great advantage to the country to have disfranchised. I beg to

  995
  tell the Committee that, as I have repeatedly heard from Members for those extremely little boroughs, and from respectable and intelligent persons living in them, they could scarcely confer a greater benefit on any one of them than to disfranchise it. I referred the other day to a little borough—I mean Dartmouth, and to a letter which I received from one of its constituency. I was sorry I had not the letter by me at the time, because I know the hon. Member (Mr. John Hardy) who represents that constituency would like to hear what it contains. I have, however, brought it down with me this evening. A gentleman writes to me from Dartmouth, and says—
  "I am an old Reformer, and have resided in this borough more than twenty years. Let me entreat you, as a true foe to corruption, to make an effort to prevent this borough retaining its Parliamentary importance, as proposed by Mr. Disraeli. The place is as corrupt as Totnes, and if Government would send a commission on inquiry here, startling confirmatory facts could be elicited."
  As to those facts I can say nothing, except what I am told in this letter—
  "The first time Mr. Hardy was returned here about £6,000 was spent in bribery."
  I hope this is an exaggeration. For ought I know it might have been spent as much by one side as by the other.
  "And the last time he was returned, although unopposed, it is well known that it was by means most disgraceful. At one election here one man was paid £300 for his vote about three o'clock in the afternoon, and tenants have been evicted by the score for daring to vote as they wished. The boundary of the borough extends in one direction nearly four miles; no extension or rectification will ever cure our corruption. In conclusion, let me ask the Liberal party in the House of Commons to use every effort to extinguish this place as a separate borough."
  ["Name, name."] The name of the writer is W. H. Rees. I asked him if he had any objection to my making this use of his letter, and he said, "No; I am perfectly satisfied that what I have stated is true, and if a Commission of Inquiry should be issued I have no doubt they would find that the facts of the case are as I have represented them to be." I feel no pleasure in bringing forward a matter of this nature, which may give pain to any hon. Member in this House; but I recollect having had my attention Repeatedly drawn to those small boroughs by those by whom they were represented. One Gentleman, who occupied the position of Lord Mayor of London, and who, not very long since, sat
  996
  for a small borough in the West, once said to me, "If you go to my borough and hold a meeting there, I believe you may get an almost unanimous vote in favour of its disfranchisement." There is no doubt that the truly respectable and thoughtful, the moral and religious men of both parties, concur in the opinion that throughout the whole of those small boroughs, where, I undertake to say, there can be no freedom of election, the representation as it now exists is demoralizing to the towns, and injurious to them in every respect. If that be true—and I think I have never said anything more true in this House—I cannot help expressing my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken, the four Members to be given to the large towns from those small boroughs which it would be a blessing to disfranchise, leaving Keighley, St. Helen's, Barnsley, and Luton to be represented in the House of Commons as he originally proposed. I do not wish to bring forward any proposal which might be calculated to retard the progress of this Bill. I am as anxious as any other hon. Member that no obstacles should be thrown in its way. For that reason I have abstained from moving any Amendments in it. It is true I made a suggestion with respect to the Clause relating to the Boundary Commission, but it consisted of only a few words. I abstained from proposing Amendments myself, and have addressed the Committee only with respect to Amendments proposed by others. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with those four seats as I have suggested, he would give great satisfaction to the country. So far as I am concerned, I have discountenanced and discouraged any attempt at interposing Amendments of any kind which would be likely to delay the progress of this measure, and even though the right hon. Gentleman should not think fit to take the course I have indicated I shall be glad to see the Bill pushed forward as rapidly as the rules and practice of the House will permit.
  MR. JOHN HARDYsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Birmingham had chosen to become a receptacle for—he would not say anonymous letters. He was sure, however, that the Committee would not attach much importance to the document which the hon. Gentleman had just read, when they learnt that it emanated from one of those pure-minded Nonconformists who qualified for Totnes, and was

  997
  a voter for that immaculate borough. It appeared from the evidence which had been taken before the Totnes Committee, that that gentleman and some others went down to Totnes once a year and cut a cabbage to show that they had property within its limits. He did not mean to contend that Dartmouth was immaculate, but something like those occurrences to which the hon. Gentleman referred would, he apprehended, take place in Birmingham if a Conservative went down there and tried to get returned. If the hon. Gentleman presented himself at Dartmouth, and sought to turn him out, he would have to bribe like a Whig. It was the old story — the bad habits of boroughs—large and small. Bribery was not confined to the small boroughs. Witness the queer proceedings at Huddersfield and Wakefield. In comparison with those places Dartmouth deserved to have another Member, and he would recommend the Committee—following the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) with regard to Sheffield—to try that mode of dealing with it rather than to take away the Member it had, It was true a man had received £300, a man who had supported the Conservative party for years. At the last moment his principles gave way before the tremendous prize offered him. But the temptation came from the Whig side. Since he (Mr. Hardy) had become connected with the borough there had, in those respects, been a great improvement. The gentleman whose name the hon Member had mentioned had come to him, and had expressed himself very handsomely, and they sat down to luncheon together in the most friendly manner possible. They said, "We wont oppose you because, if a Liberal comes forward, he must bribe." The fact was, the Conservative feeling was strong in the borough, and if the Whigs thought fit to go there with the view of turning out the Conservative Member, they could not expect to do that without having recourse to bribery. They it was who caused all the mischief, and if they would only let the borough alone there would be no bribery. The things to which the hon. Gentleman alluded might happen anywhere. Our first parents fell, being tempted by a gentleman who was, he believed, described by a great authority as the first Whig. Dartmouth was a seaport, and was once a much more important place than Birmingham. He could not understand
  998
  how any good Liberal could find it in his heart to disfranchise a borough which was so near Torbay, the spot oil which our great deliverer (William III.) landed.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he hoped to be allowed shortly to state why Luton, which was in the county he represented, had claims to be represented. Luton was one of the largest and most improving towns in the South of England. The population at the last Census was upwards of 17,000, and at the present time it was 20,000. The rental was £59,475 annually. Upwards of £1,500,000 was turned over annually in the straw trade, which extended over all the surrounding district. There was one firm alone in Luton which turned over £160,000 annually, and which had establishments in London, New York, and Florence. Within the last six years thirty-six new streets had been built. The rateable value of the property in 1859 was £45,520. It was now £69,479. Lord Russell, in the Aberdeen Government, proposed to give a third Member to Bedfordshire on account of the various interests to be represented. The case had not been fairly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though of course he did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with intentional unfairness. When an Act of Parliament was being drawn up which should regulate the Representation of the People, care should be taken that all the great interests of the country should be fairly included, it was not fair that these boroughs should be deprived of the prospect of representation in order that certain large towns should have three Members. But did the right hon. Gentleman think that the large towns would be satisfied with this concession? He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adhered to the decision of the House of Commons. If he had done so he would have shown proper consideration to those Gentlemen who had done much to sacrifice their own opinions in order to give the Government a constant support. He hoped that even yet the right hon. Gentleman might be induced to re-consider his decision.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he approved of the withdrawal of the claims of the smaller boroughs in favour of the more eminent claims of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Birmingham. He thought that this sealed the contract between the friends of this Bill and the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  999
  and he had no doubt that by this course the passing of the Bill would be much expedited. He would therefore postpone for the present moving the new clause of which he had given notice.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was no more favourable to the proposal to take away the four Members from the towns which had been promised them than the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he could not concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in believing that the Government scheme of re-distribution would be a permanent settlement, or satisfactory to the country. At the same time he was so desirous for the passing of this great measure of enfranchisement that he most cordially concurred in the present suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was now the 4th of July, and it would be impossible, if they went on discussing all the new clauses standing on the paper, that the Bill could be sent up to the House of Lords in reasonable time.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the course which the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had adopted in his own case was the rule of action that Members should follow. Any one who felt that the point which he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee was not of that extreme importance that made it necessary to press it forward, would do wisely to abstain from proposing it, but he deprecated any interference with the ordinary forms adopted by the House. There never was a case in which it was necessary that all the forms provided to ensure mature deliberation should be so carefully observed as with regard to this Bill. He was not speaking merely in reference to its great importance, altering, as it did, the Constitution of the country; but the origin of the Bill, the way it had been altered from day to day and from week to week, the way in which it had sprung suddenly into new features in the brain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as each emergency arose, warned them of the danger of being hustled into the assent of principles of which they did not approve. Let them look at the way the proceeding suggested would bear upon the feelings of the populations with whom they were proposing to deal. They had a sudden proposal to deprive of the enfranchisement intended for them four boroughs which had been nursing themselves with the expectation of what was in store for them, and surely it was only common justice to
  1000
  allow a sufficient interval to pass to enable them to express an opinion upon the harsh measure now proposed in their case. Some of the Amendments on the paper might be fairly withdrawn, but there were others which must be decided before the Schedule could be discussed. Amongst these were the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to give another Member to his division of the county, the proposals to give two Members to certain boroughs, and the two proposals with respect to cumulative voting. The usual course in these cases was to act by consent, trusting to the patriotism of the House of Commons. Those who felt that their proposals might fairly be deferred to another Session would not stand in the way of the Government; while those who felt that their proposals ought to be decided upon before the Committee went into the Schedules would no doubt persist. The House would be guilty of great temerity if they set aside the forms which had been so long established, and thrust Members violently out of the way that they might hasten by a few days the passing of this Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it must be remembered that they were dealing with a measure of gigantic proportions. He was very desirous to put forward that measure, and a great disposition had been shown on both sides of the House to put it forward. Considering the importance, the variety, and the necessary complexity of the subjects they had discussed, he thought the measure had proceeded with remarkable rapidity. If it were true that they were far advanced in the Session, the position in which they were was due to any or all causes rather than a disinclination on the part of the House to make reasonable progress with the measure. What had happened? They had gone into Committee, they had discussed the clauses of the Bill, they had disposed of all the new clauses proposed by the Government, and some three or four proposed by private Members, and they were asked now to waive the right of proposing clauses in Committee. He quite agreed that any clause that could be proposed as an Amendment upon the Schedule ought to be so proposed, instead of being brought forward as a separate clause. He had proposed no Motion since April relating to the Bill, being content to take his part in supporting or opposing the Amendments of others. The only proposal he had to make was as

  1001
  to the representation of South Lancashire, and he took that course because he certainly did not feel, considering the political relations between them, that he could apply to either of his Colleagues to undertake the duty. He must altogether abandon that proposal unless he brought it forward before they came to the Schedules. The Schedule relating to counties was to be filled up by counties and divisions of counties to be represented by two Members each. As his proposal was that two divisions of South Lancashire should be represented by three Members each, it would be inconsistent with that Schedule. He had every desire to assist the progress of the Bill, but he was sorry to say he could not possibly accede to this proposal.
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, that as one of the Members in charge of a clause, he rose to state, in consequence of what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his desire was to consult the convenience of the House. As he had from the commencement of the Session done all in his power to facilitate the passing of the Bill, he would act consistently to the end, and in deference to the House postpone his clause, which he considered a very important one, until the Report.
  MR. LOWEsaid, had the Government brought in early this Session a Bill founded on clear and broad principles, and stuck to it during the Session, they might then with great justice have appealed to hon. Gentlemen at this advanced period of the Session, and requested them to withdraw their own private views in order to facilitate the passing of the measure. It is not our fault that we have not made greater progress. The Government begun with Resolutions, of which most of us appear to have forgotten every thing except the two leading ones—the double vote and giving no one class a predominance over the rest. That was not much in a direction to help us to make up our minds. The next thing was to bring forward a £6 rating qualification. That also was abandoned. That did not help us to make up our minds. Then they took a fortnight or three weeks to make a new Bill which they brought forward. That Bill had no difficulty in being read a second time and getting into Committee. But since it has been in Committee it has exhibited one uninterrupted course of Protean change, so that hardly anything originally proposed is left. That, Sir, is not all. The Bill contained a new, violent, startling,
  1002
  and, as I think, a revolutionary change, reducing the borough franchise to household suffrage. That was sheltered by a number of safeguards, every one of which has been abandoned. After their abandonment private Members, as for instance the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope) and others tried to introduce safeguards, all of which have been rejected. We have now the principle of household suffrage pure and simple. Everything that tended to mitigate or moderate it has been swept away. Hon. Gentlemen opposite scarcely realize the state of affairs. They go on looking at the matter as if they could now treat the measure in the same way as they could before this enormous stride was made. The truth is that this measure must be brought in some degree into conformity with the state to which we have reduced the borough franchise. Never was there an occasion when there was more necessity to consider the state of things which this borough franchise has created, and to introduce measures calculated to mitigate the extreme violence and rashness of the change. We have to bring the rest of the measure into accordance with what has been already done. The measure was framed under very different circumstances to those which now exist, and before we dismiss it so changed from our hands, it is our duty to consider how we are to bring the re-distribution part of the measure into harmony with what has been already done, and if we can at this eleventh hour mitigate the fearful consequences some of us apprehend. The Government erred not only in the frequent changes they had proposed, they also erred in the order of their business. The first step for the Government to take, and which they probably would have taken had they known what they meant to do, would have been to issue the Boundary Commission to ascertain the population and the constituency within certain boundaries. The next step should have been to re-distribute upon the data so obtained. The third step should have been, having before them the electoral chart of the country, to settle what franchises should be given. The Government have inverted that procedure, they have turned things upside down; and now we are told we must forego every chance of amending the Bill, in order to extricate the Government from its difficulties. My own Motion is for cumulative voting — the last and only chance, a very small one, I fear, of mitigating

