Sitting of 8 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Special and Common Juries Committee (425).
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolution in Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue Acts.
Ordered—Galashiels Jurisdiction*; Turnpike Acts Continuance*; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.*
First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [232]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [233]; Galashiels Jurisdiction* [234]; Court of Chancery (Officers)* [235].
Second Reading — Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension* [227]; Barrack Lane, Windsor (Right of Way)* [229].
Special Report of Select Committee—On Game Preservation (Scotland) and Game Laws (Scotland). (No. 426).
Committee—Representation of the People [79] [R.P.]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland) (re-comm.) [248] [R.P.]; Naval Stores* [215]; Chatham and Sheerness Magistrate* [211].
Report—Game Laws (Scotland)* [231]; Game Preservation (Scotland)* [65]; Naval Stores* [215]; Chatham and Sheerness Magistrate* [211].
Considered as amended—Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* [206].
Third Reading—Lunacy (Scotland)* [219], and passed.

BROADMOOR CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
MR. FLOYERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government, as stated in the last Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, that no persons becoming insane while under sentence of imprisonment, except for terms of penal servitude, shall be admitted into the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Broadmoor; but that such prisoners are to be confined in the county asylums, however dangerous their state or exceptional the circumstances relating to the commission of their crime may be?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the classes of lunatics sent to Broadmoor were those acquitted of offences on the ground of insanity, those found insane on arraignment, and those who became insane during penal servitude. Those classes fully occupied Broadmoor, so that it was necessary that those who were sentenced to imprisonment should be confined elsewhere. When their terms of imprisonment expired they naturally fell into the class of pauper lunatics, and were sent to the County Asylums, as pauper lunatics would be.

FOREIGN POSTAL CONVENTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have considered the policy of extending the system of cheap postage to all Foreign and friendly Governments willing to reciprocate in this convenience, and to bear their proportion of the cost of the same; and, whether any measures are being taken for such an arrangement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The important subject upon which the hon. Gentleman has asked a Question has much engaged the attention of the Government and of their predecessors. Within these few weeks we have signed a postal convention with the United States, under which after the 1st of January the postage between the two countries will be reduced from 1s. to 6d. for each half-ounce letter. I may also say that of the numerous proposals made for the reduction of foreign postage the vast majority have emanated from this country, and there has been no proposal

  1187
  made upon a tolerably fair basis that has ever been refused by us. Negotiations with Peru, Chili, and other Western States of America are at this moment going on with the object of reducing the postage, but I cannot say that anything very definite has been concluded in these cases. Within the last two or three years the postage between this country and Sweden has been reduced from 11 d. to 6d., with Denmark from 8d. to 4d., and with Holland from 8d. to 3d. That will show that the subject has very much engaged the attention of Government, and there are at this moment before us, and under the consideration of other Governments, proposals which may lead to still more extensive results.

SCHOOL BUILDING GRANTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, What is the amount of the money grants given in aid of the building of Schools in England and Wales in the years 1863, 1864, 1865, and 1866; if Messrs. Clutton, surveyors, received a percentage on the amount granted; and, whether the payments made to them were in full, and if not, what is now the balance due to them?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the building grants in England and Wales made by the Education Department were—in 1863, £38,900; in 1864, £27,329; in 1865, £17,759; and in 1866, £23,250. The Messrs. Clutton were not officially known to the Department, as they never had any account with them, nor had they ever transacted any business for the Department. They were well-known surveyors, and had, he believed, been employed by other Departments.

STORM WARNINGS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, What interpretation is to be put upon the Letter dated 8th June, and addressed to him, and signed Robert H. Scott, Director of the Scientific Committee of the Royal Society, the first paragraph of which absolutely refuses to renew "storm warnings," while the fifth paragraph offers to send a "storm warning" provided the local authorities who ask for a warning will pay half the expense of the telegraph?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: The hon. and gallant Officer does not quote the Letter quite accurately. There is no inconsistency in the two paragraphs. In the first the Committee decline to transmit "what have been called storm warnings." In the fifth they offer to communicate "information." They decline to prognosticate what will be the weather to-morrow or next day, but are willing to send telegraphic information of what the weather actually is in any particular place. For instance, they will telegraph to Aberdeen that a gale is blowing from the S. W. at Penzance, but they will not say that it may be expected to blow the day after to-morrow at Aberdeen. The gallant Officer must remember that when these predictions were made there was frequent complaint of their inaccuracy. In the last debate about them in this House, in July, 1864, they were stated by one hon. Member to be "twice wrong for once right;" and another hon. Member said that, "they might be read a hundred different ways," and that the only thing which prevented their misleading the public was that the public paid no attention to them.

CASE OF THE "ARKADI."

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be true that a Greek blockade runner called the Arkadi, fired into a Turkish cruizer, killing and wounding several of her crew, and seriously damaging the vessel; whether, if such be the case, the right of blockade runners to be armed as vessels of war and to commit acts of war is recognized by International Law; and, if not, whether the act committed by the Arkadi was not an act of piracy; and, whether the Powers under whose protection Greece has been placed by Treaty are prepared to support the Turkish Government in demanding reparation from Greece, from whose ports the Arkadi sailed, and into which she returned after committing this act of piracy?
  LORD STANLEY: I believe the statement which the hon. Gentleman has embodied in his Question to be substantially accurate, but all the Papers relating to the transaction have been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and since the hon. Member's Notice has been given I have not been able to examine them. I cannot therefore speak with certainty as to the

  1189
  facts. Until I receive from the Law officers a Report on the subject I should not like to commit myself to an opinion as to the extent to which (if at all) International Law has been violated. As to the last part of the Question I cannot undertake to say what will be done by the other protecting Powers of Greece; but, looking to all the circumstances, I think it very doubtful whether an unanimous expression of opinion could be obtained from them on the subject.

IRELAND—CARLOW LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COGANsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has lately nominated a person to fill the office of clerk and storekeeper in the district Lunatic Asylum at Carlow, notwithstanding that another person had been appointed to the office by the resident Medical Superintendent, with the sanction of the Local Board of Governors, and such appointment had been duly notified to the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland; and, if so, on what grounds the practice which has hitherto prevailed of such an appointment being left in the hands of the Local Board has been departed from in this case; and, whether any decision has been come to on the remonstrance of the Board of Governors against this, as they allege, irregular appointment?
  LORD NAASsaid, it was not true that a person had been appointed in the manner described by the hon. Member. The medical superintendent had, when announcing the death of the late chief clerk and storekeeper, merely said he had appointed his son pro tempore. In the meanwhile the hon. Member for Carlow recommended another person, who was appointed after inquiry had been made as to his competency. Several appointments of this kind had been made by the present and previous Governments, and no objections had been raised. He thought it, however, desirable to clear up the matter, and he proposed that night to introduce a Bill which would give the Boards of Governors of lunatic asylums the absolute appointment of all officers with the exception of the medical superintendent and those under him. In order to prevent injustice the existing appointments would be allowed to stand.
  MR. COGANasked, Whether the noble Lord had any objection to lay the Correspondence relating to the matter before the House?
  LORD NAASsaid, he was not aware that there was any correspondence, but he would answer the Question to-morrow.

NAVY—DOCKYARD ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the Navy Dockyard and Stock Valuation and Expenditure on Ships' Accounts for the year ending the 31st March 1866, will be laid upon the table of the House, in continuation of those for the year ending 31st March 1865, which were laid upon the table of the House on the 16th February 1866; and, when the Navy Dockyard and Steam Factories Accounts for the year ending 31st March 1866, will be laid upon the table of the House, in continuation of those for the year ending the 31st March 1865, which were laid upon the table of the House on the 16th February 1866?
  MR. CORRYsaid, that the Returns were being prepared in a more complete form than last year, partly in consequence of objections made to the old form by the hon. Gentleman himself. This had occasioned considerable delay, but a portion of the Returns referred to in the Question were presented the other day, and he hoped to be able to lay the remainder on the table before long.

POST OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware of the exceptional inconvenience caused by the Post Office arrangements in the populous districts near the boundary of the twelve-mile circle of the metropolis, which are the only places in England in which letters must be posted early on Saturday evening in order to leave London by the morning mails of Monday—whether it would not be practicable to establish at these offices an early collection for the morning mails, at least on Mondays; and, for what reason the usual information regarding the northeastern district of the metropolis has been excluded from recent editions of the British Postal Guide?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he understood the hon. Member to mean by "places near the boundary" places immediately within the boundary, and there the inconvenience to which he referred resulted from geographical position, for there was no Sunday postal service in the metropolitan districts. If the accommodation asked for were provided the Post Office would either have to be opened on Sunday, or the officials would have to be at work at about two or three o'clock on Monday morning. Exceptions to the rule were made in certain cases where there was a strong wish on the part of the inhabitants; and if the hon. Member would confer with him he would see if anything could be done in the matter. With regard to the second part of the Question, there had been an amalgamation of certain districts, and he believed the whole of the information was given in the Postal Guide.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS TO HOUNSLOW.—QUESTION.
MR. CARINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Cavalry Regiments who marched from Aldershot to Hounslow to take part in the intended Review were left in camp entirely without rations until the following morning?
VISCOUNT CURZONsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it is true that troops who started from Aldershot early in the morning, and arrived at Hounslow at between one and two, did not receive their rations till about four or five in the afternoon?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was happy to say the case was not quite so bad as might be inferred from the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Carington's) Question. The troops who arrived on that day were not left in camp without rations till the following morning; but he was afraid—and that answer would apply to the inquiry of the noble Lord—that troops who arrived at Hounslow from Aldershot between eight and nine in the morning did not receive any rations till four o'clock in the afternoon. There appeared to have been great want of care in some quarter. They were now endeavouring, but as yet had been unable, to ascertain the whole of the facts. If the hon. Member liked to repeat his Question on a future day there should be no concealment in the matter.