  1003
  the violent change the Conservative Government have brought upon the country. I will be no party to abandon the country to this strange and violent measure forced upon us, as I say, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, without making one effort to introduce something to mitigate its evils. I should feel that I was deserting my duty if I did so. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen say "No," I ask them to consider what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) has declared. Does he approve this change? After agitating the country the whole autumn for household suffrage, now it is given, how does he like it? I am reminded of the landlord in Lord Lytton's Pelham, who gives a bad dinner to a number of persons who are not very good judges of gastronomy, and who, being called, is forced to drink up a glass of his own wine, which nearly kills him. I say it is Gentlemen opposite that are to blame for the present state of things, not we; not even those who would have been well content, delighted to have a fixed fast line of £5 rating. You have forced this on us, and thrown on us the duty of Conservatives, which you yourselves have abandoned. I accept it as far as I am myself concerned, and I will not abandon cumulative voting till I have taken the opinion of the Committee upon it.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he was content to adopt the course suggested by the Government with regard to the Amendment for grouping boroughs of which he had given notice. He did so, not because he had changed his opinion, but because the proposal of the Government was the best that could be made with reference to the situation in which they stood. They had now arrived at a period when it was impossible to doubt a very little additional delay would seriously imperil the fate of the measure. He did not pretend that the Bill was all he could desire, or that it arrived at the end proposed in the way he could most have wished. But taking things as they stood, as practical men, they ought not to run the risk of throwing the measure over the Session. That would not be a Conservative solution, but a national calamity. On these grounds, he was perfectly satisfied to adopt the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hold over his Motion respecting grouping till the Report, so that the Committee might proceed without further delay to the Schedules.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid,
  1004
  he must complain very strongly of the manner in which the Government had dealt with one of the most prosperous and thriving districts in the country—the West Riding of Yorkshire. The Bill had disfranchised two boroughs in that division, Ripon and Knaresborough, but it had promised to give a Member to both Keighley and Barnsley. That promise was now withdrawn, and while the division lost two Members it received in turn only one—namely, the additional Member for Leeds. He repeated that that was not the manner in which a district of such great and growing wealth and importance should be treated. The step had been taken by the Government without giving the division he represented any time to consider the position in which it was placed.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he had a suggestion on the Paper, which would not take many minutes to discuss; but he would consult the convenience of the Government as to the time when it should be brought forward. He thought the Bill much too valuable to be imperilled by the delay occasioned by discussions which did not directly affect it. The difficulty had arisen from attempting to unite re-distribution with an extension of the franchise. He should still be content to pass this excellent Bill in relation to the franchise only, and to leave the re-distribution of seats till next Session. He was afraid that if they passed this scheme of re-distribution they would have inequalities almost as great as those which they were seeking to remove.
  MR. BOUVERIE: Assuming, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right to do, that the great body of the House are really anxious to pass the measure this Session, the proposal he has made is a fair and reasonable one. Of course, we all understand the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne. He objects altogether to proceed with the Bill. He has avowed his hostility to anything of the kind, and wishes to delay the measure altogether. [Mr. LOWE: Not in the least.] Then he must have altered his opinions. He has, at all events, denounced Reform from both sides of the House. The proposal of the Government is not an unreasonable one, nor is it unusual. It can, however, only be carried out by consent of those who have Amendments on the Paper. Out of the thirty-eight or forty clauses that might be moved before we come to the Schedules, thirty-two might as well be

  1005
  moved on the Report as at a previous stage. Then there are proposals for giving additional Members to particular places. If we are to take these all in succession we may remain here till the end of September. But the common sense of the House is against taking all the Motions at present in detail, and the right hon. Gentleman has given expression to the feeling of the House by the proposal he has made. Therefore I would suggest as to these clauses, that hon. Members would exercise a wise discretion were they to tell their constituents when they see them again, that they found the temper of the House was not favourable to these clauses, and that there was no chance of their receiving any substantial support; therefore they did not think it desirable to press them. If that class of clauses be withdrawn, the other new clauses could be discussed just as well upon the bringing up of the Report as in Committee. I do not see why even the very important proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne in favour of cumulative voting cannot be discussed by the House when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, when doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make out a case in its favour. I think that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a reasonable one; that its acceptance will really facilitate the despatch of public business, and enable us to look forward to a period not very long deferred when we may get out of Committee.
  MR. HENRY BEAUMONTsaid, he had been greatly surprised on coming down to the House that evening to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to take the promised seat from Barnsley. Against that proposal he begged, on behalf of Yorkshire, to tender his humble protest. They should rather consider the claims to additional seats of such places as Doncaster and Rotherham.
  MR. J. HARDYsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beaumont) that three or four years ago an additional Member was given to the West Riding of Yorkshire.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having announced his scheme for obtaining the four additional seats required, had proposed that the Committee should at once proceed to the consideration of the Schedules. Were the Committee to agree to these
  1006
  Schedules they would be bound to accept the plan of the right hon. Gentleman for taking the four Members from the four boroughs he had named. It was never thought that Members would not be given to three of the largest of the new boroughs, and time should be given to the inhabitants of those towns to have their opinion on the subject represented to the House. He considered that even the best proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for the re-distribution of seats was unsatisfactory, and he was not very sorry that it should be more so, because they might then expect that they should re-open the question in a year or two. He appealed to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman himself whether such a proposal was a reasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them satisfactory information as to the area of the boroughs from which he proposed to take the four seats. In the absence of such information it was unreasonable to ask those who felt an interest in those places to assent at once to a proposal to deprive them of the promised representation. To adopt the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would be to betray the Committee to commit themselves to a decision that night, which would be a most undesirable proceeding.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that without some such concession on the part of private Members as was asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, it was obvious the Bill could not be passed within a reasonable time. Holding that opinion, he was prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. They could not expect that this contemptible scheme of re-distribution would be satisfactory. They should not, however, interfere with the good work in which they were engaged, but hasten this Bill through, and it would be the first study of the new reformed Parliament to correct what was objectionable. Then they would have a re-distribution of seats that would make the Members of the House of Commons really the representatives of the people of England.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government felt it to be their duty to submit the proposal I have made to the Committee, and I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the Committee have received that proposal. I trust to the good sense and to the good temper of the Committee to settle this question. I have not the

  1007
  slightest wish to interfere in any way with the rights of private Members. I do not think that the general feeling of the Committee is at all opposed to the suggestion I threw out. Of course, if the proposal be adopted, such a line of conduct must be pursued as will be consistent with the rights of hon. Members who may have Motions to bring forward which will really affect the re-distribution of seats, and which are not merely introduced for show or at the request of constituents. It is not necessary that the Committee should come to a decision on the subject to-night. I hope, however, that hon. Members will think over the proposal, and will give it their best consideration. I will not now discuss the points which have been raised by various hon. Gentlemen, as there will be ample opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to meet any objections to the course they propose on a future occasion. I will merely advert to what has fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), from which it would appear that he thinks I have treated the county of York with great injustice in withholding seats from certain boroughs. In reply to his remarks, I can only say that out of the forty-five seats at our disposal, we have given five to that county, four of which have been given to that division of the county which he represents. I beg to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he supported the clause. The case of counties, no doubt, was different from that of boroughs, and there were difficulties in the way of applying the clause to them. But he could not see that it was a very great tax upon persons if once in three or four years they were to pay half-a-crown for a vehicle or walk half-a-dozen miles to record their votes. If there were no questions of bribery involved in the matter he would be still opposed to the present system on the ground of excessive expense. He had heard of £230,000 being spent in fourteen county elections, and in one case in Yorkshire the sum had been as high as £27,000. Generally a county contest cost between £4,000 and £5,000. The consequence of this was that not the best men but the richest men were put forward. He was opposed to the present system upon the ground that the expenses of elections ought to be lessened, so as to allow men of moderate means to give the
  1008
  benefit of their experience to the country. The candidate who engaged a number of carriages to bring his voters to the poll, no doubt offered an incentive to the persons from whom he obtained them to vote for their employer. But in boroughs no persons could think of bringing voters to the poll in carriages except out-voters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said the other night that it would be looked upon as a very dirty thing if they were to throw upon other people the expenses which are now borne by the candidates, and the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) replied that if such were public opinion, the sooner it was changed the better. He did not believe that such was public opinion. Public opinion, on the contrary, was this — that if that House were to continue the present system they would be legislating in their own favour. The greater number of Members were rich men, and people believed that they wished to keep that House a close borough. He would vote, therefore, not only for the present proposal, but for any other which would tend to diminish the present excessive expenditure.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he was sorry it had been determined not to apply this clause to counties, though it was the more obvious and easier course. There were no doubt difficulties in the way, but he regretted the Committee quitting this subject without making any attempt to diminish county election expenses. There were two classes of county electors who would scarcely be able to give their votes at all if they were not allowed to be conveyed to the poll—namely, those who resided outside the counties, and those who, though living within them, were at a considerable distance from a polling booth. He was aware of an instance in which one-sixth of the constituency lived outside the county. When non-residents or voters at a distance were canvassed, one of the first questions they asked was, whether they would have their travelling expenses paid? He admitted the difficulty, but he did not see the remedy. Voting papers might have provided a remedy. When the subject of voting papers was under discussion he had come down to the House greatly divided in mind as to how he should vote. He was inclined to think now that they had come to a wrong decision on that matter. At all events, if they did not adopt voting papers to the full extent,

  1009
  they ought to have adopted them so far as related to non-resident voters who had to be brought from distances, a thing which mainly contributed to swell the election expenses. He remembered an instance in which the travelling expenses of voters had amounted to nearly £1 a-head, which was about one-half or two-fifths of the whole expenses. Another remedy was additional polling places. If hon. Gentlemen would only put their shoulders to the wheel in this matter they might make one of the most useful reforms. A circle with a radius of six miles would probably contain twenty parishes, or one of seven miles twenty-five or thirty parishes, and he thought there might be a polling place for every such district. He would not leave the matter to the discretion of Quarter Sessions — a tribunal excellent for many purposes and composed of high-minded English gentlemen; but being composed almost entirely of landowners it could not be expected to show perfect impartiality in political questions. It might be thought that to keep up the expense of elections had a Conservative tendency, as keeping the representation in the hands of men of large fortunes; but even if this were the case, how many ancient and wealthy families had been ruined by the expenses of contested elections? The present state of things was eminently unsatisfactory. With regard to the Bill itself, he looked upon it as in some degree imperilled by the length of time its discussion had occupied, and he fully concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the clauses to which he had referred should be postponed until after the Schedules. He hoped that election expenditure would — if not now—on a future occasion be placed on a satisfactory footing.
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he objected to the application of the clause to counties where the poor could not walk the long distances. The result would be to give an advantage to rich landowners, whose tenants would be glad to oblige them by lending all their carts and conveyances. But he would join cordially in support of any proposal for diminishing the expense of elections, which was felt as a heavy tax, and often an intolerable one.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that though prepared on principle to apply the clause universally, he hoped the hon. Member for Oldham would consent, as a compromise, to exclude counties and the
  1010
  four boroughs which were in the nature of counties. The expense of conveyances in some boroughs were the heaviest items of charge, and had virtually revived the property qualification. It being in some boroughs looked upon as almost un-English to walk to the poll, the expense, with an enlarged franchise, would be alarming. Possibly, the greatest danger of all was the increasing power of the purse, which appeared to be far too great already. It was said that the voters would be practically disfranchised if the proposal were carried, but the candidate was not to enfranchise the voter with his money. If the vote was regarded as a favour conferred upon the candidate, it led directly to the conclusion that the candidate was to pay the voter's rates, and whatever was necessary to enable him to vote, and this principle led directly to bribery. A vote was not a favour conferred upon the candidate — at least it ought not to be so. Were that the right view to take of it the voter was logically entitled to recompense for loss of time, and, in fact, to sell his vote on the best terms he could. The Constitution did not so regard it, It was no part of the duty of the candidate to enable a man to vote, and on the principle of selection the man who would take the trouble to go to the poll, and would not mind incurring a little expense for conveyance, showed his fitness for the franchise. If, as had been said by the hon. Member for Rochester, nobody in his borough would walk half a mile to vote for him—[Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN said he had not made such a remark]—it only showed that persons of that kind were not entitled to the suffrage.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he could not understand why, if there was a principle involved, the hon. and learned Gentleman could consent to exempt counties and four boroughs from its application. [Sir ROBERT COLLIER said he had only suggested this as a compromise.] But was he prepared to conduct legislation upon the principle of compromising his opinions? A more immoral doctrine he had never heard. He protested against counties and boroughs being treated differently, Many of his constituents were seven miles distant from the poll, and it would be unfair to prohibit the conveyance of these while allowing more well-to-do persons to be brought up from a distance to county elections. As for the multiplication of polling-places proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Henley)

  1011
  this would involve greater expense to the candidate than the conveyance of voters. The observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were specially applicable to this clause, which was more fit for a Select Committee.
  MR. PAULLsaid, it was impossible for the Committee to entertain such a variety of proposals as were submitted to them. He understood that the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices were in favour of an alteration of the present law permitting the conveyance of voters to the poll. The hon. Gentleman's object would not be accomplished by the clause proposed, and it was only a waste of time to discuss it. What was to prevent a candidate from hiring carriages for himself? Any gentleman might hire two or three carriages for himself and his private friends, and cause them to enter the town where they were wanted. He would then be using his own carriages, and the law could not touch him. But a jobmaster would come under penalties if he allowed a candidate to hire his carriages for the purposes of his election. He recommended the withdrawal of the clause, with a view to the discussion of the subject at a future period.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he must deny that he had stated on a former occasion that no constituent of his would go half a mile to vote for him. He thought in many cases the clause would prove a great hardship to many working men whose time was very limited. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would negative it. It was very hard in large boroughs, on men who had only an hour for dinner, to have to walk a distance to the poll. In the case of the dockyards the men got a half-holiday.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it would be wise to withdraw this clause. If the Committee settled all the questions relating to enfranchisement and the distribution of seats, these two great matters would be quite as much as they could get through this year. Such matters as were provided for by the clause would be much better considered next February or March than now. Whatever was done now would be done in a hurried manner. Next year, too, they would know more about boundaries, and how the voters were distributed in the boroughs, and they would have an opportunity of seeing whether any fresh machinery would be introduced with respect to polling-places and voting papers.
  1012
  He had not hitherto seen his way clearly as to the machinery for voting papers, but he had seen a proposal which obviated some of the objections, and under which every man would, at some period before voting, give in his assertion that he meant to vote by polling-papers. There would thus be no difficulty about his identity.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the suggestion that the Committee should confine itself to matters relating either to enfranchisement or disfranchisement came rather late. It would be a left-handed way of saving time, because the Committee had been recently dealing with other matters relating to expenses at elections. They had refused to pass a clause charging certain expenses on the county, and they had also had before them the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland. With respect to boroughs, the difficulties in carrying out this clause were altogether very slight, and as a great practical good was now within their grasp he hoped they would affirm the clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the suggestion he had thrown out was in answer to the appeal made to the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that one reason why the clause ought to be postponed was that it was mixed up with the expenses chargeable for polling-places. If the conveyance of voters to the poll was declared illegal, the authorities would in all probability increase the number of polling-places very considerably. It would then be necessary to employ an increased number of sheriffs' deputies and polling clerks. The proper charge for such services required to be regulated by law. At present the candidate paid everything that was demanded of him, and if there were to be an enormous number of polling-places, what might be termed the legitimate expenses of candidates would be considerably increased. To pass the present clause would only be dealing with one branch of the subject. He thought that the whole matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and he hoped, therefore, that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Henley) would be adopted.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that there would be considerable force in the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury if the evil with which they were proposing to deal would not be intensified by the present Bill. But the Bill would at least double the number of electors in every

  1013
  borough, and in the large towns they would be increased three-fold. If the present system of conveying electors to the poll were to be continued, it followed that the expenses of conveying them would be proportionately increased two or three-fold. Their object should be not so much to cut down expenses as to prevent them from increasing three-fold in amount. From a Return printed last year of the expense of conveying voters to the poll, he found that in Liverpool one set of candidates paid £592 for conveying voters to the poll, and the others £431, making a total of £1,023. By this Bill the voters in Liverpool would be increased more than threefold. Why, therefore, should the candidates be expected in future to pay £3,000 for the conveyance of voters to the poll? In Manchester £738 was paid for a similar purpose. The burgh of Glasgow contained only seven square miles, and there were about fifteen polling-places at the elections there, so that there could be no real difficulty in any man walking to the poll. Yet the expenses of conveyance at Glasgow amounted to £686. Again, Edinburgh contained only six square miles, and it had thirteen polling-places, or one in each ward. Yet the amount paid for conveyance there was £330, which was equally divided between the two parties, showing that no advantage could be derived by the one party over the other. It was therefore plain that conveyances for voters to the poll were not needed, but it would appear as if voters expected to be waited on by candidates and driven by them to the poll. Such a system from its great expense must increase the difficulty of getting candidates to come forward for great constituencies, unless they had some other object in view than the good of the people.
  SIR T. F. BUXTONsaid, there was another evil really worth consideration, namely, the great risk which attached to candidates in having some illegality done at a distance in their name without having the power of checking it. An agent might be authorised to procure a ticket and conveyance for a voter who resided a great distance from the polling-place, but from some neglect might give the voter money to buy his own ticket or provide his conveyance, instead of doing it for him. The result of such a proceeding was that the candidate unknowingly was guilty of a crime under the bribery laws, and he was pointed out as a person who had recourse to corrupt and illegal practices.
  MR. CLAYsaid, this clause ought to be carried, because the sooner they adopted it the better would they be able to deal with the whole matter.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he concurred in the views which had been expressed on the other side of the House on this clause, and concurred in the sentiment of regret that had been expressed that it should not be extended to counties. He confessed he could only see one practical difficulty against it, namely, that they must either increase the polling-places or permit the use of voting papers. If they increased the polling-places the town voters would have an advantage over those residing in the rural parts. That might be obviated by having a polling-place in every parish, the votes to be taken by the overseer, who should be a sworn agent for the purpose. By that means they would also get rid of much drunkenness and many disgraceful scenes.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the expenses of the polling-places ought not to be paid by the candidates, but by the borough or county. The appointment of polling-places in every parish and the officers to take the votes might be left to the Lord-lieutenant; and he rather concurred in the suggestion that the agency of some parish officer should be employed.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid he felt bound to avail himself of that opportunity of pressing his proposal. He was prepared to restrict the clause to boroughs and also to except from it the four boroughs mentioned in the discussion the other evening, although he should have been glad to see them all included. He hoped that if the clause were passed some hon. Member would bring up a clause which would meet the difficulties respecting counties.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 101: Majority 65.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would move to insert, after the word "election," in the second line, the words, "for any borough except Aylesbury, Cricklade, East Retford, and New Shoreham," thereby restricting the clause prohibiting the payment of expenses for the conveyance of voters to boroughs, with the exception of the four named.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought it unfair to confine the exception to these four boroughs,

  1015
  as it was well known there were many others where non - resident voters would have to be conveyed considerable distances to the poll. He could not understand why in these instances voters were to be excluded from benefits which it was proposed to confer in practically analogous cases. Every borough had its own specialty, and in many there were poor men periodically absent under varying circumstances, who would be virtually disfranchised if they could not be conveyed to the poll. He thought that to allow a man's railway fare to be paid where there was no possibility of a corrupt motive being involved in the payment was a very reasonable proposal. The present law operated very fairly, was uniform in boroughs and counties, and ought not to be altered as proposed.
  GENERAL FORESTERsaid, he moved that Much Wenlock be included with the other four boroughs named, as its area was very extensive.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he did not think that voters in counties, if purity of election was to be fully maintained, ought to have their expenses of going to the poll paid any more than voters in boroughs.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that the whole matter had in 1860 been referred to the Committee which sat on the subject of Corrupt Practices at Elections, and that they made a report with which the present clause was in conformity. The four boroughs of East Retford, Cricklade, Shoreham, and Aylesbury were excepted in the Reform Bill of 1832, because they were connected with the counties, and he would recommend the Committee not to except any more.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the area of the borough of Greenwich was very extensive. The case might be met by providing that no voter should be carried to the poll who resided within one mile of the polling place.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that the House had distinctly come to an agreement that these four boroughs should be exempted, and be considered as counties, and he hoped that no others would be added.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he should support the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wenlock, and should afterwards move that Maldon be included in the clause, as it covered an area of over forty square miles.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it seemed likely that they would go on discussing the merits of every borough. Very good reasons had been shown for omitting counties from the operation of the clause, and it would be only fair to include in the exception those boroughs in which freeholders would have a right to vote. He suggested that a schedule of places to be excluded should be prepared, and then the matter might be settled when the Schedule came on for discussion.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to point out the inconsistent position in which the House had placed itself by refusing a few nights before, to accept the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Colonel Dyott), giving borough freeholders their votes in the boroughs. This Amendment had brought them face to face with the sham counties—as the hon. Member for Westminster had so truly called them elsewhere — made up as they were of constituencies of purely borough voters of the lowest class. He objected to leave being given to take persons to the poll, of a condition of life in which conveyance in a market cart would be as thorough bribery as the pretentious cab is to the town voter. As to what conveyance to the poll meant, and what it was in the metropolitan boroughs, he referred them to the revelations of former debates. All he would now say was that conveyance meant bribing two men by one and the same process, the fellow who drove on the box, and the fellow who went inside.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he regretted that he could not agree to the suggestions that Wenlock and Maldon should be included in the clause. To do so would be only to invite the assertion of similar claims on behalf of other places. With respect to the other four boroughs, it was certainly understood the other evening that they were to be excepted from the general rule.
  GENERAL FORESTERmoved that the borough of Much Wenlock be added to the Amendment.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he did not agree in the propriety of making any exceptions whatever. The principle was a good one, and applicable to all cases. Candidates ought not to be put to any expense with regard to the conveyance of voters.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. WARNERsaid, it would be more convenient if the words of the clause relating

  1017
  to "any borough" were first decided, and that the Committee should afterwards divide on the question as to the exception of any particular boroughs.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he hoped the House would not assent to exceptional legislation of this kind. He should oppose the introduction of the Amendment, being of opinion that the same justice should be meted out to counties as to boroughs.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that counties of cities had as much claim to be excluded as ordinary counties. It would be hard, for instance, if the freeholders of Dublin city could not be carried to the poll as well as the freeholders of Dublin county. He therefore begged to add to the Amendment the words, "and those boroughs which are counties of cities or towns."
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the alteration proposed would include the cities of London and York, and many other densely populated places.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he withdrew his Amendment, and would re-introduce the subject on the Report.
  Motion for the addition of the words agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he proposed to omit from the clause the words, "or for any person to receive from the candidate or anyone on his behalf," and also the words, "and any such person shall receive." If those words were retained, the clause might act harshly on innocent persons. A man going with a voter to the poll might hire a cab and then refuse to pay the driver, on the ground that the payment would be illegal.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had no objection to omit the words in question.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he objected to the omission of the proposed words.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said that if the Committee did not agree to the proposed Amendment, they would pass a clause which they might not have cause to look back upon with any satisfaction. Under the clause as it stood, a cabman who accepted payment for taking a voter to the poll would be guilty of a misdemeanour.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the Committee ought to agree to the Amendment, for if they did not, it would be very doubtful whether a cabman ought to take his fare from a man who might himself hire a cab to take him to the poll.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he agreed with the
  1018
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if the proposed words were not omitted, a cabman for taking a voter to the poll would be guilty of a misdemeanour.
  Words omitted.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he moved to add after the words, "such payment shall be deemed to be an illegal payment" the words "and to be bribery." The clause would not be effectual for the object in view without the addition of the words he proposed. In all probability future Election Committees, acting upon a precedent established some years ago by a Committee on a Huddersfield election, might declare the Acts mentioned in the clause to be simply illegal, without declaring them to amount to bribery. They decided that it was illegal, and that the Member could be prosecuted, but that it did not affect his seat.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that he had been a member of the Committee alluded to, and the opinion of the Committee was that the payments were of a very trivial character, in no way affecting the votes of the persons who had received the sum. He thought that there was no necessity for a change in the clause, which was already sufficiently stringent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he proposed enabling the votes for the London University to be recorded by means of voting papers, to which he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection. He moved that after Clause 28 the following words be inserted:—
  "All the provisions of an Act passed in the 24th and 25th years of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to provide that votes at elections for the Universities may be recorded by means of voting papers.'"
  It was unnecessary that he should say anything in support of the clause, to which the Government had assented.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. POWELLmoved the latter part of the clause he had given notice of—
  "And when by virtue conferred by any other Act of Parliament, polling-places or polling districts are altered or additional polling-places or districts are created, it shall not be necessary that any declaration, direction, or order made, as therein provided, be published in The London Gazette, but the same shall be advertised by the