INDIA—INDIAN RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
MR. FINLAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India the amount of Guaranteed Capital, in addition to the sum already announced, which it is proposed to raise for Railway Works in India during the present year?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there would be no capital required, except what had already been mentioned in the Report on these railways, which had been presented to the House. He believed that the total amount which would be required to be raised in the year 1867–8 to meet current expenditure, pay off debt due to the Government, and leave a small balance in hand, would be between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000.

FEVER IN THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is aware of the extraordinary mortality caused by fever in the Island of Mauritius during the present year; can he say whether it is true that the deaths have exceeded 30,000, out of a population of about 340,000 persons; and that the deaths in the city of Port Louis in the month of April last exceeded 6,000 out of a population estimated at 80,000; has he any information whether the virulence of the fever has abated or not; and, does he not think that something is due by way of assistance to the large number of persons who have been left destitute by this extraordinary and almost unprecedented calamity?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the mortality from fever in this colony had unhappily been very great, though not quite so great—as far as the information at the Colonial Office went—as the hon. Gentleman supposed. The hon. Gentleman supposed that upwards of 30,000 persons had died from fever; but that was the total amount of the mortality of the island during the present year. At the same time, according to the information at the Colonial Office, up to the 2nd of May, there were 17,000 deaths from fever, 10,000 of them occurring at Port Louis alone; and he was afraid that the latest intelligence from the island showed no abatement of the scourge. At the commencement of the cool season it was hoped that a change for the better would take place. Already a private subscription had been started in the City for

  1193
  the relief of the distress occasioned by the fever, and the Colonial Office had sent medicines for the use of the sick. The Government had no information as to the extent of the distress, so as to be able to judge whether a contribution from the public funds—for which there was no precedent, except in certain cases of hurricanes in the West Indies—was necessary.

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 5.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to move a new clause which had for its object the extension of the limits within which an elector for the City of London might reside, while retaining his right to vote. Prior to the Reform Act every voter for a borough was entitled to vote for that borough without reference to his place of residence. When, however, that Act was passing through Parliament a clause was introduced limiting the privilege of voting to those who lived in, or within seven miles of, the borough. The object of that clause was twofold—to prevent what might have been the undue extension of the privilege in the case of freemen, and to compel persons claiming to vote to live sufficiently near to take part in the performance of the various duties attaching to citizenship, such as serving on juries and filling certain parochial offices. Since 1832 a very large proportion of those who were engaged in the City in the daytime were enabled to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the railway system to reside at a distance of fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five miles from their places of business. They were, indeed, driven to do so. He might also observe—and he was sure he would be borne out in the statement by the authority of his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), than whom no one was more competent to form an opinion on the subject—that the value of property in the City had, since the time of the passing of the Reform Act, increased at least four or five-fold. He knew of one instance in which a place of business in the vicinity of the Royal Exchange, which originally let for a sum of £80 a year, had risen to
  1194
  the improved rent of £500, and as leases fell in, much larger rents had to be paid for renewals. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool a few nights ago that the population of the City hardly exceeded 100,000. That, however, was simply the result of the Census as taken at midnight, when seven-eighths of its ordinary inhabitants during the day were absent. He might call the attention of the Committee to a very instructive work which had recently been circulated by the Chamberlain of the City, entitled A Statistical Vindication of the City of London, from which he found that there were 3,297 different firms carrying on the business of brokers there, for which they had to take out a licence, it being calculated that there were two or three persons in each, thus making the total number of about 8,000 carrying on that particular business. Out of that number it appeared that no more than thirty-three resided within the limits of the City. It was not right that so large a proportion of men, who must be regarded as constituting a specially good class of voters, should be excluded from the franchise because they were compelled to reside beyond seven miles from the City, to which they came day after day to prosecute their business, doing little more than sleeping and eating their breakfasts at their homes. The constituency of the City of London amounted in 1832 to 18,584. In 1852 the number was as high as 20,728, but since that time, as railways increased, and property was set apart for the construction of railway stations, and rents had risen, the number had decreased. The actual number of the persons now on the register, deducting doubles, was 15,500, so that the constituency which had greatly increased in wealth and prosperity, was gradually diminishing in numbers. It was true that those voters who resided at a distance had a vote for the county; but on mercantile matters they consulted the City Members. They were what might be called a "good" sort of voters, because they could afford to live at a distance from their business. It was advisable to take means for keeping up the numbers of a constituency which was now decreasing, but which paid for income tax more than all the rest of the metropolis. The radius which he now proposed to adopt would include Gravesend, Sevenoaks, Reigate, Egham, Windsor, Welwyn, and Ingatestone. He had been

  1195
  asked why Brighton was not included; but he did not think that the number of City electors residing there was sufficiently large to justify a proposal for their being included. The limit of twenty-five miles, to which he now proposed to extend the radius within which qualified persons residing might vote for the City of London, would comprise all the principal places to which people in the City went after the conclusion of their business, with the exception of Guildford and Chelmsford, which were beyond the distance of twenty-five miles. He confined his proposal to the City of London, because he was not so well acquainted with the circumstances of other places; but it would be in the power of the Committee, if they thought fit, to strike out the words restricting the operation of the clause to the City of London, and to extend it to such towns as Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow. He moved the following clause:—
  "That so much of the twenty-seventh and thirty-second sections of the Act of the second William the Fourth, chapter forty-five, and of the seventy-ninth section of the Act of the sixth and Seventh of Victoria, chapter eighteen, as relates to the residence of electors within seven miles of any City or Borough shall be repealed, in respect to electors otherwise qualified to be registered and to vote for Members to serve in Parliament for the City of London: Provided always, That no person shall be registered as an elector for the said City unless he shall have resided for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July in any year, nor to be entitled to vote at any Election for the said City, unless he shall have ever since the last day of July in the year in which his name was inserted in the register then in force have resided, and at the time of voting shall have continued to reside within the said City, or within twenty-five miles thereof, or any part thereof."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  On Question, "That the Clause be read the second time,"
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the circumstances of the City of London differed from those of other towns, for in no city was so large an area occupied by warehouses and places required for the conduct of business as in the City of London. He supported the clause, for it would be an anomaly if the merchant princes of London should be debarred, in consequence of the enormous increase of their transactions depriving them of residences in the City—those residences and the ground on which they stood being now required for offices
  1196
  and warehouses—from voting for the representatives of the world's centre of commerce.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he wished to make an addition to what he had already stated. With respect to the number of annual tickets taken by persons who resided more than seven miles from the City, he was informed that the number was about 13,500. That statement was founded upon a return from the principal railway companies, though there was one company from which he had not received a return. He did not say that the whole of this number was to be counted; but, probably, from 7,000 to 8,000 of these tickets were taken by persons who came up day by day to the City for the transaction of business.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend, and though that was not the time to go into a detailed explanation of his proposal, he wished to advert to the effect of repealing that clause of the Reform Act of 1832 which related to the rights of the occupiers of premises for which they paid rates, and to the continuance of the seven miles radius. In 1832 the matter of distance stood upon a very different footing from that which it now occupied. No doubt in 1832 the reasonable distance within which it was supposed that gentlemen carrying on business in the great mercantile towns would reside would be about seven miles, or an easy drive. Circumstances had since considerably changed, not only as regarded London, but Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, and other great commercial and manufacturing towns. Persons were now enabled to reside at a considerable distance from their places of business, and though it might, therefore, be desirable to extend the area of residence, the difficulty was to fix any precise limit. Why should they take twenty-five rather than thirty miles, or even a greater distance? [Mr. CRAWFORD: Twenty-five miles is an hour's ride.] Fifty miles might also be an hour's journey by railway. The Amendment of which he had given notice was limited to the 27th section of the Reform Act, the principle of which was to give to every person a vote who occupied premises of whatever character provided they were of the value of £10, and paid all rates in respect of those premises. It was suggested that it was not reasonable that they should require residence in respect of those occupiers who

  1197
  paid rates, and consequently the Reform Act fixed the limit of seven miles. For the very reason therefore that seven miles was taken then, there should be no limit in the present day, for if they fixed thirty or even fifty miles they might not take in all whom they wanted to include. He trusted the Committee would read the clause a second time in order that he might have the opportunity of moving his Amendment, the object of which was to extend its principle to all great towns returning Members, or any that might be thought proper. Thus justice would be done to the best class of voters.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the second reading of the clause was not opposed, it would at once be better to affirm the principle of the clause, and proceed with the Amendments to it. It was his intention to support the clause.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was rather surprised at the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for the proposal really was to repeal one of the most important provisions of the Reform Act. One of the greatest evils that that Act was intended to cure was that of having a large number of non-resident borough voters, and the present clause, carried to its logical conclusion, would re-introduce that evil. The gentlemen on whose behalf it was proposed had no great grievance to complain of, because the occupation county franchise would give them all county votes. They took no active part in the management of the affairs of the City, they formed no part of the municipal government, and they were not citizens in the old-fashioned sense of the term. If for their convenience they came to London for a few hours a day that gave them no title to vote for the City. It was distinctly enacted by the Bill that occupiers of shops and places of business below £10 were not to have votes, so that this clause would introduce an invidious distinction in favour of gentlemen who occupied houses of business within the City above £10.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that these Gentleman rested their case principally upon the fact that they were liable to serve on juries, and as sheriffs, and were bound to perform all the duties of citizens. It was not correct to say that they merely spent a few hours in town, for they really belonged to the City, and merely slept a few hours in the country. All their interests and thoughts were identified with
  1198
  the City, and in his opinion the limit of twenty-five miles ought to be adhered to, in order to insure that connection. They were not non-resident in any sense, because they occupied premises in the City to which they went every day. Though he would have no objection to extend the principle to voters below £10, he might mention that there were only 130 houses in the City which would in that way be included.
  MR. BARNETTsaid, he hoped the clause would be adopted. The present radius excluded men who were in every way well qualified to exercise the franchise. The habits of life and the mode of doing business had entirely changed since the time of the Reform Act; and it was not fair to draw conclusions from what existed at that time.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he could not see a single reason in favour of this clause which did not apply a multo fortiori to every borough in the kingdom.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he was not at all surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of this clause, for it was entirely in accordance with the principle of the Bill. The merchants and traders of the City were a class of voters that it was desirable to enfranchise as widely as possible. At one time, two of his partners were disqualified from exercising the franchise owing to the fact of their residence being beyond the seven miles radius, while he was invested with a vote because he resided within the circle. Under the present system, some of the best members of the constituency were disqualified from voting. If similar inconvenience was felt in other great towns it ought to be remedied.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would support the clause, if only for the reason that these gentlemen were liable to serve on Middlesex juries.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the same reason would apply to every other borough in the kingdom. The City of London was the only place in England where the occupants were not called upon to undertake municipal functions. The merchants and bankers of the City of London had obtained for themselves a law by which they were exempt, unless they themselves chose, from being compelled to accept any kind of municipal or civic office in the City. Therefore they had less connection with the district than any other occupant would have in any other town in respect