  1019
  justices in such manner as they shall think fit, and when so advertised shall have the same force and effect as if the same had been published in The London Gazette.
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, that he thought the measure a most excellent one, and such a clause as this was necessary to give it a beneficent operation. His last election had cost £4,000, principally for public-houses, and with the increase of Members which the present Bill contemplated, the next, without some change in the law, would probably reach ten times that amount.
  New Clause—
  (No committee of any candidate to meet in any hotel, &c.) That no committee of any candidate for the representation of any County, City, or Borough shall sit, or hold any meeting, or transact any business as such committee in any hotel, tavern, public-house, or other building licensed or used for the sale or consumption of wine, spirits, beer, porter, or other intoxicating liquors; and if any such candidate shall, by himself or his agents, cause or permit any breach of this enactment, the Return of such candidate shall be null and void, and no expenses incurred by such committee in any such hotel, tavern, public-house, or other building shall be recoverable by law from such committee or any of the members thereof, or from any such candidate, or his agent, or any person whomsoever,—(Sir Thomas Lloyd,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwas very glad that the hon. Baronet had had the courage to bring forward this clause, and he invited the House, all of whom must in their heart wish well to it, to adopt it unanimously, and thus save those, who would otherwise feel it their duty to vote for it, from the certain vengeance of the corrupt classes against whose practices it was directed. This system of holding committees at public-houses was one of the evils of electioneering, to which he hoped no one who had gone through the trial could look back without shame. The way the system had worked in boroughs was this. No one could open a beer-house except in a £10 house. As far as the interests of the excise and of a certain varnish of decency went, this limitation was well enough; but it produced a state of things of which the authors of the regulation had not thought. By this law every publican was of necessity a voter under the old franchise; and so in boroughs where rents ran low the publicans ruled the election. They held the key of the borough as really as the key of their own
  1020
  cellars, and they insisted on having committees jovial and plenty to meet at their houses. The candidate, however strongly he might disapprove of this system, was absolutely powerless in the hands of his supporters. He was the last man to be consulted on such arrangements. His managers found the publicans holding back, and so without telling him anything they would open an indefinite number of committee rooms. Sometimes there were several in one street; occasionally the same publican divided his house between the rival candidates. Of course no business was really done at those places. What was intended was to buy the publican by the liquor he sold, and the sots who went there by the liquor they drunk. Non-electors, too (now they would be electors), had to be conciliated, and so-called committees of these people were created to booze at the candidate's cost. It was, in plain language, bribery, and bribery of the worst description. Bribery by the absolute payment of hard cash was after all the most respectable form, for some of it might find its way to the innocent wife and family, while the bribes served out in public-houses only went down the throats of the drunkards. If the House would adopt this clause, he was certain that the moral sense of England would support it, and that all the army of tapsters would not be able to scratch it out of the statute book.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he believed that the clause would be received with satisfaction by the House generally. But he could not help thinking that in some cities or boroughs—and among them the City of London—it would be very difficult to find places for the meeting of committees if the public-houses were not to be open to them. He believed, however, that the clause would contribute to remove a great opprobrium from our electoral system, and he was therefore prepared to support it. He supported the clause because it would relieve voters from the temptation of keeping back their votes until the last moment. At present those who got most houses stood the best chance of gaining the election. Hotel-keepers and other proprietors of refreshment houses and beer-houses kept back their votes to the last moment, and the removal of temptation to persons of that kind to have their houses taken at an exorbitant rate would remove a great opprobrium from their election proceedings.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he could not concur in the allegation that corruption was universal at borough elections, many of which were perfectly pure. Corruption was the exception, not the rule. As for the proposed clause, it would be simply impossible to obey it. In many towns rooms for meetings could be obtained nowhere except in public-houses, and how were they to define "committee?" If a few of the candidate's friends were to meet him at an hotel and discuss the chance of election, all the penalties of the clause would fall upon him, and the same would happen if he engaged in a friendly chat on the subject while taking refreshment.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that not a single pound had been spent in any questionable way in the borough of Buckingham during the time he had represented it, since 1832. Little boroughs were not all corrupt. Some of them were as pure as any constituency in the kingdom. With regard to the clause, he approved it, but it needed some amendment.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that an opening for bribery was created by allowing candidates to hire private residences as well as by permitting them to hire public-houses. He trusted that if that clause were carried, a further provision would be adopted to the effect, that no person who had let his house for the use of a committee should be entitled to vote at the election.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that no person whose house was let at an election ought to be allowed to give a vote. Those who had houses to let were the people who fomented contests.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he regretted that when engaged in passing a Reform Bill they should undertake the task of correcting corrupt practices. Already they had passed two clauses to prevent bribery. The first would lead to corruption. The second was unintelligible, and would lead to confusion. The clause under discussion was better than the others. Whether they could protect the candidate from being called on to pay he did not know. It was very difficult to amend a clause of this description in Committee so as to render it intelligible. The best course to adopt would be for the hon. Baronet to withdraw the clause, and to bring in another to be added to the Bill for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections, which would shortly be before the House. He was entirely in favour of the principle of the clause. He had, perhaps, been the
  1022
  only person who had carried a clause having a similar object.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he considered that the clause as it stood was sufficient without any amendment; but if an Amendment should be necessary it could be moved on the bringing up of the Report. No one could call in question the object of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to economize time, and therefore he hoped that the Committee would at once divide, so as to prevent a recurrence of what took place the other night, when, in consequence of a fresh brigade of Members entering the House at a late hour, a clause had to be re-discussed from the commencement.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Edinburgh is quite right in saying that I am anxious to economize time as much us possible. But there is another point that should be kept in view, and that is that the Committee should not be called upon to pass clauses with a precipitation they may afterwards regret. This is a very important subject, and as far as the object of the clause is concerned I am entirely in its favour, and I suppose that every hon. Member in this House would be exceedingly glad if such an object could be secured. If we could strike at indirect corruption through the lavish expenditure caused at elections by tavern expenses we should be glad, but we should not strike without wounding, and I am afraid if we pass clauses of this kind without well considering them we shall regret our haste. The hon. Baronet who brought this question forward appears to have been in very unfortunate circumstances, because, while he represents a constituency of 3,000 electors, the travelling expenses at his election amounted to £4,000. [Sir THOMAS LLOYD: They only amounted to £500.] And quite enough too. We ought, in the first place, to consider whether or not the clause does not propose to go a little too far. I am sorry that the hon. Baronet did not confine the operation of the clause to boroughs, as was done in a somewhat analogous case the other day, because I can conceive that in boroughs it might be possible to avoid meeting at public-houses, whereas all who represent large districts know from experience that it is impossible to get the required accommodation except at an hotel or public-house. It would be scarcely just to pass a clause which should compel the committees

  1023
  at an election to stand all day in the market-place and get wet through because they were not allowed to go to places where they could obtain shelter. It further strikes me that the clause as now worded would not so much put an end to meetings at a public-house, as it would put an end to committees. If you pass a severe clause of this kind by which committees are forbidden to obtain proper accommodation, what will happen? You will doubtless prevent committees from going to public-houses, but there will be sympathizing friends who will go to public-houses, and who will do all the work of committees. It, therefore, appears to me that the clause will not accomplish the desired object, while it will lead to public inconvenience. Let me remind the Committee that time is valuable. This is the twenty-second day upon which the Committee has sat. The labours of the Committee are directed to the improvement of the representation of the people in Parliament. This subject resolves itself into two great branches—first, the re-distribution of seats, and secondly, an enlargement of the franchise. The subject of the clause now before us can scarcely be classed under either of these heads. I therefore am disposed to agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that this clause might be brought up with propriety upon the Report or upon the third reading of the Bill which is about to come down to us from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into Corrupt Practices at Elections, when we should have an opportunity of considering the whole question and of passing such a clause as would touch the evil sought to be eradicated. I have no objection to the principle of the clause, which is to protect candidates from unnecessary expense.
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, that, as every one was in favour of the clause, he should persist in his Motion.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would suggest that some words should be introduced which should make it plain that it was an authorised committee.
  The Clause was read a second time.
  On Motion, "That the Clause be added to the Bill,"
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that for the safety of candidates the wording of the first line of the clause should be altered by the insertion of the words "appointed by any
  1024
  candidate" after the word "committee," and leaving out the word "of." As the clause was now worded any two or three fellows might go into a public-house and call themselves committeemen, and so imperil the seat of the candidate whom they professed to represent. He begged to move the Amendment he had suggested.
  Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the first word "of," in order to insert the words "appointed by."—(Mr. Henley.)
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, he did not object.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that committees were never appointed by candidates, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be of no effect.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would destroy the effect of the clause. He wished that hon. Gentlemen would either not introduce clauses, or, if they did so, would have the pluck to stand by them.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished to know what there was in the clause to prevent persons from constituting themselves committeemen. The hon. Member for Birmingham had, some time since, proved to demonstration that a stranger had been guilty of bribery in order to secure the return of a particular candidate, who was totally unknown to him, in order to win a bet. Was a candidate to lose his election because some persons who chose to represent him went into a public-house? The clause should be postponed until the Bill for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections came before the House.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he thought the object which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as well as that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had in view, was a legitimate one. He would suggest that if some such word as "sanction" were substituted for the word "permit," the clause would be made efficient for its purpose.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that the objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had urged would not apply. The first part of the clause prohibited the practices referred to, and rendered liable the persons implicated; but it did not touch the candidate at all. It was only by the second part that the candidate was touched, because by that portion he was made responsible if the practices were engaged in with his permission.

  1025
  It was not necessary that committees should be appointed by the candidate; they might be appointed anyhow.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that the case referred to by the hon. Member for Chippenham was not in point. It was not decided that bribery had been committed by the committee, though particular individuals had been guilty of corrupt practices. The insertion of the words would defeat the object of the clause.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he concurred in the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he thought it impossible as the clause stood not to make the candidate responsible for acts committed by over-zealous partizans over whom he had no control.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he would suggest the insertion of the words, "the expenses of which are paid by any candidate," as calculated to obviate all the objections urged against the clause. He had known instances of committees which met in public-houses and paid their own expenses.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that what rendered it necessary to make the wording of the clause exact, was the fearful penalties imposed. It was not that the expenses incurred were not to be paid, but the election was to be absolutely void. Therefore it was necessary that the acts of these committees should not make any candidate responsible, unless he was aware that they were acting for him. What was meant by an agent? Anybody who had experience of Election Committees knew how wide was the construction put upon the word "agent." Again, what was meant by the word "permit?" These were questions on which their elections would hang. These acts might be done in bad faith. The practices referred to in the clause might be indulged in by persons who constituted themselves into a committee simply with the view of unseating the Member whose cause they were pretending to serve.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that no man would be safe from the effects of the clause.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not see why committees should be prohibited from meeting in the only places which in certain cases such as, for instance, where the members of the committee were very numerous, would be at their service. If such places were corruptly used the law
  1026
  already provided a remedy. An hotel might be the only place where a room sufficiently large could be obtained; but if they met at an hotel and paid their own expenses, the election would be null and void. If rooms were corruptly used, there was a sufficient remedy by the action of an Election Committee. If the remedy was not now applied, it was simply owing to the fact that the Committees did not look sufficiently about them. It appeared to be a most proposterous proposal to render candidates liable for practices over which they oftentimes could not possibly have any control.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first part of the clause did not touch the candidate. He also proposed to insert the word "sanction" instead of "permit," as to the second part.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he wanted to know how many persons constituted a committee; whether a meeting of two or three persons to talk over the business of the election would come within the meaning of the clause?
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, that, if the clause passed, a committee would mean what it meant at present.
  MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, he hoped the Committee would pause before passing a clause which would occasion great inconvenience to a large portion of those who represented the agricultural interest of England.
  Question put, "That the word 'of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 60; Noes 74: Majority 14.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had never heard of a committee appointed by a candidate.
  MR. MONKmoved to insert after the words "appointed by" the words "or on behalf of."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that his motive in moving the Amendment which had been adopted was, that the candidate should not be responsible for the acts of men about whom he knew nothing.
  MR. BRADYsaid, it was a well-known fact that a certain number of gentlemen, in every county or borough, constituted themselves a committee, and that the candidate took good care not to repudiate their acts. If they incurred expenses in that position, the candidate always refunded

  1027
  them; and therefore it was absolutely necessary that the committee and the candidate should be regarded as one, if the House really meant to secure purity of election.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that the clause in its present form was reduced to a nullity, and unless some words were added, it would be better to withdraw it altogether.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought that the latter part of the clause was too stringent, and that instead of the election being declared null and void, a slight penalty would be quite sufficient. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, as a legal authority, whether a committee appointed for or acting on behalf of a candidate would be held in law to be appointed by him. [Sir ROUNDELL PALMER: No, I think not.] Then the alteration as it stands at present makes the clause nonsense.
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDsaid, that, if that alteration were allowed to stand, all that a candidate would have to do when any question touching his committee was raised would be to say, "I never appointed it."
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that the Amendment now proposed (Mr. Monk's) would restore the clause to its original bad form. As so many varieties of view prevailed on the subject, he would ask hon. Gentlemen what a committee was, and how it was constituted?
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he had no idea that any Member of the House who had stood a contest could have found it necessary to ask what an Election Committee was. He had thought it was perfectly clear. At an election there were certain persons who established committees of the candidates, and appointed the places where they should meet, the committee of A. B. meeting at the Crown and Sceptre, and that of C. D. at the Pig and Whistle. An ingenious effort, or rather a disingenuous effort, had been made here not to understand what was plain to the understanding of every Member on both sides of the House. It was very desirable that they should prevent election committees from meeting at public-houses; and rooms that did not belong to public-houses could always be obtained for the purpose of holding committees. In the borough which he represented (Devonport) the principle of having no committees sitting in public-houses was tried on both sides, Liberal and Conservative. It succeeded, and he hoped
  1028
  it might find general adoption throughout the kingdom.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Montagu Chambers) had justified the Amendment which he (Mr. Henley) proposed. He should like to hear any hon. Member point out an instance in which an Election Committee did not make the Member responsible for the acts of his central committee. If elections were to be made void on account of committee meetings in public-houses, care must be taken that the candidates should not be compromised by self-constituted committees set up during the turmoil of an election, and acting, perhaps malâ fide, with the express object of unseating the Member. He was willing to accept any words that would prevent this.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he admitted that there was no clearer head or more judicial intellect in the House than that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley); but if the words of the right hon. Gentleman were not qualified by some others, the clause could not be violated except by a committee specially appointed by the candidate, and would, therefore, be entirely inoperative. It would only be necessary for the candidate to appoint no committee, and then his committees might meet where they pleased.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought there could be no difficulty in finding words which would meet the requirements of the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested the addition of the words "acting on behalf and with the consent of" any candidate.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the candidates accepted the agency of committees, but did not appoint them. Unless they were supplemented by other words, the words introduced would reduce the clause to a dead letter.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would ask his hon. and learned Friend to remember how far the law of agency had been strained by election committees. Unless a candidate almost spat in a man's face during an election the committee would infer agency. That was, perhaps, an extreme illustration, but it was necessary to bear the point in mind. He was willing to accept the words suggested by the noble Lord.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be extremely hard to enact that a candidate should lose his seat in the case provided for by the clause. The discussion

  1029
  had shown that the first part of the clause was likely to prove very inconvenient, especially if it was followed by the second. He trusted that if the one was adopted the other would be abandoned. It would be very difficult to deal with this clause without dealing with that which followed. The words "no committee appointed by or with the consent of any candidate" might meet the case.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that in that case the committee might be appointed first and sanctioned afterwards.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would suggest that the return of the candidate should not be made void because his committee met at a public-house, but only if he paid the expenses connected with that meeting.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that if a candidate did not appoint committees his agent did, and qui facit per alium facit per se. He trusted the hon. Member for Gloucester would withdraw the words "or on behalf of." In his own case the non-electors formed themselves into a committee entirely without his knowledge to promote his election. That committee did not cost him sixpence, and they rendered him good service; but they, no doubt, met in a public-house, as the only convenient place. He preferred the words proposed by the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne), although he was not quite sure they were the best.
  MR. MONKsaid, he should be happy to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  Amendment to insert the words "or on behalf of," put, and negatived.
  Amendment to insert the words "appointed by," withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEmoved to insert the words "acting on behalf and with the consent of."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he would suggest the addition of the words "recognized by."
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought that this would be a matter for the Gentlemen of the long robe.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid the words were not required.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood the hon. Baronet was willing to leave out the word "county," so as to make the clause applicable only to elections for cities and boroughs.
  Sir THOMAS LLOYD assented.
  The word "county" struck out.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he moved that the words "or transact any business" should be struck out. These were words of an ensnaring character and might imperil many seats.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought that the words were rather in the nature of surplusage, but if they were omitted there might be room for evasion. If the principle of the clause was sound, these words might do good, and could do no harm.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that a candidate might be staying at an hotel, and a deputation of the electors might come to him to ask if he would coalesce with some other candidate. It might be held that this was transacting business under the clause.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he agreed with the Amendment. He had given up canvassing; but he stayed at an hotel during an election, and he was glad to see any electors who might call upon him. Under the clause, it might be said that this was transacting business.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he moved the omission of the words "or any house used for the sale or consumption of wine." Under these words, every dwelling-house in England, except such as was occupied by teetotallers, would be prevented from having an election committee sitting in it.
  Words omitted.
  MR. WARNERmoved the omission of the words—
  "And if any such candidate shall by himself or his agents cause or permit any breach of this enactment, the return of such candidate shall be null and void."
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the clause, to add the words "and if any candidate shall, by himself or his agents, at any time before, during, or after such Election, pay any money on account of any such expenses, the return of such candidate shall be null and void."—(Mr. Warner.)
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would request the hon. Member for Norwich to postpone his Amendment in order to enable him to move the insertion after the word "building" of the words "licensed as aforesaid." Without those words the clause would prohibit the payment of any money for the use of any building whatever.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he acceded to the hon. Member for Sunderland's request.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the words "licensed as aforesaid," were unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WARNERmoved his addition to the clause.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 159: Majority 56.
  On Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill,"
  MR. HUNTsaid, he doubted whether, as it stood, it would carry out the wishes of the Committee, which were to prevent the colourable hiring of rooms at public-houses as committee-rooms, when the real object was to supply drink. No doubt the object was a desirable one, but the clause would not attain it. The objection was not to the taking of rooms for the transaction of public business, but to the supplying of drink. During the election for the University of Oxford he had occasion to meet the committee of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) and found it at the Ship Hotel. No liquor or refreshment was supplied, and the transaction of business was what workmen would call a "dry job." There were present there the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, and the hon. Member who was then in the Chair. The clause would meet such a case as that; but it was not intended to apply to the transaction of such business, but to the display of placards announcing that a committee sat where none did, when the fact was that men were entertained at the candidate's expense. Did the clause meet such a case? It said that no committee of the candidate should sit or hold any meeting at an hotel or tavern. That did not prevent the hiring of a room at an hotel or tavern; it only forbade sitting or holding a meeting there. You might take any number of rooms in a public-house, but as long as you did not sit there, or hold meetings there, you evaded this clause. This was hardly what the Committee desired to do. It would be better that a committee should sit or meet than that rooms should be hired for drinking purposes. As it stood the clause was wholly useless.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the result of the long discussion had been to convince him, even before the last division, that the clause was an unwise one; and since the concluding words had been rejected, the matter did not admit of question. As the clause stood it would infringe the liberty of the subject; for it would say that a committee of independent electors, willing to pay their own expenses, should not be allowed to hold a meeting. By far the best way of determining the discussion was to reject the clause.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the exhibiting of a placard, intimating that a committee-room was in a public-house, constituted a sitting or meeting, and the presumption was that those who entered the room did so for the transaction of business. The clause could hardly be inoperative while it made an offence a misdemeanour, and the adoption of it would be the first step towards rousing public opinion against a bad practice.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he had contested Southwark and had never spent a penny in giving either voters or committee men drink, nor had he known it to be done by any of the candidates who had opposed him. If public-houses were to be entirely closed to candidates, it would entail great inconvenience and expense. In every town there were a number of public-houses, most of which had rooms to let for the purpose of committee-rooms, and competition kept down the prices. But if all the public-houses were shut against a candidate, where was he, especially if he was a stranger, to get rooms? He thought their only course was to reject the clause.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the clause was a bad one, and it was wholly impossible to carry it out.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he knew the borough of Southwark very well, and his opinion was that the candidate who took the most public-houses succeeded in the election.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 98; Noes 197: Majority 99.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he had to move a clause to enable public officers connected with the collection of the revenue to vote at elections. The exclusion of those men from the franchise was invidious. There was no good ground for making any distinction between collectors of the revenue and other portions of Her Majesty's

  1033
  subjects with respect to the exercise of the elective franchise. The collectors of the revenue bore a high character, and their qualifications enabled them to form a much better opinion than other persons of public measures and the merits of candidates. They executed the trust reposed in them in a most praiseworthy manner, whether the political party that appointed them was in office or not. He therefore moved—
  "That no person shall by reason of his being in anywise employed in the charging, collecting, receiving, levying, or managing of any of Her Majesty's revenues, be incapable of giving his vote for the election of any person to serve in Parliament, or be subject to any disability or penalty for giving any such vote, or endeavouring to persuade any elector to give, or to dissuade any elector from giving, his vote for the election of any person to serve in Parliament."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he trusted that the Committee would hesitate before they acceded to the Motion. The persons to whom the hon. Baronet had referred were, as a body, distinguished by the effective manner in which they performed their duties, and by the energy with which they fulfilled a public trust. He should therefore be sorry to see anything like political intrigue or subserviency mixed up with the discharge of those duties. It was part of their duty to inform against those who violated the law, and it would be a great disadvantage if these persons were to be subject even to the imputation of exercising their influence for political purposes. As they were at present placed in regard to the franchise, those imputations did not exist. He wished also to recall to the recollection of the Committee a Treasury Minute which had been placed on the table, in which Minute the Government had drawn attention to the impropriety and impolicy of officers in those branches of the public service to which the hon. Baronet had referred exercising their influence over Members of Parliament, in order to urge upon the Government an increase of their salaries. Even at the present time an influence was exerted which must be viewed with great jealousy, and every Government, however constituted, would find it necessary to use its utmost influence in resisting overtures of that description. But what would be the position of affairs if these persons—so numerous a body—were invested with the franchise? From the experience of what was passing in this city—and he wished merely to intimate, and not to dwell upon
  1034
  the circumstance—he was led to believe the result would be that there would be an organization illegitimately to increase the remuneration they received for their services—a remuneration which, in his opinion, was based upon a just estimate. He did not deny that the class referred to by the hon. Baronet were entirely worthy of public confidence; but the conferring the franchise upon them would place them in a new position, and would introduce into public life new influences which might not be of a beneficial character. He trusted therefore that the Committee would not sanction the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sure that the light hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government had been animated by a sense of public duty in adopting the course which had been just announced. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was right or wrong in his opinions, he thought the Committee would feel any secondary motive that could have acted upon his mind would undoubtedly lead him to act in the sense of enfranchisement, and to give way to the primâ facie case which they must admit existed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in endeavouring to dissuade the Committee from deciding by a single vote a subject of this magnitude and complexity, and from changing the system which had hitherto prevailed in our revenue departments. Circumstances existed of so grave and peculiar a character that it was quite impossible to deal satisfactorily with this matter on a Motion like that brought forward by his hon. Friend. He must, however, guard himself against seeming to censure his hon. Friend, because he fully admitted that, when a very large measure of enfranchisement was proposed, there must be a tendency in the minds of all to abolish any remaining incapacities. But what was the case: One-eighth part of the revenue of every Gentleman in that House was not in reality his own, although it appeared to be so. It belonged to the Government, and the Government obtained it by channels very diversified and very difficult to keep in a state of purity and efficiency. The officers of the Revenue Department were the persons charged with this peculiar trust. They were appointed generally, and, indeed, almost universally, at the instance of Members of Parliament. If a system should be ever established, as possibly it might, under which the appointments should be completely

  1035
  detached from political influence, this question might be discussed much more freely than it could be at the present moment. At the commencement of their career nearly all these officers were under a kind of political influence; they then only attained the first step of the ladder and their subsequent advancement was a matter of infinite delicacy and difficulty. It was difficult even now to exclude political influences from promotion in the Revenue Departments. It was due to the late Lord Liverpool to say that he first placed promotion in the hands of the permanent heads of the departments. But still there was always a tendency to bring in that element; and it was a matter for most careful consideration whether, if this power was restored, they would be assured of the services of those gentlemen being performed with efficiency. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question. He was willing to admit that there might be a public inquiry. Their practice was not consistent, inasmuch as they excluded from the franchise at present a large proportion of those engaged in the public service. They excluded from the franchise the officers of the Post Office, as well as those engaged in the Inland Revenue, while those who were in the West-end Departments were not, he believed, disqualified. They did not withhold the franchise from persons employed in the offices of the Secretary of State, the Admiralty, and the War Department. It was worthy of grave consideration whether the disqualification which prevailed in respect to the Revenue Departments should be extended to those other officers, or whether such disqualifications might not be altogether dispensed with. There was another element to take into view—namely, the services of those who were not directly under the control of the Government, such as the police. He hoped, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that his hon. Friend would be content with the discussion, and refrain from pressing the subject at present on the Committee. If the question were to be raised at all, it ought to be after a careful preliminary inquiry. In that inquiry they might obtain evidence from the heads of departments as to what effect the enfranchisement of those gentlemen, would have upon the departments and their duties. Those departments were at present in a state of high efficiency. He did not believe there was
  1036
  a country on the face of the globe where the collection of such an enormous revenue was as honestly and ably performed as in this kingdom. He did not want the Committee to say that no such change as that proposed should be introduced; but only to observe that, before they approached that question, there ought to be a full inquiry into all the facts of the case.
  MR. MONKsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire should have advised the Committee to pause before they granted this slight concession to a large body of deserving men who were selected, for the most part, by a competitive examination, and on account of their general ability. He could not see that their being in a Government employment wa3 a reason for their exclusion from the franchise. If it were, the same reason would apply to all the officers of State, including even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he did not see why these gentlemen were not as much entitled to vote as the officers of the army and navy. He did not believe that the gentlemen to whom the clause referred exercised an undue influence on Members; but, if they did, why were they not as much entitled to do so as attorneys, who pressed Members to vote for the repeal of the Attorneys' Certificate Duty?
  Clause negatived.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the proposal next to be moved was of an interesting character, likely to lead to some discussion, and was to be proposed by a right hon. Gentleman of great eminence. He therefore moved at that hour (half-past eleven) that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was now the hour when, generally speaking, distinguished orators rose to address the House. Remembering the observations he ventured to make at the commencement of the evening, he thought the Committee might combine both objects, of proceeding with the Schedules and listening to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), with the attention to which they were always so justly entitled.
  Motion withdrawn.
  Mr. LOWE: I do not wish to ask the Committee to adjourn or to go on, but I really have no wish to delay the measure. I move that—