  1199
  to which they might be placed on the register. If they adopted this principle as regarded London, they ought to extend it to every other town in the kingdom.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that whereas hitherto municipal offices had been confined to freemen, an Act had been passed this Session making eligible all persons on the Parliamentary register. He supported the clause on the ground that the citizens of London were exceptionally situated, not being able to get out into the country without exceeding the limit of seven miles. This was not the case with the boroughs which surrounded the City.
  MR. KENNARDsaid, that, living beyond the seven miles limit, he was always, until he became a Member of the House, deprived of his City vote, although he paid the poor rates, served the office of sheriff, and fulfilled all the duties of a citizen.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read the second time.
  MR. JAMES, who had given notice of the following Amendments: — Line 1, leave out "that." Same line, leave out "and thirty-second sections," and after "twenty-seventh" insert "section." Line 2, leave out from "forty-five" to end of clause, and insert—
  "As requires that no person shall be registered as an elector in any year in respect of his occupation of premises within any city or borough, or place sharing in the election for a city or borough, unless he shall have resided for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July in such year in the city or borough, or place sharing in the election for a city or borough, in respect of which he shall be entitled to a vote, or within seven miles thereof, or of any part thereof, is hereby repealed."
  He said that the adoption of that proposal would have an excellent effect, for it would place on the registers of towns and boroughs men having a bonâ fide interest in the borough and residing therein. If his first Amendment were adopted, he would move subsequent words, which would prevent any person voting who had not for twelve months previous to his application for the franchise carried on a bonâ fide business in the borough. It was not desirable to admit freemen living at a distance, who might have no interest in the place.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed to the Amendment limiting the clause to occupiers, and not including freemen. He could not, how-
  1200
  ever accede to another Amendment of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice, extending the clause to all boroughs, for he thought the case of London was quite exceptional, and that the principle should not be carried further.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he hoped the liverymen would be admitted to the benefit of the clause, they being selected from the freemen, and being one of the most ancient classes of the constituency. Out of 17,300 persons on the register 5,500 were freemen. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were a Conservative body, no Liberal candidate within his recollection having obtained the votes of half their number. He could not see why they should be put on a different footing from the householders and occupiers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JAMESmoved the second part of his Amendment with the view of applying the clause to all the boroughs in the kingdom.
  MR. PIMsaid, he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Manchester (Mr. James). If a man, carrying on business in London, lived at Windsor, he would, according to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, have a vote for London. Why should not a man who slept in London and carried on his business at Windsor have a vote for the latter place? He objected to the limitation of twenty-five miles. If three partners lived at St. John's Wood, Windsor, and Brighton, the third would be excluded from the franchise.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that should his clause be carried, he would propose such additional words as would prevent any one taking a vote under it unless he was bona fide carrying on business in the city or borough he sought to obtain a vote in. He moved his third Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the words "sixth and seventh of Victoria" were amended in order to substitute "reign of Her present Majesty."
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill,"
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished that some Member of the Government would state the principle on which the words "twenty-five miles" were inserted in the clause. No doubt the local situation of the City of London was exceptional, inas-

  1201
  much as it was surrounded by other boroughs. It would be reasonable to make the seven miles begin from the outside of those boroughs. The old radius of seven miles had, however, been extended to twenty-five miles for electors of the City, and he had heard nothing to justify that distance. It seemed a mere arbitrary line.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that seven miles allowed in the Bill of 1832 for the distance from the voter's residence to the City, used to represent an hour's journey. That time in railway travelling now represented twenty-five miles. It was found, moreover, that a radius of twenty-five miles included almost all the places frequented by persons having business in the City of London, except Brighton. It included, for example, Gravesend, Sevenoaks, Redhill, Reigate, Dorking, places on the South Western line and in Essex. If a less distance were taken, many of these persons would be excluded.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the general reason given by the hon. Member was applicable to other boroughs, because an hour would take a man just as far from Manchester or Liverpool. If the rule were to be a mere matter of convenience, it would be an arbitrary one; but if it rested on the fact that the City was surrounded by boroughs, the proper course would be to draw the line at seven miles beyond the limits of any of these boroughs.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it is understood by the Committee that, looking to the peculiar position of the London electors, they should have the privilege of being allowed to reside without the place from which they derive their vote; but we must draw a line somewhere, in order to secure the enjoyment of scenery and fine air. I do not know the real origin of the twenty-five miles limit. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for the City told us, it is to describe an hour's travel which, it may be thought, ought to be encouraged; but there is a certain excitement about gentlemen of a speculative character going every day at the rate of fifty miles an hour, which might lead in some instances to congestion of the brain. Then, as a period or space is necessary, the twenty-five miles is supposed, perhaps, to secure the fair enjoyment of the privilege the Committee will give in consideration of the peculiar position. I do not know upon what absolute rule twenty-five miles is better than
  1202
  thirty; but that is the general ground, and it has been proposed in this instance.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that the radius of the coal tax—namely, twenty miles, might be adopted.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, that by the adoption of the proposed radius the same persons would have the county franchise as well as the franchise for the City.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYmoved the following clause:—
  "So much of the eighteenth section of the Act of the tenth George the Fourth, chapter forty-four, as provides that no justice, receiver, or person belonging to the metropolitan police force shall be capable of giving his vote for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the counties of Surrey, Hertford, Essex, or Kent, or for any city or borough within the metropolitan police district; and so much of the ninth section of the Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter ninety-three, as provides that no chief constable or other constable appointed by virtue of that Act shall be capable of giving his vote for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the county in which he shall be appointed, shall be and the same are hereby repealed: Provided, That no police officer or constable shall be allowed to vote in uniform."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he opposed the clause, which he thought would interfere with the efficiency of the police. He regarded the clause as otherwise objectionable, and hoped it would not be pressed.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least to allow the claim of a class of men who were selected for their high character and general trustworthiness for employment in the Police, Inland Revenue, and Customs Departments to be investigated before some fairly constituted Committee.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, the adoption of the clause might interfere with the discharge of their duty by the police. At an election a tumult might arise and the police would be wanted to restore order.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remove the disability which affected the metropolitan police magistrates in regard to elections?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the subject referred to was not before the Committee.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. VANCEmoved the following clause:—
  "Any person who by law is now, or shall be under the provisions of this Act, entitled to vote for any city, borough, or place, provided he resides within such city, borough, or place, or within seven miles from some particular part thereof, shall be entitled to vote provided he resides within seven miles from any part thereof."
  He said that, in many instances, "the particular part" of the borough happened to be one corner of it, and that it would be more just if the measurement were reckoned from its extremities. Those voters who lived within seven miles of the confines of any borough ought, in his opinion, to be entitled to record their votes.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that a similar proposal brought forward by himself at an earlier stage of the Bill had been rejected. The Committee in agreeing to the present clause would be reversing their former decision.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been rejected because its operation would be to change the character of the franchise which was about to be established; while the clause under the notice of the Committee simply defined rights belonging to the franchise which now existed.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the words "or shall be under the provisions of this Act" would have the effect of extending the application of the clause to all the new voters. Indeed, he could not see why the Committee should refuse to them a latitude which it was invited to go out of its way to give the old class of voters.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that as he understood the clause its operation would be simply to confer on the freemen of a borough a privilege now possessed by occupying householders. He hoped the Committee would not assent to having such an alteration made in the law by a side wind.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he should oppose the clause, as tending to unsettle existing arrangements without any corresponding benefit. He opposed the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), and he should on the same ground oppose the present clause. At the present moment the seven miles radius was perfectly well known.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the clause would alter the settlement made by the
  1204
  Reform Act respecting freemen and burgesses on this point.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the next clause on the Paper—that of the hon. Member for Glasgow (tenant's name and address to be given to collector of rates)—was no longer necessary after the decisions at which the Committee had already arrived. The next—that of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes), relating to cumulative voting—he supposed the hon. Member would not proceed with after the division on the question which had already been taken. Then came the clauses which stood in the name of the Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), with respect to the disqualification of persons found guilty of bribery, to which there was no opposition on the part of the Government, and which might very well be brought up on the Report. The clause which stood next in order in the name of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) was withdrawn. There was, too, the clause of which the noble Lord the Member for Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) had given notice, providing that convictions for felony and certain other offences should disqualify persons for the exercise of the franchise, with which he hoped the noble Lord would not find it necessary to proceed, inasmuch as persons convicted of felony were now disqualified. Looking further down the Paper he did not see any other clause which appeared to him to demand the attention of the Committee. Under those circumstances he hoped they would not object to proceed to the consideration of the Schedules.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that after what had taken place in reference to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) he did not intend to bring forward the clause which stood in his name.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, it was not his intention to press his Amendment.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not mentioned the clause which stood on the paper in his name in reference to notice of rate in arrear to be given to voters.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that was a very important clause, and if the Committee should not approve it the Government would have to submit one drawn by themselves to their notice. In either case it would be necessary to make a corresponding alteration