  1037
  "At any contested election for a county or borough represented by more than two Members, and having more than one seat vacant, every voter shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of vacant seats, and may give all such votes to one candidate, or may distribute them among the candidates as he thinks fit."
  I am afraid that I am about to add one more to the large number of unsuccessful attempts made during the course of the present measure to break into the monotonous nature of the franchise, to introduce some variety into it, and to give to the minority of a constituency an opportunity of being better heard at an election. I approach the subject with no great confidence of success, but I will lay the reasons for my proposal before the House as shortly as I can. One reason why I ask the favourable consideration of the House to the proposal is because this is the last opportunity for giving variety to the franchise. This is the last on the list. All our other arrows have been shot; not one remains in the quiver; so that if this does not hit, there will be nothing left but one simple uniform franchise to be entrusted to, and left in, the hands of the lowest class in society. I must not be understood as coming forward to argue for any protection for the minority; but I cannot allow that there is any right in the majority to coerce the minority. When we form an organized body, such as a constituency, convenience dictates that the majority should bind the minority. But between the members of the constituency there should be absolute equality; the majority should have nothing given to it because it is a majority; the minority should have nothing taken away from it because it is a minority. In the case of an election where there are two opposing candidates, or four candidates, two on each side, the voters give their votes equally to one side or other, and the candidates receiving the greater number of votes are elected. In that instance the majority gains nothing because it is a majority, and nothing is taken away from the minority because it is a minority. That is the type of a fair election. But go further, and take the case embraced by the clause I propose. Suppose that in a three-cornered borough there are three vacancies. How stands the case then? One side, knowing itself to be the majority, proposes three candidates. The other side, knowing that it is in the minority, propose only one candidate, hoping by split votes and other means to carry the election of that one. Thus, the members of the majority,
  1038
  bringing forward three candidates, have three separate votes each; the members of the minority, on the other hand, which bring forward only one candidate, lose two-thirds of their electoral power, because, being a minority, they bring forward only one candidate. Is this treating the majority and minority equally? I demand no protection for the minority; but I demand that a man should not be placed in a worse position because he is in the minority; that nothing should be taken from him, and that he should be treated on an equality with other voters. The only way of effecting this object is to give to each voter an equal number of votes independently of the use he may make of them. What we now say to a voter is—"You have a certain number of votes, but your power depends on the use you make of them. If you give them with the majority you have three votes; but if you go with the minority you have only one." Thus two-thirds of his power is taken away if he goes with the weaker side. These may seem obvious arguments, but I am not aware that this argument has ever been presented to the public before. There may be an answer to it, but I confess it commends itself to my mind, and appears to show that in seeking what I do, I am not asking the House to surround the minority with any artificial protection, but merely to concede to it simple justice; in the proposal I make I am not desiring to give the minority protection, but equality. Let each voter have an equal number of votes, not dependent on the use he makes of them; let him be at liberty to dispose of them as he likes. Suppose the usage to be the contrary way to the present; in the three-cornered constituency each elector would have three votes, and would be allowed to dispose of them as he wished. Suppose some hon. Gentleman should interpose and say that this ought not to be, I maintain that if the voter does not distribute, but consolidate, he should only have one vote. The present system works fairly where there is only one vacancy; but it does not work fairly where there is more than one vacancy. The tendency of the present system is to make that stronger which is already strong, and that weaker which is already weak. By an arbitrary and unreasonable rule it strengthens the majority. By the same arbitrary and unreasonable rule it weakens the minority. On abstract justice; therefore the present rule cannot be

  1039
  maintained. The proper way to alter it is to give each elector as many votes as there are vacancies, and leave him absolutely free to dispose of them as he pleases—to give all to one person—one to each of the three, or two to one and one to another. By that means you would be doing nothing unjust or unfair to the majority or to the minority. You would be merely putting them on a level, and leaving them on perfectly fair ground. That is the abstract argument. There are different ways by which the end might be accomplished; Some propose to give only a single vote to each elector; others recommend that when there are three candidates each elector shall have two votes, I prefer to give each elector three votes, and allow him to dispose of them as he pleases. The objection to the two first proposals is that they would operate in the way of disfranchisement, and would take away something people already possessed; because on the supposition that there are three candidates they have already three votes. The system I propose has greater flexibility and better adapts itself to the general purposes of elections. So much for the abstract right of the question. Now, secondly, as to its expediency; I do not put this proposal to the House so much as a means of balancing a party who is in the minority against that that is in the majority, or of compensating or redressing the inequality; because I am of opinion that the days of party are numbered. I do not believe you can, by any contrivance whatever, so manipulate matters that, with the franchise now really in the hands of the poorer class of householders, you can raise up any party for a moment successfully to resist the will of that class in whatever they may set their mind upon. That would be a delusion. The question has been ably discussed in the public press; there is nothing new to be said on it. I do not put this proposal forward with any such ambitious notion as that it will supply a curb to the excesses of democracy, still, I think it is one of no ordinary advantage. It will, at all events, procure some variety of Members, and will give some degree of representation, in danger of disappearing by the low level we have adopted. In a constituency such as I am supposing, those who can command one-third or one-fourth of the whole constituency will be able to return a Member. It will therefore have the advantage in a smaller degree of the measure advocated by my hon. Friend the
  1040
  Member for Westminster (Mr. Mill)—the plan of Mr. Hare—with the advantage that it must necessarily be a local one, not gathered from the four winds, but in the same electoral district. It would be a great advantage in a borough if all the property and intelligence combined together. With such influence as they could exert they might never be able to make head against the democracy you are creating; but with the greatest advantage to themselves and the nation they might return persons of a different stamp and class of character from that purely democratic class who will be returned in the greatest numbers—all much alike—as Virgil's heroes,
  "—Fortemque Gyan, fortemque Cloanthum."
  It would be "refreshing," as people say in novels, to have a little difference, even if the persons selected had not the courage or eccentricity to depart from the level way of treating matters characteristic of democracy; it would be an advantage to put such a thing in the power of the intelligence and property represented by the minority in a borough. We shall do wisely not to pass by an opportunity of infusing variety into the dead level of democracies. Changes are described in the most simple words as conversions of a minority into a majority. [An hon. MEMBER: As last year.] No, that was per satum. I do not want that. The point I want to put is that it should not be as it is in some degree now, and as it will be much more hereafter. Opinion may go on growing and growing in a particular direction; but things may be so manipulated that the majority will have all the power and the minority nothing. What I desire is that this process should be gradual, that if a particular class of views, as Free Trade or any other right principle, should attract the attention of, and gain more and more upon, the intelligent constituents; that they should have the opportunity to give to the candidate who expresses their views, two votes, to another one, and to pass by another. You will find that in this way opinion in constituencies will ripen. Opinion in this House will ripen to changes, and the House will become a more delicate reflex of the opinion of the constituencies. The existence of a such system of gradual growth, not only of opinion, but in the representation of opinion, will to a great extent prevent the necessity of external agitation, and be a great discouragement to it. There

  1041
  is nothing more worthy of the attention of statesmen in the new state of affairs than any thing which will have a tendency to prevent that violent oscillation from one side to another, which we now witness. What happens in the United States? The minority of thousands might as well not exist at all. It is absolutely ignored. Is this country, in like manner, to be formed into two hostile camps — debarred from each other in two solid and compact bodies? Or are we to have that shading off of opinion, that modulation of extremes, and mellowing and ripening of right principles, which are among the surest characteristics of a free country, the true secrets of political dynamics, and the true preservatives of a great nation? I say, first, then, that what I propose to the House is in itself just, equal, and fair, founded on no undue or unfair attempt to give a minority an advantage they are not entitled to exercise; and, secondly, that it is peculiarly applicable to the state of things on which we are entering. It appears, indeed, our only hope. Nothing remains behind. This is the last offer that can be made before you put it out of your power to do anything to remedy the violence of the changes you are making. Woe to us if we refuse it our thoughtful attention. I do not imagine that anything I can say will commend a matter at once so new, so abstract, and perhaps so difficult, certainly so contrary to all previous associations, to the favour of the House. But I trust that the House will, give it a fair and candid consideration, will have regard to the immense value of the result to be attained, and will not repudiate the means unless perfectly satisfied that they are not adequate to obtain it. It is no objection that the plan is new; I should not have proposed it if things had been left as they were. But we are about to enter upon a new and untried state of things, a state of things the effects of which in this country no one can predict; but the effect of which in all other countries where they exist, tend in the direction this change is calculated to remedy. I may justly add that the principle of the clause is large enough to include boroughs returning two Members as well as those which have three, and, if it were worth while, I am prepared to contend that upon abstract principle it ought to be applied to both classes of boroughs But I am not aiming at all I think advantageous, but at what is possible. I will not say how much I wish
  1042
  that I could express with more clearness and effect, my desire that the House will give this matter that careful consideration which will, I am sure, lead them to a right and sound conclusion.
  New Clause—
  (Power to distribute votes.) At any contested Election for a County or Borough represented by more than two Members, and having more than one seat vacant, every voter shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of vacant seats, and may give all such votes to one candidate, or may distribute them among the candidates as he thinks fit,—(Mr. Lowe,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that throughout the debates on the Reform Bill one thing had particularly struck him—namely, the disposition on the part of the House to reject anything novel in a rather unceremonious manner. He had observed extraordinary Toryism in that respect coming from quarters where he should have least expected it. The embodiment of that description of Toryism appeared to him to be found in the hon. Member for Birmingham. But he rejected the contribution of so-called Constitutionalism from that quarter. He was generally rather inclined to reject contributions to the Reform of the Constitution from the manufacturing districts; and when he saw the antipathy of the hon. Member for Birmingham to a measure of this kind, he was inclined to think there must be something good in it. After the very able and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, he should not detain the House at that hour, but he must express his opinion that this was a very grave moment in our political history, and that after what the House had already done, they ought to at least pause before they consigned the minority of political opinion in this country to extinction. Before they decided on such a course they ought to gravely consider the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The leader of the Opposition, for whose opinion he and every other Member of that House entertained the greatest respect, had said on a former occasion that he should like to hear this question discussed, in order that he might form an opinion on it. As it had now been regularly raised for the first time, he hoped it would receive a careful consideration, and with the view of securing for it such a consideration

  1043
  he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he felt as many hon. Members in that House must feel—that the great drawback to representing a large constituency, such as his, was that you did not represent it. The borough which he represented contained upwards of 26,000 voters, but of those scarcely more than 16,000 ever came to the poll. Why did not the remaining 10,000 come to the poll? Because they felt there was little use in their doing so, as there was little or no chance of their finding any one likely to represent them standing for that borough. Accordingly the political opinion of the great remainder who did not vote never found expression in their own borough. He was not departing from the question in illustrating the effect of the present system by showing how that system worked in his own borough. Whenever great questions arose in that House, the active portion of his constituency who refrained from voting for the reason he had stated disapproved of the course he took, and gave him constantly to understand that they objected to his principles and his conduct as M.P. for their borough. Of course he was glad of that, because his principles were of an opposite character to their; he did not represent them. But it was monstrous to say that they ought not to have a chance of having their opinions represented in some way. The present proposal afforded that chance. Some method of the kind proposed was the only way to give a representation to minorities and give them an active part in the political life of their country. He thought it was quite as important to rouse that portion of the community who had the franchise and did not exercise it into political activity, as to extend it to those who had not got it at present. He believed that the Englishman who did not take an interest in public affairs was, as a rule, a useless member of the community. If an Englishman did not take that interest by his nature, he required some outlet for his superfluous energy, and he was sure to throw a great amount of it into pursuits not beneficial to his country. If among the upper classes, he took to the turf, or game preserving, which ought to be an amusement, but of which he made a profession; if in the middle class he probably took to some form of money making; if in the lower class to gin drinking. It was monstrous for this
  1044
  House of all bodies to refuse to represent minorities. It was the regular practice in the House when it was decided to legislate on a subject to send it to a Committee composed, with the exception of the Chairman, of as many of the minority as of the majority. The House recognized in its own practice this very system of the representation of minorities. He had been told there were objections to this measure because it was a Conservative measure in disguise. He was not afraid of a Conservative measure in disguise, because the franchise part of the present measure was said to be a Conservative measure in disguise, and it was not a part that he at least was afraid of. But supposing it was a Conservative measure, he wanted to ask Gentlemen on this side of the House whether they had so little faith in their principles that they would not do a just thing for fear of the risk that the cumulative vote in these three-cornered constituencies would throw a few more votes on the other side of the House? Could they not believe that their principles would succeed whatever might be the change brought about by accepting this proposal? He did not think any man on the Liberal side need have so little faith in his principles as to fear either the franchise bestowed by the Bill or three-cornered constituencies. He believed that Liberal principles would go on and succeed until they became those on which this country would permanently be governed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne was correct in saying that this was the only chance the House would have during the progress of the Bill of giving any representation to minorities. He therefore hoped the House would consider the matter maturely before they threw away this last chance.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 88; Noes 213: Majority 125.
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again at Two of the clock To-morrow.

  BARRACK LANE, WINDSOR (RIGHT OF WAY) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Bill for extinguishing certain Rights of Way over and

  1045
  along Barrack Lane, in the borough of New Windsor, in the county of Berks, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN PAKINGTON and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 229.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Patriotic Fund* (201); Public Records (Ireland)* (202).
Second Reading—Morro Velho Marriages (182); Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt) (176); Black water Bridge* (178).
Committee—Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (175); Adjutants of Volunteers * (192).
Report—Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (175); Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act Amendment* (199); Adjutants of Volunteers* (192).
Third Reading—Court of Chancery (Officers)* (194).

MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Seeing the Lord Privy Seal in his place, I am anxious to ask him, Whether any news has been received by Her Majesty's Government of an authentic character respecting the statement that the Emperor Maximilian has been shot in Mexico?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Her Majesty's Government has received no official information on the subject. The only news we have had is that which appears in a second edition of The Times, in one of Reuter's telegrams, confirming the report.

GALWAY HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL.
(The Earl of Devon.)
GALWAY HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL.