  1205
  in the third clause, and it would therefore, he thought, be more convenient to let the matter stand over until the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose to Order. It appeared to him that the Committee was proceeding in a manner wholly irregular, inasmuch as there was no question before them.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved his clauses relating to the disfranchised boroughs—
  "Whereas the Commissioners appointed as aforesaid for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Totnes, reported to Her Majesty that the persons named in Schedule () had been guilty of giving or receiving bribes: Be it Enacted, That none of the said persons so named in the said Schedule shall have the right of voting for the Southern Division of the County of Devon in respect of a qualification situated within the said Borough of Totnes."
  And similar clauses with respect to Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, and Reigate. He said he understood that there was no objection to these clauses. The only object of the certificates given to these parties was to prevent their being criminally prosecuted in reference to the matters upon which they gave evidence, but the certificates did not state that these parties should be allowed to exercise the franchise.
  Clauses agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILmoved the following clause:—
  "That any person who has at any time been convicted of felony, larceny, perjury, or subornation of perjury shall be held incapable of voting for the election of Members of Parliament."
  As the law now stood no convict could be excluded from the franchise except during the time he was under sentence. Persons once convicted of the disgraceful offences mentioned in his clause should for ever be precluded from voting for Members of Parliament. As the franchise had been largely extended, it was incumbent on the Committee to endeavour to purify the constituencies from the ruffianly residuum alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). It might be said that any such disfranchisement as he now proposed would have only a very partial effect; but the information he had obtained might have induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pause, if the right hon. Gentleman had been aware of it, before reducing the lodger franchise to so low a figure. In a former debate the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford
  1206
  Hope) very unjustly taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not bringing forward a ticket-of-leave franchise. The Bill really did admit a considerable number of ticket-of-leave men and thieves to the franchise. He had a return drawn up from very good information, by which it appeared that, under the Bill, there would be qualified to vote as householders and lodgers in the metropolitan districts, 639 thieves and ticket-of-leave men, and 1,068 bad characters. Perhaps the metropolitan Members would be glad to know something of their future constituents, and how they were distributed over the metropolitan boroughs. The hon. Members for Westminster would represent 61 convicted thieves and 113 bad characters. The hon. Members for Marylebone would represent 59 convicted thieves and 51 bad characters. The hon. Members for Finsbury, 65 convicted thieves and 213 bad characters. The hon. Members for Southwark, 43 convicted thieves and 49 bad characters. The hon. Members for Lambeth, 8 convicted thieves and 14 bad characters. The hon. Members for the Tower Hamlets, 78 convicted thieves and 60 bad characters. The hon. Members for Greenwich, 49 convicted thieves and 244 bad characters. The Member for the new borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 89 convicted thieves and 37 bad characters. The Member for Hackney, 94 convicted thieves and 64 bad characters. The rest, he presumed, would be represented by the Members for Middlesex. He did not know what action the Committee would take on the Motion; but it appeared to him that in any future scheme for the representation of minorities these men would form a considerable constituency, and be entitled to two Members. No doubt, in these days of railway mismanagement and commercial dishonesty, they would be able to find men who would adequately represent their interests. As the franchise was a trust it ought only to be exercised by those who could be trusted with their neighbours' goods. No Member would be anxious to reckon amongst his supporters these men. If thieves who occupied houses and lodgings of the annual value of £10 were to be admitted to the suffrage, it would be difficult to exclude honest men at all.
  Clause read a second time.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he moved the omission of the word "larceny." It was included in the term "felony."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that, as the Committee had adopted the principle of the clause, it would be necessary to introduce some modifications into it before it was added to the Bill. A man who had committed some petty larceny ought not to be disfranchised for life. A person convicted of manslaughter without any criminal intention, but from an act of negligence, would also be disqualified under the word "felony." Some care would be necessary in defining what particular offences should disqualify a man.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be extended to those to be elected.
  On the Question, "That the word 'larceny' be omitted,"
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he considered they would be committing a very serious error in introducing a new principle of Criminal Law into the Reform Bill. This was a very grave proposal, and he had relied on the clause being opposed by the Government or he should have ventured to do it himself at an earlier period. The principle hitherto adopted had been that after a man had expiated his offence to endeavour to restore him to his former position, but the effect of this clause would be to cast a stigma on a man for the remainder of his life. Such a course of legislation had never been attempted in our colonies, where there had been a considerable number of expirees, many of whom had returned to an honourable and innocent mode of life. It was a question which required much fuller consideration than could be given to it in Committee on the Reform Bill, and, therefore, he trusted the clause would not be assented to by them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought it would be wise to hold over this clause for future and separate consideration. A person might be convicted of larceny at a very early age, and years and years afterwards, having in the meantime lived respectably and honestly, he was to be disqualified to give a vote. If adopted at all the clause would require to be very considerably limited.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he thought it enough that a convict, on the expiration of his sentence, should be restored to the protection of the law. But he did not see why he should have the privilege of the suffrage conferred upon him. In Shoreham a class of voters had been disqualified for their lives, and their names
  1208
  were read over at every election. He thought "larceny" as bad as "felony," and should disqualify.
  MR. COLERIDGEsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that this clause required a great deal of consideration and amendment. As it now stood, it would include persons who had been pardoned after proof of innocence, for pardon did not reverse conviction.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the clause altogether wrong. A boy might be convicted of larceny for picking up a few apples under a tree. Was an act done twenty years before, he having led a respectable life in the meanwhile, to disqualify him from voting for a Member of Parliament? Besides, he did not see how such a clause could be carried out.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he opposed the clause. When the time of his sentence had been served out an offender should be restored to society and, it was to be hoped, the honest performance of his duties. This clause would set a perpetual stigma and mark upon him. It would be the means of destroying all the good that had been done of late years towards reforming those who had transgressed the laws.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would move the rejection of the words "felony" and "larceny." In its present form this might happen—a boy might pick up a turnip, be taken before a magistrate, convicted, and receive a smart whipping. That boy would be branded for life with a deprivation of the franchise.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he would recommend the noble Lord to bring up a modified clause on the Report.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would adopt this course.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he had given notice of a proposal that priests, deacons, and ministers of the Church of Scotland should be eligible for election as Members of Parliament if they had not been clerically employed for twelve months. He was willing to defer moving it if he were allowed an opportunity of doing so at a future stage.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the subject was one of a grave character, and would probably lead to protracted discussion. The hon. Member would have the opportunity of raising the question at a future time.
  MR. H. BEAUMONTsaid, he moved,
  "That from and after the present Parliament the borough of Huddersfield shall return two Members instead of one to serve in future Parliaments."
  A second Member was originally proposed by the Reform Bill of 1831. Only one Member, however, was given to it in the Reform Act. At that time the population was 19,035. Since that period it had increased to 34,897. There was an outlying population amounting to 26,066, which, added to the population of the existing borough, gave a total of 60,940. The inhabitants of Huddersfield had petitioned Her Majesty to grant a Charter of Incorporation for the whole of this population; and it was thought by many of the inhabitants, himself included, that it was desirable that the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries should be conterminous. Huddersfield was a beautiful town, with numerous handsome buildings. It had doubled its postage and its money orders since 1831, and 300 trains pass the station in a day. Much smaller towns, such as Newark and Bridgwater, had two Members. Places like Huddersfield were clearly entitled to as large a share in the representation. Though there was no prospect of finality in dealing with the redistribution of seats, it was desirable to settle the question for some years. The only way of doing this was by taking a higher scale of disfranchisement. He should be glad if the Government would consent to reduce the representation of boroughs with less than 12,000 inhabitants, for, with two exceptions, all the claims which appeared on the Paper might then be disposed of.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, that the hon. Member for Huddersfield was absent in consequence of ill-health. He was indebted to that borough for his entrance into the House, and its population and importance entitled it to two representatives. In the original Reform Bill two Members were assigned to it, and had the Boundary Commissioners treated it in the same way as neighbouring boroughs, acting by rule instead of caprice, it would have obtained two Members in the Act of 1832. This Bill was designed to remedy the defects of that Act. The present Parliamentary borough, which was only one corner of the town, was almost entirely owned by one person. That landed proprietor had, much to his credit, abstained from interfering with the elections, but
  1210
  still it was galling to the electors to be under the power of one proprietor. If the Committee were disposed to give an additional Member to boroughs having now but one representative, he knew of no borough having a better claim than Huddersfield.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask, whether appeals were to be made to give two Members to every place having a population of 34,000? If so the number of Members must be increased to 900. But then it appeared that by adding the adjacent townships the population of the Parliamentary borough of Huddersfield might be raised to 60,000. That was the population of the borough he represented but although he had been asked to put a Notice on the Paper demanding a second Member, he had refused to do so. If claims of this sort were made, the number of Members would be increased to an extent that none of them would desire. He trusted that the Committee would discourage applications of this kind, which only took up their time needlessly.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was very glad to hear such a flourishing account, doubtless true, of the condition of Huddersfield; but he could not admit that the hon. Gentleman had made out a case which ought to interfere with the progress of the Bill. There were other towns with superior claims to those of Huddersfield, which had only possessed its single representative for little more than thirty years, and which ought not to be impatient. It was not right to argue this question upon isolated cases. It was not proposed by this Bill to remove all anomalies; but the Government were trying to improve the representation of the people, which in dealing with ancient institutions was all they could hope to do. It is all very well to advocate the claims of particular localities; but in attempting to carry a measure like this there are a thousand circumstances to be taken into account, and, after all, the great consideration is to carry a measure not mean and not inconsiderable. If he were to take the line which the hon. Gentleman had adopted, and were to argue it in his way, there would be no end to such discussions. The population of Huddersfield was, it appeared, 34,000, and supposing that it were doubled by the absorption of adjacent territory, which, by the way, had not yet given in its adhesion, what were we to say

  1211
  to the Welsh counties, which in several cases returned only one Member, although the population was larger than 60,000? In one Welsh county the population was more than 80,000. Hon. Gentlemen who brought forward these isolated cases thought of no case but their own. The ground upon which, this claim was based was, therefore, not tenable; but his objection was of a different character. They had now reached the month of July, and the question to be asked was whether this Bill was to pass or not? The Government could not deviate from the principle of the measure and the general scope of its design. All they could do was to ask the Committee now to complete the work upon the basis generally agreed to by both sides of the House. He trusted that proposals of this kind would not be encouraged by the Committee, but that they would all put their shoulders to the wheel, and carry this measure.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. J. B. SMITHmoved a clause prohibiting the opening any public-house for the sale of intoxicating liquors on the polling-day in any city or borough, or in any polling-town of a county, excepting to persons who shall have been resident in such inn or public-house for twenty-four hours previously. His object was to secure that the electors should exercise their important privilege in a sober manner. It was not necessary for him to detain the Committee, but this regulation was adopted in the United States, and was the reason why the elections were conducted in so quiet a manner.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, it was perfectly monstrous that people should be deprived of their ordinary refreshments because it happened to be polling-day.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as they were very often told that the whole question of Parliamentary Reform would be re-opened in the next Session of Parliament, he wished he could induce the hon. Gentleman to postpone his Motion until then. He believed that considerable alarm would be felt at such a proposal.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. H. E. SURTEES: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer having introduced a new clause, which has been accepted by the Committee, adoptting the proposal contained in the clause of which I had given notice, namely—
  1212
  "That no person shall be entitled to be registered in any year as a Voter in the Election of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament for any County, who shall within twelve calendar months next previous to the last day of July in such year have received parochial relief."
  It is therefore only necessary for me to withdraw the clause.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. DILLWYNmoved a clause that the borough of Swansea should return two Members to serve in future Parliaments; providing also that each elector should vote for one Member only. There was only one borough now represented by one Member (Salford) which had a larger number of electors than Swansea, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to give an additional Member to Salford. The hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had included Swansea among the places to which he proposed to give a second Member. Swansea had more than doubled its population since the Reform Act. The number of inhabitants was 27,134 in 1831. The estimated population last year was 64,800. The rateable value had more than doubled during the last ten years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to oppose the proposal of his hon. Friend who, as a Member of the Opposition, had treated the Bill in such a fair and candid manner, and whose statement of the case of Swansea was so moderate as to be entitled to every attention; but he would remind the Committee of what he thought they were too apt to forget, that when they had only a restricted number of seats to dispose of, they must look to their fair distribution over every part of the country. The borough of Merthyr Tydvil, which was larger than Swansea, was to receive a second Member, and he thought that ought to be sufficient to satisfy the claims of Glamorganshire: so of other places; they were to look at population and wealth, no doubt, but they must not forget if the representation of the locality had been already increased, and remember that the new Members ought to be fairly distributed over the country. He regretted he could not agree to the Motion.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he had given notice of a clause for enabling non-resident electors in counties to vote by voting papers. Not wishing to interfere with

  1213
  the progress of the Bill, he would defer his proposal to the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. MONKsaid, he had given notice of a clause for separating the parish of Clifton from Bristol, in order to constitute it into a distinct borough returning a Member to Parliament. West Gloucestershire was treated with exceptional hardship, and had fewer representatives, compared with its wealth, population, and distinctive interests, than any other county or division of a county in England. In 1861 its population was 297,500. It must now be 310,000, yet it had only two Members for the county and one borough Member, while the county of Buckingham, with a population of 168,000, though it lost one of its Members under this Bill, would still have eight Members. He would not press his Motion, but he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General, who had admitted the claims of the county, would endeavour to obtain some redress from the Government.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In making the Motion which stands next on the Paper in my name, I will not repeat the phrase used by every Member of his unwillingness to delay the progress of this Bill, but I will prove my intentions by my deeds, and will not trespass on the time and attention of the Committee beyond the limits which necessity appears absolutely to demand. The case of South Lancashire is one which, in respect to county representation, stands altogether alone. The proposition I wish to make out is that South Lancashire is treated with gross injustice, so far as the county representation is concerned, and I will show how strong my case is before I close. Gentlemen on this side of the House are placed in a difficulty in reference to the whole subject of re-distribution. There are two opinions which appear to divide the mind of the majority of the Committee in connection with this question, and I shall endeavour to show deference to those opinions. The first, which is entertained I believe to some extent on this side, but most widely by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that the scheme of re-distribution propounded by Her Majesty's Government is on the whole sufficient in extent. The second of those opinions, which prevails very generally on this side of the House, is that that scheme of re-distribution is
  1214
  palpably insufficient in extent. But under the circumstances in which we stand, we hold that there is no hope of our enlarging it so as to bring it up to the point of sufficiency, consequently we make, as it were, our protest, and then—I must say on my own part, not without great regret — adjourn the further consideration of the question to a future year. I say with great regret, because the two great and chief branches of the subject of Parliamentary Reform are—first, that which relates to the franchise, and next, that which relates to the distribution of Seats. There are no other subjects which can be compared in magnitude with these, and it is much to be desired that any measure which bears the name of a Parliamentary Reform Bill should in the main be satisfactory and adequate so far as those two branches of the question are concerned. The proceedings of this evening have, I think, tended to supply an additional illustration of the fact that we cannot hope to have a sufficient scheme of re-distribution embodied in the present Bill. I have, however, to the last clung to the hope that we might have such a scheme of re-distribution as might be generally acceptable and satisfactory; and seeing the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Colonel Gilpin) now in his place, I may say I hope that the Amendment of which he has given notice may yet receive a favourable consideration. But, however that may be, I hold it to be my absolute duty to place my present proposal and its grounds before the Committee. It is but fair, before arriving at the conclusion that this subject must be dealt with again hereafter, and at an early date, at least to give the Government and the Committee the opportunity of removing what I think are the most glaring defects in this scheme. And here I beg to observe that I raise no question which puts me in conflict with any of the large towns—no question connected with the metropolis, or connected with any portion of the town representation. I proceed at present on the principle laid down by Her Majesty's Government, that we are to consider the population of counties, and are to award an increase of Members to counties having some reference to that population; and then I say that you may consider a Motion such as mine upon either of two grounds. If you ask me how I should desire to obtain seats to satisfy in some partial degree the claims of South Lancashire, I should reply at

  1215
  once, "By taking them from the small boroughs." I would not deprive any one of the counties of any of the Members whom the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give them; but if he rigidly declines to take seats from the small boroughs, then I am compelled to show him that on his own principles, in endeavouring to redress the unequal state of the representation as between boroughs and counties of which he has repeatedly spoken, while he gives twenty-five additional seats to the counties, he treats South Lancashire with the greatest inequality and injustice in awarding it only one of those twenty-five Members. The principle which the right hon. Gentleman has often laid down is that the distinction he draws is not drawn between one class of counties and another, but between counties and towns. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in saying that in dealing with our whole institutions under complicated circumstances, we must not look for the production of a model of political symmetry; but, admitting these considerations fully to apply very fairly to what is old, let us have some regard to equality in dealing with that which is new, and which we ourselves are about to introduce. How far, then, does this scheme of the Government proceed upon the principles of equality? If twenty-five seats are to be given to counties, I contend that, upon every principle of justice, South Lancashire is entitled to a larger number of representatives than under this scheme she is to receive. What is the state of the representation of South Lancashire now? I state the case under great disadvantages when I go back for a period of six years. But in 1861, independently of the represented towns, the population of South Lancashire was 627,000, and the number of Members returned three, giving an average of 209,000 persons for each Member. To that state of things the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply a remedy. He proposes to give South Lancashire—taking out Staleybridge—with its 607,000 inhabitants, four Members, or one Member for every 152,000. Now, let us see whether the Government, in doing this, act upon anything like the rule which they mean to apply to other portions of that homogeneous population which exists in the counties outside the boroughs. 152,000, according to the standard of 1861, is the number to be allowed in South Lancashire for a single Member. I may be told that in dealing with this, I should not confine
  1216
  myself to population only; but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by entering into questions of rating and the income under Schedules A and D, which would strengthen my case. I take my stand upon population alone for the sake of brevity, and that I may indicate by my acts that I am averse from any unnecessary expenditure of time. The progressive element is one which, however, ought not to be left out of consideration when comparing counties like Lancashire with others which are stationary or declining, which is the case with some of those which I am about to mention. Judging by the past five or six years years, the population of South Lancashire will in 1871 amount to 758,000 persons. It will have four Members—that is to say an average of 189,000 persons for each Member, or very nearly as large a population as that, the anomalies of which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes in some degree to modify. Taking six counties with which he intends to deal, let us see how the matter stands. In Devonshire it is proposed to give one Member to 61,000 persons; in Lincolnshire one to 56,000; in Norfolk one to 51,000; in Somersetshire one to 55,000; in Staffordshire one to 55,000; in East Surrey one to 52,000. I admit there are other counties unjustly dealt with as well as South Lancashire, but I want to know why is it that this new inequality to which I am adverting is to be created? We are repeatedly told that there are in the counties 11,000,000 people, and justice is claimed for them. But why should not justice be done to the parts of which those counties are made up? Do not call in South Lancashire to swell the total for the counties as against the boroughs, and then forget it when you are making a distribution of seats among the counties themselves, putting it off with such a modicum of representation as one Member for every 152,000 of a population which is growing, and in whose case the anomaly will be twice as great at the end of ten years as it is at the present moment. What I propose is that the mode of division suggested by the Government should be followed — that is to say that the county should be divided into two divisions. That I apprehend, is a mode of proceeding, which, whatever the number of representatives which may be created, ought, I think, to be adopted. To each of those divisions I ask that three Members should be given. The effect would be that a popu-