  (No. 176.) SECOND READING.
  Moved, That the Order of the 3rd of May last be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, on the Ground of the Delay occasioned by lengthened Negotiations with a Creditor and Necessity of obtaining the Consent to the Measure of a Committee of the Grand Jury of the County of Galway.—(The Earl of Devon.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was reluctant to consent to the suspension of the Order. The Bill was a most extraordinary one, and the circumstances under which it was introduced were equally extraordinary. However, if it was desirable that the Bill should go on, he had no wish to raise any impediment on the ground of the delay that had taken place in the introduction of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DEVONthen moved the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to authorize the Commissioners of the Treasury to accept from the Galway Harbour Commissioners the sum of £10,000

  965
  as composition for a debt now due from the harbour of £21,000—the debt so compounded to be paid off in fifty years, by an annual payment or rent-charge of 4·0729 per cent. The Bill further authorized the Public Works Commissioners to lend to the Galway Harbour Commissioners the sum of £17,000 for the purpose of improving the harbour and constructing a graving dock which was much wanted. This debt was a first charge on the harbour rates and would have priority over the compounded debt due to the Treasury. There was further a judgment debt of £3,500 due to private individuals. The Bill directed that this debt should be converted into a terminable annuity, which was to be a subsequent charge to the two first-mentioned debts, and in the event of the harbour dues being insufficient to meet the payments, the deficiency was to be paid from the rateable property of the town of Galway.
  LORD TAUNTONwas understood to suggest that the Bill after it had been read the second time should be referred to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF DEVONhad no objection to the course, and suggested that Lord Taunton should be Chairman of the Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that as there was no one to oppose the Bill he did not see how it could be considered by a Select Committee. The question involved was one which could be decided in Committee of the Whole House as well as in a Select Committee. There was at present a debt due to the Government of £20,000, in addition to the debt of £5,000 due to Mr. Mullins, and these debts were to be compounded for. The harbour was unable to bear the charge upon its present debt. Yet it was now proposed that the Government should payoff the debt of Mr. Mullins, and advance £17,000 for the improvement of the harbour. That would make £22,000, and with the £10,000 that remained, £32,000, chargeable upon a port which could not meet the charges on a debt of £25,000. This appeared to be a very Irish arrangement altogether, and a measure of finance of which he did not quite understand.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, it must be remembered that the absence of a graving dock, the construction of which was one of the contemplated improvements, was the very reason why the harbour was less frequented than it
  966
  otherwise would be, and why it could not meet the charges upon its debt. At present all vessels had to be sent to Limerick or Liverpool for repairs.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed for To-Morrow.

  GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG—TREATY OF 1867—THE COLLECTIVE GUARANTEE.—QUESTION.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I rise, my Lords, for the purpose of asking Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I gave notice some days ago, and which has been inevitably postponed in consequence of the absence, through illness, of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, who has come down here to-day, I trust at no inconvenience to himself. I do not desire to challenge any convenient ambiguity in diplomatic instructions; but it is because there are certain words in the second article of the Treaty respecting the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which seem to me calculated to raise a doubt to disturb the public opinion of Europe, to destroy the pacific character of the Treaty, and to be irreconcilable with the declaration of the Foreign Minister in the House of Commons, that I venture to put this Question. When on the 7th of May last my Lord Stanley presided at the Conference of the Powers on this subject, he brought forward a proposal to the effect that the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg should be a neutral State, and that the contracting parties should engage to secure that neutrality. Now, this was a very solemn, and honourable engagement which we and the other parties to the Treaty were asked to enter into. The Prussian Government, however, was not content, but asked for something more, and the "something more" which they proposed was the sanction of the collective guarantee of the European Powers. That was therefore intended to be something different from, and an increase of, the former obligation which Lord Stanley had proposed. At first Lord Stanley objected to the new proposal; but after consultation with the Cabinet he agreed to it. Now, what is the practical effect of that guarantee to be when any necessity for action arises? Whether that action is to be of a material or a moral character must from the very nature of things depend on the circumstances which arise. On that point I do not desire that our obligations should be

  967
  more strictly defined than they are now. But the interpretation placed upon the Treaty the other day was to the effect that if any one of the signataries defied that Treaty and violated the neutrality of the State of Luxemburg, it would by that very act render the Treaty absolutely null, and discharge all the other parties from their obligations. Now, it is perfectly clear that the only parties against whom this Treaty was directed were signataries to it. It was not Spain, or Greece, or Denmark, or Sweden that were the objects of this Treaty as being likely to violate the neutrality of Luxemburg. The Duchy of Luxemburg has, on account of its peculiar local position, acquired an importance which its natural extent and character among the States of Europe would not justify. In the eyes of Prussia the neutrality of Luxemburg means the integrity of Belgium; while in the eyes of France the neutrality of Luxemburg means the integrity of Holland. Thus grave questions are involved in what is apparently a small and trivial matter. To use the expressive words of the Professor of International Law in the University of Oxford,
  "If the default of one of the parties to this Treaty does discharge all other parties from their obligations, then the sole case in which assistance can be invoked is a case in which that assistance is impossible."
  It appears to me that if the object of the Treaty is nullified by the very act to prevent which it was entered into, you convert into a vague ceremony what was intended to be a solemn act and a responsible obligation. And now one word on what passed in "another place" in reference to this subject. Lord Stanley stated that in assenting to the Treaty he had done so with more doubt and anxiety than he had ever felt on any public question. The weight of those words is to my mind very much increased by the character of the noble Lord, who is not a man to indulge in exaggerated statements or even in strong language—these are therefore very grave words. I believe that by the words of the Treaty the parties are bound to resist any aggression whether it proceeds from one of the signataries or not. If the aggressor is a signatary, he adds to the aggression a violation of the Treaty. Lord Stanley used the words "limited liability" in reference to this question; but I will leave it to your Lordships to say whether limited liability may not involve a very serious responsibility. The Question which I have
  968
  given notice to put to the noble Earl is the more important, because I am aware that there is political agitation going on both in France and Prussia with respect to this subject. It would be a most dangerous thing for any one in that or the other House of Parliament to give colour to that agitation, and I hope that no interpretation will be given to the Treaty which would convert a sense of security in Europe into one of confusion and alarm. I therefore ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What is the construction which Her Majesty's Government place on the words "collective guarantee" (garantie collective) in the Treaty of the 11th of May, 1867, relative to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I regret that in consequence of an attack of illness, from which I am still suffering slightly, I have been obliged to put the noble Lord to the inconvenience of postponing more than once a question to which he appears to attach considerable importance. In the first place, I may be permitted to say, although I am ready to repeat the explanation I have already given of this Treaty, but which does not appear to be satisfactory to the noble Lord, that, whatever the interpretation which I may put on particular words of the Treaty, or whatever the interpretation which Her Majesty's Government may put on it, such interpretation cannot affect the International Law by which the terms of all treaties are construed. I, for one, am very unwilling, as I always have been, to underrate or do away with any responsibility which this country may have incurred. Still less would it be my desire that we should shrink from carrying that responsibility out as far as the means of this country would go, and as far as we are bound by the terms of any treaty into which we may enter. In my reference to the Treaty brought under our notice by the noble Lord, I hope he will not understand me as speaking of moral obligations, but of the technical obligations imposed by the Treaty. To the latter only the noble Lord's question has reference, and to them alone shall I apply myself in my answer. I am not much skilled in the ways of diplomatists, but I believe that if there be one thing more clear than another it is the distinction between a collective guarantee and a separate and several guarantee. A several guarantee binds each of the parties to do its utmost individually to enforce the observance of the guarantee. A collective

  969
  guarantee is one which is binding on all the parties collectively; but which, if any difference of opinion should arise, no one of them can be called upon to take upon itself the task of vindication by force of arms. The guarantee is collective, and depends upon the union of all the parties signing it; and no one of those parties is bound to take upon itself the duty of enforcing the fulfilment of the guarantee. The noble Lord expressed some surprise that with my noble Relative's views of the limited nature of the guarantee contained in the Treaty of the 11th of May he should have said in "another place" that he never had consented to any measure with greater reluctance than that which he had felt in regard of the guarantee embodied in this Treaty. My Lords, I think it is not very difficult to see why my noble Relative should have entertained that reluctance. It was not till the first day of the meeting of the Conference my noble Relative had an opportunity of knowing the extent of the guarantee expected by Prussia; and what has passed this evening shows that he was not unreasonable in his apprehensions that, however cautious the wording of the guarantee might be, in the opinion of some we might be supposed to have entered into engagements more extensive than those which we had actually undertaken, and be by them held guilty of a breach of faith if we did not carry our responsibility to a greater extent than the terms of the Treaty warranted. I must now call your Lordships' attention to the precise circumstances under which this guarantee was asked for and given. It is quite true that, in the first place, Prussia laid down as one of the bases on which she would enter into the Conference that she should receive a European guarantee for the neutrality of Luxemburg. My noble Relative, in the project of a treaty which he prepared for the Conference, did not use the word "guarantee;" but in reference to the Article declaring that the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg should thenceforth form a perpetually independent State proposed the words "the high contracting parties engage to respect the principle of neutrality stipulated by the present Article." Prussia did not think that went far enough; for the Protocol states—
  "The Plenipotentiary of Prussia says that he has in general no objection to make to the project of treaty presented by Lord Stanley, but that he remarks in it a departure from the programme on the basis of which his Government had accepted the invitation to the Conference; that is to say,
  970
  the European guarantee of the neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg; that, however, as all the Powers represented in the Conference have admitted and accepted that programme, he thinks himself justified in hoping that this omission will be supplied in the discussion of Article II. The Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, the Netherlands, and Russia, confirm the statement of the Plenipotentiary of Prussia that the Powers had accepted as the basis of negotiation the neutrality of Luxemburg under a collective guarantee. Lord Stanley points out that in virtue of the Treaties of the 19th of April, 1839, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg is already placed under an European guarantee. As to the terms which, in the project of treaty which he has had the honour of communicating to the Conference, refer to the neutrality to be established for the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, they are identical with those which declare the neutrality of Belgium in Article VII. of the Annex to the treaty signed in London on the 19th of April, 1839, between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia on the one part, and the Netherlands on the other part. Count de Bernstorff points out that the Treaty of 1839, although it places the territory of Luxemburg under the guarantee of the Powers, does not guarantee its neutrality. Now, the difference between this guarantee and that given to Belgium is very important; and he expresses the hope of seeing the same guarantee given by the Powers to the neutrality of Luxemburg as is enjoyed by that of Belgium. It is thereupon agreed between the Plenipotentiaries to proceed to an examination of the project of treaty, article by article. To add at the end of the Article the words:—'That principle is and remains placed under the sanction of the collective (or common) guarantee of the Powers signing parties to the present treaty, with the exception of Belgium, which is itself a neutral State.' Baron de Brunnow says that he is authorized by his Court to assent entirely to the principle of placing the neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg under a collective guarantee. He hopes that this principle will be admitted and adopted unanimously as the best pledge that can be offered for the maintenance of peace in Europe. Count Apponyi declares that his Government has also accepted the guaranteed neutrality of Luxemburg as the basis of negotiation."
  And what does the Plenipotentiary for France say?—
  "Prince de la Tour d'Auvergne says that, as far as he is concerned, he has no special instructions respecting the question of a collective guarantee; but that he must agree that this guarantee has hitherto been put forward as the compliment of the neutralization of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg; and, although, in fact, the engagement which the Powers take to respect the neutrality of Luxemburg has, in his opinion, under the circumstances a value almost equal to that of a formal guarantee, he cannot deny that the Prussian Ambassador is justified in his observations."
  I wish the noble Lord, when in asking for an interpretation of the Treaty, had been kind enough to inform us what is his interpretation of the guarantee. I think it would be desirable to know what, in the view of the noble Lord, is the true signification

  971
  of a collective guarantee, signed by several Powers; because if, as seems to be the noble Lord's inference, each of the parties to such a guarantee is not only bound itself to respect the treaty, but also to enforce individually its maintenance by all the other Powers who were parties to the treaty, I think the French Plenipotentiary would hardly have said the two terms were so similar that one was nearly equal to the other. Let me give your Lordships one or two instances of separate guarantees and of collective guarantees. The first I will take is a very remarkable case—that with regard to the neutrality of Belgium. In the year 1831 a Conference of the five Great Powers laid down twenty-five Articles, which were to determine the relations between Belgium and Holland, and which were to form the basis of a treaty between those two countries. The Powers who were parties to that Conference of 1831 bound themselves to uphold, not collectively, but severally and individually, the integrity of the treaty. That was a separate and individual guarantee. But, notwithstanding, in 1832, when Belgium, who had not been put in possession of the territory assigned to her by that treaty, called on the Powers parties to the Conference to enforce her rights, Prussia, Russia, and Austria declined to interfere by force of arms for that purpose; while, on the other hand, France and England, taking a stricter view of the obligations imposed upon them by the treaty, proceeded to enforce it by combined naval and military operations. In the same treaty there was comprised a guarantee for the possession of Luxemburg by the King of Holland, not in his capacity as King of Holland, but as Grand Duke of Luxemburg. In 1839, after a treaty had been made between Belgium and Holland embodying the main provisions of the Treaty of 1831, a separate one was entered into between the five Powers and Belgium, in which the obligations of the former Treaty of 1831 were repeated and renewed, and the five Powers bound themselves separately to maintain the integrity of Belgium, its neutrality and independence. The Prussian Minister must have been perfectly well aware of the terms of that treaty by which the five Powers, acting individually, guaranteed the independence of Belgium; yet if he thought the one kind of guarantee equal to the other, I want to know why he should have studiously altered the words and asked not
  972
  for a separate and several guarantee, but for a collective guarantee by the Great Powers for the integrity and independence of Luxemburg? With regard to the difference between a collective and a several guarantee, I may refer to another case in illustration of what I have said. In 1856 an agreement was signed by seven great Powers — Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey—with regard to the independence of Turkey, and these are the terms in which that guarantee is given. The several Potentates—
  "Declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the public law and system (concert) of Europe. Their Majesties engage,"—and I wish you particularly to observe this—"each on his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest."
  The engagement "each on his part" and "guarantee in common" are precisely the terms introduced into the Treaty of May, 1867, on the request of the Prussian Minister, and the security his Government desired to obtain. Are these treaties, then, to be deemed binding on all the Powers, signataries of the treaty, not only individually to respect, but collectively, individually, and separately to guarantee and enforce the neutrality of Luxemburg? I think the answer to that question is given by a treaty signed only fifteen days after that from which I have just quoted; I refer to the tripartite treaty signed between Great Britain, Austria, and France, having for its object the very same purpose as the former treaty—the integrity and independence of the territories of Turkey. Now, if that was secured by the treaty among the seven Powers, signed only a fortnight before, and if that engagement was binding, as I understood the noble Lord contends, upon each of the Powers separately, I say there was no occasion for the second treaty whatever. The very existence of the second treaty admits the insufficiency of its predecessor, and is couched in these terms—
  "The high contracting parties guarantee, jointly and severally, the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, recorded in the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856."
  By this separate treaty the three Powers separately and individually guarantee the same thing which a fortnight before had