  1217
  lation of 607,000 would have six Members to represent it, so that there would be on an average 101,000 persons for each Member. I grant that this proposal is very fairly open to the remark that it is insufficient, and that it by no means removes the anomalies of which I complain, but only reduces or mitigates the evil. For not only in the case of the six counties to which I have alluded, but in that of the great majority of counties, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to allocate seats at the rate of one Member for 50,000 one for 55,000, one for 60,000—allocating in hardly any case a greater number than 60,000 to each Member. But I think it better to make a moderate claim which, if conceded now, may possibly settle the question rather than have the question re-opened in the course of a few years. At the same time, I make no complaint of the right hon. Gentleman for giving one Member to every 51,000 persons in Norfolk. I look upon that as a very fair arrangement. What I complain of is that he gives so much less to South Lancashire than to any other county with which he proposes to deal. I do not wish him to take a Member from Norfolk. What I want is that he should draw upon some of those boroughs which, though they may succeed in averting the blow at the present moment, are destined to a certain and an early doom. It is upon the grounds which I have stated that I have thought it my duty to lay before the Committee a salient and glaring case of inequality, not in our old system, but in the new scheme which the right hon. Gentleman proposes for our adoption. It is better, in my opinion, to take such a course than to pass these matters over in silence, reserving in our minds the intention of raising such questions anew, and at a very early period. I have not deemed it right to occupy much of the time of the Committee in making a proposal which I urge upon their attention, not as one for compassionate consideration, but as one which is in fact much within what strict justice warrants. Having done that I leave the matter in the hands of the Committee, because it is as far as possible from my inten-tention to seek to enter into a protracted contest for objects which I must admit to be limited and partial. For if we cannot obtain justice in the re-distribution of seats, the next best thing, in my opinion, is to adjourn the matter to a future and in all probability an early day, and expedite
  1218
  as far as we can the passing of a measure which, undoubtedly, contains provisions of vast importance to the country.
  Moved to insert the following clause:—
  "That the southern division of the county of Lancaster be divided into two divisions, and that each division be represented by three Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he thanked his right hon. Colleague for the able manner in which he had brought forward the case of the county. He could not say, so far as Lancashire was concerned, that the people were satisfied with the way in which they had been treated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have played with them. First, Salford was to have an additional Member; then he was taken away—then he was given back again. Then it was said that Manchester was to have a third Member. If there was any town that was entitled to have three Members Manchester was so entitled, but for himself he would have been better pleased if the new Member had been given to some new constituency. He had great difficulty how to make up his mind in voting on this subject. If his right hon. Colleague went to a division he should feel bound to support him.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had entered a general protest against the insufficiency of the Bill with respect to the re-distribution of seats; but it was impossible not to see that the Bill, as far as it went, dealt practically with the means which the Government had in their hands. The borough which he represented was the same in population and quite as good in intelligence as South Lancashire; and it would be easy to show that, when divided, each division ought to have three Members. Looking at the whole scheme of re-distribution, it must be admitted to be comparatively insignificant; but all that could be done now was to take advantage of opportunities like the present, and endeavour gradually to bring the representation nearer and nearer to a right standard. As the House seemed determined at present to disfranchise only a comparatively small number of places, he, for one, was quite content to see the Bill passed in its existing shape, reserving the question of further re-distribution, to be dealt with in another measure, which would probably satisfy reasonable expectations by an arrangement more

  1219
  in accordance with the population and intelligence of the various parts of the kingdom. With the means at his disposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not meet all the just claims that would be made on him. There was no doubt that the present scheme was an inadequate one. Half the borough population of England had at present thirty-two Members. The other half had 270 or 280, and the half which had the lesser number was the one most rapidly increasing in influence and wealth. The only answer to the demand of the large boroughs for a fair representation was that their inhabitants had at present a great indirect influence over the smaller boroughs. It was said, and truly said, that men from the great cities went to the small towns, bought them, took possession of them, and did with them as they pleased. An electioneering agent from one of these small boroughs, where there was not amongst the inhabitants any person of intelligence or wealth sufficient to qualify him for the candidature, came up to London to look for a candidate. If he could not find one there—if his terms were too high, he went to Manchester. If he could not find one at Manchester he was sure to find one at Liverpool. The man who, if he represented some constituency where he felt he would be watched by those who had known him all his life, and whose good opinion he valued, would make a valuable Member, was a most mischievous representative when returned for a constituency to whose interests he was indifferent. The fact was that the present system of distribution was the result of years of Court intrigue, and would take years to settle on a proper foundation. An excellent attempt to attain this desirable end was made by Parliament after its great triumph over kingly usurpation. But that Act of Settlement had been repealed by the wretched Parliament which assembled under Richard Cromwell. He was glad his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire had placed on record a protest against this state of things being accepted as finally settled, and was also glad to hear that his right hon. Friend would not only allow the Bill to pass without obstruction, but would do all he could to facilitate its progress.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that as his right hon. Friend had called attention to the representation of South Lancashire, he wished to direct notice to the northern division of the
  1220
  county, which contained a population of about 500,000, 374,000 of whom were persons living outside the represented boroughs of the county. He admitted that the modicum of representation allotted to the northern was not so insignificant as that extended to the southern division. Nevertheless, the electors in the northern division were only given one Member to every 90,000 persons. This was not only one of the largest and most important, but one of the most progressive constituencies in the country. What was the new scheme of representation proposed for it? Two Members were taken away from one borough in it, Lancaster, and two additional Members were given to the county and another to Manchester. The constituency would gain one Member. He thought that as far as the county of Lancaster was concerned there was great reason to complain of the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were in this district no less than five towns, maufacturing groups, which had petitioned Parliament for representation. Their claims had been placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had promised to give the case his best attention, which he supposed he had done. Collectively they had a claim to a greater measure of consideration than they appeared to have yet received in this Bill. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman before they went to a division on this Motion that he was prepared to reconsider the case, and, even at this advanced stage, to give a more extended measure of justice to the county. It would give him still greater satisfaction if the Government were to withdraw this portion of their Reform scheme altogether, and postpone it till next Session. He had seen a calculation made that if England and Wales were equally divided in area, taking either population or property, and not including the metropolis, the northern division would be found under represented by sixty Members. Twenty have been taken from the south and given to the north, but still the south had forty in excess of the north. A scheme which allowed so great a discrepancy to remain was not likely to be either a final or a satisfactory settlement. He had no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they considered the democratic franchise given by this Bill, took some comfort from the extremely Conservative character of the re-distribution. But he did not think experience would give them reason to

  1221
  congratulate themselves long on that point. Many of them now believed that if they had consented to a moderate Reform some years ago they would not have been called on to pass such a measure as this, and so if they would now agree to a more fair re-distribution, and postpone the matter till next Session, a sweeping and more extensive change, such as was probably anticipated by hon. Members below the gangway, would be prevented for a number of years. He hoped that the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire would even in this Bill be more favourably considered by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has brought the claims of his constituents before us in a very fair spirit. I see no reason to complain of the case he has placed before the Committee. If the question had to be settled on arithmetical calculations, and on considerations of political symmetry, his proposal would deserve grave consideration, if not acceptance. But we are not here constructing a new system of representation for this ancient and powerful kingdom. Having resolved to improve the representation of the people as regards the franchise and re-distribution of seats, we are taking steps which we think will effect that object — measures which we believe we can carry, and which will secure, as far as they go, the purpose we have in view. Something has been said as to the insignificant nature of our proposals with respect to re-distribution. I do not think they are insignificant. I think that if you consider this question in the proper light and spirit as to the conception and execution of this scheme, for which the House is responsible as well as the Government, and for the merits of which I claim no more share than we are fairly entitled to from having sedulously endeavoured to perform and fulfil all that was prudent and practicable, that we may regard this scheme with fair self-congratulation. With regard to the county representation in which there are irregularities which have been acknowledged for years, you are about to effect a vast improvement, and yet, while you effect a great change, it is carried without any of the acerbity of political passion—it is not the result of a conflict in which a triumph of party has obtained some great end; but it is a conclusion arrived at by the honest conviction of the House of Commons. It is no mean change. Additional representation affecting twenty-six of our
  1222
  counties is not a mean change. It is one which will give a new feature to our Parliamentary representation, and will, I think, give general satisfaction to the country. There is a powerful party, I believe a majority in this House, who think that the great towns should have an increased representation. I have expressed my views and those of my Colleagues on that subject. We would rather have distributed the means at our disposal than have aggregated and accumulated them in particular cases, but there has been a strong opinion expressed on the other side, and we have, to a certain extent, deferred to that opinion. With regard to the representation of new communities, it cannot be denied that no slight proportion of new communities are now called into direct Parliamentary existence. These appear to me considerable results. It is very well for us to disparage our own labours. It is a habit with the House of Commons. It is very easy to appeal to an impending future which will be wiser than ourselves, and the hon. Member for Brighton is always ready to cheer that sentiment. But what we have done I believe to have been practical, prudent and not deficient in sagacity; and that it will obtain the confidence of the country. But now, applying ourselves to the case before us, the right hon. Gentleman complains that I have rigidly declined the further disfranchisement of small boroughs. I do not think I have shown any blamable rigidity on that subject. The original plan of the Government was moderate; but, I believe, it was then the utmost we could safely propose to the House of Commons, looking to its practical character, and the chance of its passing this House. The House took the subject up and laid down its own principle. It was carried by a large majority. What did the Government do? We honestly and sincerely adopted the decision of the House: and we acted upon it. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is scarcely just in imputing to me that I rigidly declined to avail myself of the resources that might have come from that quarter. But he says South Lancashire has been treated with inequality and injustice: the House had to deal with forty-five seats, and Lancashire has received eight of these. Is that treating Lancashire with inequality and injustice? It is very true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that we are only giving one additional Member to the county representation of South Lancashire,

  1223
  and that the population and wealth of that county are greater, with one exception, than those of any other county in the kingdom. But the right hon. Gentleman must recollect that there are other things to be considered besides the mere population and wealth of a particular district. He should recollect too, that the representation of South Lancashire has been increased within the last few years, and that we are now about to give it an additional Member. But, in addition to that increase in the county representation, the right hon. Gentleman must recollect that, in settling this question of the re-distribution of seats, however much may be the discontent felt that the county of Lancaster has not a greater proportion of Members, still there must be taken into account, in order to consider the question fairly, that the boroughs of the division are to receive increased representation. Liverpool is to receive a new Member. Manchester is to receive a new Member. The same is to be the case with Salford. Burnley, and Staleybridge are to be separately enfranchised. The northern division of the county is also to have its representation increased. These five additional Members added to the two additional Members given to the northern division and the one to the southern division of the county make eight additional Members that have been added to the representation of Lancashire. This addition to the representation of that county may not be equal to the claims it puts forward; but it is, at all events, sufficient to render it absurd to say that it has been treated with neglect. The other night, an hon. Member complained in like manner that the county of York had been neglected, when, in truth, it had received five additional Members. We cannot divide the whole forty-five seats at our disposal between these two counties. It is all very well for hon. Members to come with fanciful programmes of this kind before the House, and to argue that, omitting the claims of the metropolis, the population and the wealth of the North of England are greater than those of the South. I think it very unwise to go into this sort of calculation at all, for if we are to omit the claims of the metropolis, on the same principle we must omit the claims for increased representation of the great boroughs containing so great a share of the population and wealth of the North. Therefore, the view of the noble Lord who has just spoken appears to me
  1224
  to be scarcely invested with that character of solidity which is necessary in Parliamentary discussion. So much, then, for the neglected claims of the county of Lancaster. But the right hon. Gentleman went further, and proceeded to contrast the numbers represented by the Member for South Lancashire with those represented by the Members of some four or five other considerable counties which he mentioned. I should never have thought of making such a contrast. It is not to be expected that in an ancient Constitution the representation can be arithmetically divided between the various populations. On such a subject our arrangements must necessarily be of a rough character, and our calculations and estimates hardly less so, although they may approximate to the principles of political justice. But let us apply this test—a test which is entitled to some weight in arriving at a decision upon the matter. Let us see what is the proportion of the population of Lancashire to its Members as compared with that of other counties. I find the number of Members who will represent the county and the boroughs of Lancashire under this Bill is thirty-two, each of whom will represent a population of 66,700. I think that it is fair, in argument, to take the representation of the county and the boroughs in that county together in estimating the proportion of the population to each Member. It is realizing the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman, although, perhaps, not in exactly the same way that he arrived at it. Having arrived at the proportion between the population and the representation of Lancashire, let us see what is the case in Middlesex. I repeat I have no desire to go into these calculations; but when the noble Lord who has just sat down talks of the neglected claims of Lancashire, I am compelled to test how far that charge is justifiable. Under this Bill the county of Middlesex will be represented by eighteen Members, each of whom will represent a population of 122,500. I hope I have shown the Committee some reasons which may induce them to pause before they disturb the scheme which Her Majesty's Government have brought forward, in the preparation of which they have been asisted by the House of Commons, and which the Committee of the House of Commons has virtually sanctioned. The noble Lord who last addressed us has talked of memorials which have been

  1225
  addressed to me by places in the division of the county which he represents claiming to be entitled to representation. I said I would consider those memorials, and I did consider them. What is the real state of the case as regards those communities? We have only forty-five seats at our disposal, and of those a considerable, but not an inadequate, number has been given, in accordance with the opinion of the great majority on both sides of the House, to the counties. We have also, in accordance with the opinion of the House, and in the spirit of conciliation and compromise, appropriated certain seats to increase the representation of the great towns, and with the remainder we have now for the first time given representation to those considerable communities which have arisen since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832. And now in courteous phrase the noble Lord would give the House to imagine that I had neglected the claims of the places to which he refers—namely, Accrington and Over Darwen, the first of which has a population of 13,817, and the the second, 14,327. With the limited means at our disposal and the great occasion there was to meet the claims of the counties, the great boroughs, and the new and thriving communities, we are now reproached with having neglected the claims of such places as Accrington and Over Darwen, which have a population of between 13,000 and 15,000, and we are threatened with a new agitation—probably a revolution when the new Parliament meets—because the claims of those places have been passed over. I do not really think that the North of England has any ground for complaint. I must remind the Committee that we cannot allow the whole of the new representation to be aggregated in one portion of the country. We must trim the ship according to circumstances. I have shown that the county of Lancaster will receive eight additional Members, the West Riding five, and Yorkshire six. Let it be recollected, also, that there are three places in the county of Durham which are not represented in the present Parliament which will now be represented for the first time, and that all this has been done with the limited means at our disposal, and I do not think it can be justly said that we have neglected the interests of the North of England in the scheme of re-distribution which we have laid before the Committee, or that we have treated it in a manner which deserves the
  1226
  reproaches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. I must, however, leave the matter in the hands of the Committee; but I call upon them to support Her Majesty's Government in the plan of distribution which has now been before them for some time, which they themselves have in a large degree fashioned, which they have virtually sanctioned, and which I hope in the month of July they will not disturb.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, although he had only forty-five seats to deal with, he might have had any number he liked. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly treated the subject very "roughly" when, according to his own showing, a Member for Lancashire represented a population of 66,000, and a Member for Middlesex a population of more than 100,000, and yet there were eleven boroughs with a population under 5,000 returning each one Member to Parliament. There were also fifty-nine boroughs sending Members to the House with a population under 10,000. Here was an ample field for procuring additional Members. Did any Englishman suppose that such monstrous disproportions in the electoral system would be allowed to remain? An agitation must necessarily take place next year from the outraged feelings of Englishmen on this subject, although, for himself, he could have wished the Bill had given a prospect of peace for at least one generation.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he intended to vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire if he went to a division. Though he should not himself have selected Lancashire as the county that stood most in need of additional representatives, yet, as it appeared to him that the real question was as to the proportion of Members to be allotted to the counties as compared with the boroughs, he should vote for increasing the number of county Members. At the same time he did not think this could be a settlement of the question. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit for the justice done to the counties, he reminded him that it was the act of the House to add the extra Members to the counties, by carrying the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) against the Government. He felt more grateful to the House than to the Government, but he did not think they had done enough. They had

  1227
  gone so far to extend household suffrage that there ought to be more county Members; but the question was one too large to raise in the present state of the Committee.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHmoved the following clause:—
  "That any person possessing a freehold, copyhold, or leasehold qualification within the Parliamentary boundary of any Borough, and residing within seven miles thereof, shall be entitled to be registered as a Voter for such Borough, if he shall so prefer, and to vote at the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for such Borough, in respect of such qualification, instead of for the County in which such Borough is situated."
  He said that a somewhat similar proposal had been brought forward a few days ago, but it was objected to that clause that it was a disfranchising measure. The present clause, however, was free from that objection. Indeed it was altogether an enfranchising proposal, as it gave the voters the option of being upon the borough or the county list.
  COLONEL DYOTTsaid, that the clause was so much like one he had proposed, that he could not do otherwise than support it. The only divergence from his own was in the introduction of the words "if he shall so prefer." He appealed to Scotch and Irish Members to aid in extending to England a privilege enjoyed in Scotland and Ireland.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Government would not assent to so mischievous a proposal, which would enable a few persons to manipulate a constituency in a manner that might amount almost to corruption. It was an extravagant idea to think of leaving the constitution of a constituency to be determined by a few electors.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the clause was in its main provisions one that the Committee had already disposed of, and the Government could not fairly attempt to rescind the decision the Committee had come to. The Government had attempted to make a distinction with respect to freeholders, but the proposal was rejected by the Committee.
  Clause negatived.
  LORD HENLEYmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
  "At every contested election of a Knight or Knights to serve in any future Parliament for any County, or for any Riding, parts or division of a
  1228
  County, the polling shall commence at eight o'clock in the forenoon of some day, not later than the fourth day, from the day fixed for the election, and be kept open until Five o'clock in the afternoon of such day at the principal place of election, and also at the several places appointed for taking polls, any statute to the contrary notwithstanding; and the sheriff shall before Four o'clock on the day so fixed for the election give notice at the principal place of election of the day when the said polling shall commence."
  The object of the clause was to lessen the expenses of county elections. At present it frequently happened that a number of arrangements were made and large expenses incurred at county elections in consequence of the doubt as to whether the election would be contested or not, and then, if there were no contest, those expenses were perfectly useless, and were merely so much money thrown away. If this clause were passed it would enable the sheriff to ascertain whether there would be a contest or not, and, if not, a large proportion of the election expenses might be spared.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I appeal to every Knight in the House whether the effect of the clause would not be to increase the expenses of county elections.
  Clause negatived.
  COLONEL GILPINmoved the following clause:—
  "That the four Parliamentary Boroughs next above ten thousand inhabitants, according to the Census of 1861, now returning two Members each, shall only return one Member; and that Luton, Keighley, Barnsley, and St. Helens, shall each return one Member to serve in Parliament."
  He said, that nothing could be further from his intention than to impede the progress of the Bill. He proposed the clause in a spirit of conciliation, and hoped it would be accepted in the same spirit. It must be obvious to everybody that, in any scheme for the re-distribution of seats, or for amending the representation of the people, the claims of great and important rising localities deserved the fullest consideration as against other localities which had become of less importance, or which had totally changed from what they were when they were originally enfranchised. That principle had been acted upon by Her Majesty's Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed in the present Bill to enfranchise, among other towns, those of Luton, Keighley, Barnsley, and St. Helens. But, having afterwards to provide four other new seats, in accordance with the Motion of the hon.