  973
  been collectively guaranteed by the seven Powers. The three Powers found it necessary to sign a treaty which should express an obligation upon each, because the previous treaty was not binding separately and severally upon all the signatory Powers. The treaty goes on to say—
  "Any infraction of the stipulations of the said treaty will be considered by the Powers signing the present treaty as casus belli. They will come to an understanding with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and will without delay determine among themselves as to the employment of their military and naval forces."
  It is impossible more clearly to appreciate the distinction between a collective guarantee and a several guarantee than by considering the cause, wording, and effect of these two treaties, signed within a fortnight of each other. If the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) is not satisfied with my view of this treaty—namely, that the integrity and neutrality of Luxemburg rests upon the collective voice and upon the honour of all the Powers who are signataries to it, I should wish that he gives us his interpretation of its effect, and to what extent it is binding upon us. I will put a case to him. Suppose that Prussia with a view of making war on France, or France with a view of making war upon Prussia, were to enter the territory of Luxemburg—thereby, of course, violating its neutrality by the mere passage of an army, for I am not dealing with the question of occupation or possession, but of violating the neutrality of Luxemburg by passing an army through it — does the noble Lord mean to say that all the guaranteeing Powers in this Treaty of 1867, or each singly, would be bound by the obligations thrown on them by this treaty to go to war against the Power—whichever it might be—which entered Luxemburg with an army? Would Prussia desire this interpretation of the treaty? Suppose, in anticipation of any invasion by France, Prussia thought it necessary to make defensive advances into Luxemburg, would Prussia contend that all the other Powers would be thereby bound to take part with France in a war against her for the purpose of vindicating the neutrality of Luxemburg? And supposing, in a case, that Russia and Austria held aloof from the fulfilment of their portion of the guarantee in the event of any case for interference arising, does the noble Lord for a moment contend that England—situated as she is, and absolutely unable to put a
  974
  sufficient military force on the Continent for preserving this neutrality—has contracted the obligation of enforcing the guarantee which she gave in common with all the other Powers of Europe? Such a construction is contrary to all the rules of interpretation, and far beyond what this country should undertake or carry through. Suppose, again, that France and Prussia, for the purpose of coming to a contest, should simultaneously violate the neutrality, in what position would the other Powers be? Should the remaining guarantors or England alone immediately begin a sort of triangular duel, to prevent the violation of the treaty by Powers who had already violated it? It is evident the conditions of the treaty must be construed with a regard to what is reasonable and practicable; and I say again that by a collective guarantee it is well understood that while in honour all the Powers who are parties to it severally engage to maintain, for their own part, a strict respect for the territory for which neutrality is guaranteed; and although, undoubtedly, any one Power has a perfect right to declare a casus belli if she think fit because of the violation of the guarantee, yet a single Power is not bound to take up the cudgels for all the other Powers with whom she gave a collective guarantee. I can give no further interpretation of the treaty than this—that as far as the honour of England is concerned she will be bound to respect the neutrality of Luxemburg; and I expect that all the other Powers will equally respect it; but she is not bound to take upon herself the Quixotic duty, in the case of a violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg by one of the other Powers, of interfering to prevent its violation — because we have only undertaken to guarantee it in common with all the other great Powers of Europe. The integrity of the neutrality of Luxemburg must not rest upon the force of arms of any particular one of the guaranteeing Powers; but upon the honour of all the guaranteeing Powers together, upon the general obligation taken in the face of Europe by all the signatary Powers; and if the neutrality should be violated by any one of them, then I say it is not a case of obligation, but a case of discretion with each of the other signatary Powers as to how far they should singly or collectively take upon themselves to vindicate the neutrality guaranteed.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think it

  975
  very unfortunate that in so short a time after a treaty has been signed there should be a discussion in Parliament as to its precise meaning, and as to how far England is bound by it. It is particularly unfortunate in this instance, because we know that the explanations given by the noble Lord, reported as they have been in the newspapers and otherwise, have created a very unpleasant feeling in Prussia, and that it is commonly said there that it is no use to sign a treaty with England, because England will find a means of escaping from the obligations imposed on her by it. That is a very unfortunate state of things; and I think it also very unnecessary to discuss with regard to the treaty, as the noble Earl has done, what this country is bound to do in a variety of supposed cases. It is hardly possible to suppose a case which shall be exactly what will occur, and I would much rather be contented with the arrangement made. I should have thought that the declaration on the part of all the Powers was sufficient security for the peace of Europe, and I could not be surprised that the French Ambassador should say, on the part of France, "We regard the engagement as very little more than a promise to respect the principles of neutrality as stipulated in the present treaty;" — because supposing all the powers to respect that principle of neutrality, or supposing France and Prussia to respect it, there is very little danger of interference being required. With regard to the technical interpretation of the treaty, I am inclined not to dispute that given by the noble Earl. There can be no better instance by which to interpret the treaty than that to which the noble Earl has referred. The treaty with regard to the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was, I remember, the result of discussions which took place at the time. The declaration of Russia always was that she was herself ready to respect the integrity of Turkey, and that she had no intention or wish to violate it; but that she was not inclined to agree to a stipulation that in case that integrity was violated by Persia or any other neighbouring Power to Turkey, Russia should be bound at once to interfere by force of arms to maintain the integrity of Turkey.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Will the noble Earl permit me to say that Russia's declaration was that she would not only for herself respect the integrity of Turkey,
  976
  but that she should join in a collective guarantee for that object, and that collective guarantee was drawn up in the precise terms introduced into this Treaty of 1856?
  EARL RUSSELL: It was for that reason that I said I am not disposed to deny the technical obligation as stated by the noble Earl. The Government of Russia declared, no doubt, that she agreed to a collective guarantee in the form proposed, and that she did not feel bound by that guarantee to interfere by force of arms if Turkey should be attacked. But I think the noble Earl did much in the early part of his statement to do away with any doubts or fears we might before have entertained upon the subject. The noble Earl seemed to imply that because there was no individual guarantee, there was no individual obligation; but he considered that a moral obligation would rest upon this country which might have to be met. Now, with regard to this it strikes me that if there is a moral obligation, that moral obligation must entirely depend for its execution upon the circumstances which at any future time may exist. If one of those two Powers, France or Prussia, were to violate the neutrality of Luxemburg, and the Power which objected and protested against that violation were to appeal to the other Powers, I should myself consider that there would be a moral obligation upon those Powers to call upon the Power so violating the neutrality to withdraw from its position, and to enforce that appeal if necessary by resorting to arms. That appears to be the meaning of a moral obligation, and that such is the meaning is, I think, obvious from the circumstances referred to by my noble Friend (Lord Houghton). I understand that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated in the other House that it was with the greatest doubt, hesitation, and reluctance that he acceded to the proposal of the Prussian Government. The Prussian Government were not content with the proposal originally made, and insisted with great pertinacity on the collective guarantee, and it was upon these representations that Lord Stanley, with much hesitation, agreed to this collective guarantee. Yet for some time we have been told, this House has been told, and Europe has been told, that this article, which was demanded with so much pertinacity by one Government, and assented to with, so much reluctance by another, was no more than waste paper, and that if one of these Powers violated

  977
  this neutrality it was immediately at an end. If this were all, the article would be something less than the engagement respecting the neutrality of the Duchy that already existed. I expect and hope, that the article may be respected, and that the stipulations will be observed by all the parties to the treaty. I do not myself believe that either France or Prussia have any intention of violating their engagements with regard to Luxemburg; but I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if this country were to be led into a mistaken notion of the nature of the obligation incurred under the treaty, and thus be led so to act as to create the impression that we were willing to incur obligations without the intention of fulfilling them when the time arrived for our so doing, I hope that no such occasion may arise; but if it does arise, I trust that whatever may at the time be found to be the moral obligation of this country will be punctually and faithfully performed.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the term, a "collective guarantee," appeared to be a misnomer for the treaty to which we had recently been parties. From what had been stated it did not seem to be anything more than an honourable arrangement by which each Power was bound by its own honour to respect its stipulations, but was bound in no other way. He trusted that the construction put upon the treaty by his noble Friend (Earl Russell) was not the one put upon it by the Prime Minister, and that we had not really incurred any such moral obligation as that to which his noble Friend had alluded.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEaddressed a few observations to the House which were inaudible.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the answer which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had given some few weeks since to a Question which he had put upon the Paper referring to this subject had created some sensation. The noble Earl, in answering his Question, had not referred to what would have to be done supposing the treaty were violated by one of the contracting Powers, and the remainder called conjointly upon England to fulfil the stipulations entered into. In that case he (the Duke of Argyll) believed that the natural interpretation of the treaty would be that we were not only morally, but also legally bound to act with the other Powers. That was not the interpretation put upon
  978
  it by the Government, and that was so far satisfactory, because they hoped that the present Government might never be called upon to take action in any way in consequence of the treaty; but we had no security that any future Administration would put the same interpretation upon it—they would, of course, put their own interpretation upon it, and act as circumstances required.
  EARL GREYthought that these discussions were very greatly to be regretted. He could only express a hope that after the explanation which had been given by the noble Earl at the head of the Government the subject would not be pressed any further, because he felt persuaded that these constant discussions were calculated to do harm, and could only lead to difficulty and misunderstanding.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that guarantees seldom led to serious consequences where there was perfect good faith and good-will on all sides; but he protested against the House discussing a question of the breach of a guarantee until a breach appeared likely to take place. He was quite certain that in case of the treaty being in danger, there would be a Conference of all the parties to the treaty, and as the consequences of Austria not agreeing to a Conference had been so serious to her, and to many States of Germany, and aggression had been justified on the ground of the refusal to join one, he believed that all would prefer a Conference to disunion. He thought the guarantee perfectly safe, and believed that it was as advantageous to Holland as in the case of the Quadruple Alliance, in which the contracting parties bound themselves to "protect and guarantee all the dominions, jurisdictions, &c., which the Lords, the States-General, possessed against all persons whatsoever."
  LORD HOUGHTON, in reply, thought it would be exceedingly presumptuous in him to accept the challenge of the noble Earl opposite and place his interpretation on the treaty, and the guarantee entered into under it. Much must, of course, be left to the good sense and good feeling of the Powers of Europe; but he accepted the interpretation of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) and of the noble Duke who followed him—that if the neutrality of Luxemburg was invaded by one of the signataries to the treaty, and we were called upon by the other signataries to cease amicable relations with the aggressor, we should be bound in honour to answer that

  979
  appeal. That, he believed, was the sense in which, in this country and abroad, the treaty would be generally understood.

  MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.—QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELL: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite, Whether he has received any further information as to the reported execution of the Emperor Maximilian, and whether it is intended to postpone the Review appointed for to-morrow?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: When I came down to the House this evening there had not been received by the Foreign Office any authentic information with regard to the fate of the Emperor Maximilian; but from the accounts which have reached us from every quarter, I am sorry to say there is hardly any ground for the hope that that catastrophe has been avoided. I am afraid there is too much reason to suppose that the life of the Emperor Maximilian has been taken. The circumstances, to say the least of it, are so doubtful, and the probability that this crime has been committed is so great, that Her Majesty thinks that it would not be right—indeed, that it would hardly be decent—to proceed to hold the Review to-morow. Consequently Her Majesty, prompted by her own feelings, and out of respect also to the feelings of those connected by relationship with the Emperor Maximilian, has determined to postpone the Review. I trust, however, that it will not be postponed for any lengthened period. Her Majesty is well aware of the disappointment which must be felt by so many persons owing to the postponement at the last moment of a display which would have given universal gratification, and I trust that at no lengthened period the Review, which has not been abandoned, but only postponed, will be held.

  PATRIOTIC FUND BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make better Provision for the Administration of the Patriotic Fund—Was presented by The Earl of LONGFORD; read 1a. (No. 201.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.