  1229
  Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), the right hon. Gentleman subsequently — to the astonishment and, he believed, to the dissatisfaction of the House—announced his intention of not carrying out his original proposal so far as Luton and the other three towns named in the present Motion were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman assigned no reason for that course; and the feeling of the House was that those four towns were most unfairly treated, especially in the absence of the amended population Return necessary to enable the Committee to form a correet judgment in the matter. It could not be expected that large towns would be satisfied without representation, while small and insignificant places returned two Members each; and he hoped the Committee would find a mode of providing the four seats required by the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, other than that of taking them from the source indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. One mode by which this might be accomplished was the disfranchisement of four smaller boroughs; but there was an understanding that no disfranchisement was to be effected by the present Bill. A second proposal was that made by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), to obtain seats by the grouping of small boroughs; but it was one thing to group small towns for enfranchisement, and quite another thing to group towns which had long possessed independent representation. While the first course might be attended with utility and convenience, the second could lead only to jealousy and dissatisfaction. The third proposal was that which he now made—namely, that the four constituencies, next above 10,000 in 1861, returning two Members, should return only one Member. He did not think any one could say this was an unreasonable proposal, and its adoption would give considerable satisfaction to the country, and do something towards making the present re-distribution a permanent arrangement. He begged to move the clause of which he had given Notice, and which he submitted to the Committee in a spirit of compromise, and with a view to facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  Clause—
  (That the four Parliamentary Boroughs next above ten thousand inhabitants, according to the Census of 1861, now returning two Members each, shall only return one Member; and that Luton, Keighley, Barnsley, and St. Helens, shall
  1230
  each return one Member to serve in Parliament,)—(Colonel Gilpin,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that, as representing one of the four towns (Tiverton) which, would be partially disfranchised if this clause were carried, he felt it his duty to resist the clause to the utmost of his power, in the interest of his constituents. It was a good and sound principle that there should be no disfranchisement, either total or partial, of any borough, unless it were clearly made out to be necessary for the good of the whole country, and to be done for a purpose which was, in itself, so useful, wholesome, and essential as to counteract the evil of even partially depriving any place of the privileges it now possessed. With regard to the borough of Tiverton, one of the four boroughs which came within the scope of the Motion, he thought the fact of its having for thirty years returned Lord Palmerston to Parliament was sufficient of itself to entitle it to some respect. He might say the same of the borough of Tamworth, in connection with the name of another great Leader of this House, which would be in the same predicament as Tiverton if this clause were carried. The question of re-distribution had been carried to great lengths since last Session, and seemed generally to be based upon mere numerical considerations, such as the number of voters which a certain place did or might produce. He had always protested against that view; and he contended that, unless a very strong affirmative case indeed were made out for the enfranchisement of some other place, it would be wrong to disfranchise any borough already represented in Parliament, and that such disfranchisement would be reckless, premature, and useless. The four boroughs which would be partially disfranchised if this clause were adopted were Tiverton, Tamworth, Warwick, and Barnstaple. What were the four places for which that partial disfranchisement was to take effect? The first was Luton; and, in order to make that into a Parliamentary borough, it was proposed to take two small towns—Luton and Dunstable—which were four or five miles apart, and neither of them, he believed, having an urban population nearly so large as Tiverton, and to club them together, with the agricultural district around, in order to make one borough. It was contended that separate and independent interests, not yet represented in Parliament, should be so repre-

  1231
  sented; and what was the separate and independent interest of Luton and Dunstable? Simply the plaiting of straw for the manufacture of straw bonnets, which was carried on in agricultural cottages by large numbers of women and children. One argument which he would urge in favour of the borough of Tiverton was an argument which affected the pocket. In many boroughs a contested election cost thousands of pounds. But in Tiverton—and this certainly was a consideration worth notice—election expenses were exceedingly small. When he contested that borough with his hon. Colleague who sat opposite at the last General Election, that hon. Gentleman's expenses only amounted to £310, he having to carry on the fight single-handed, while his (Mr. Denman's) expenses were only £182. As regarded Tiverton, Tamworth, and Warwick, they had acquired a character for independence and honesty which did not belong to a great many larger boroughs in the kingdom. It appeared to him that, upon this question of disfranchisement, they should not look alone to population, but rather to respectability of character, and to the distinctive character which they might possess in the county in which they were situated. When a borough had acquired a character for honesty and integrity, the proposal to deprive it of its franchise was unjustifiable. The new borough of Luton and Dunstable might come in time to bear an equally high character, though it was dangerously near to St. Albans, whose character did not stand by any means high. In considering such a proposal they were bound to look, not only at population and character, but at the qualifications of the place itself. Tiverton was the only manufacturing town west of Bristol, while some of the new boroughs had none of the qualities or elements which fitted them for returning a Member. Such places as Keighley and St. Helens had no distinctive character of their own, and were mere agglomerations of brick and mortar and steam-engines, while Barnsley was a mere repetition of Sheffield on a small scale, and at no great distance. The case of Croydon, with its 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, which was originally proposed for enfranchisement, was an infinitely stronger case than the two little towns of Luton and Dunstable. The Bill would double the constituency of Tiverton, and the new portion to be added to it was as fit to exercise the franchise as the in-
  1232
  habitants of any place in the kingdom. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for the benefit of his awn county. Tamworth, Warwick, and Barnstaple were also interested in this question, and had equal claims to their consideration. He should not refer further to them because he knew that those Members who now represented them would be desirous of advocating their claims. He hoped the Committee would not entertain the Motion.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, he objected to the clause on the ground that as the Committee had deliberately decided that boroughs of less than 10,000 inhabitants should return only one Member, it was inexpedient arbitrarily to take four other boroughs having a greater population than 10,000 and to treat them as if they had less. If the Committee wished to fix on some other number of inhabitants, such as 12,000, let it be done. But whatever course was adopted he hoped it would be in accordance with some definite principle. The success of the Motion would practically upset the whole of the scheme.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that if the right hon. Member (Mr. Baillie) would propose to give one Member only to boroughs of less than 12,000 population he would vote for him; and he would vote for the hon. and gallant Member's clause because he believed he wished to obtain his object with as little disturbance as possible, and because much was said in favour of his proposal on its merits. There were strong reasons why those four boroughs, Tiverton, Tamworth, Barnstaple, and Warwick, should be included in the list of places which were entitled only to return one Member. Tiverton, Tamworth, and Warwick only contained populations of over 10,000 each by excessive area, the area of Tiverton being twenty-seven square miles, Tamworth seventeen square miles, and Warwick seven square miles. None of them were rapidly-increasing places; the increase of population in Tiverton since the Reform Act having been only 7 per cent, that of Warwick and Barnstaple 16 per cent. Another argument was that those boroughs were situate in counties already over represented, there being in Devonshire six Members, being one Member to every 28,000 of the population, and in Warwickshire, one Member to every 25,000 of the population. If those counties were com-

  1233
  pared with those from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take away Members it would be found that in South Lancashire, for example, there was one Member to a population of 89,000, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire one Member to every 68,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the other evening, in answer to a complaint which he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had preferred on behalf of his constituency, that he proposed to give to that constituency five Members, but those who cheered the statement should remember that whilst the right hon. Gentleman gave five Members with the one hand he took away four with the other. The borough representation of Yorkshire was, in fact, to be diminished, in order that the Government might obtain from the West Riding of Yorkshire, in defiance of all geographical considerations, an agricultural constituency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that questions of re-distribution should be considered with respect to the whole district concerned. The claims of Keighley to representation were great. Worsted manufactories, which were scarcely known in 1832, had their chief place in Keighley, and formed the third great trade in the kingdom. The export of worsted manufactures came second only to the export of cotton and iron, and ran closely on the heels of those, yet no trade was so inadequately represented as the worsted. He knew of only one good reason for rejecting the clause; that was that, as the Government scheme was so very inadequate to the circumstances of the case, it would be better to leave it with all its blemishes to excite the amending propensities of a new Parliament.
  MR. WALRONDsaid, he was afraid he had listened hitherto with too much complacency and too little commiseration to the appeals of hon. Members whose constituencies were in danger of losing a representative. But he had not then thought that any hon. Members would be offered in sacrifice to Moloch, much less that the officiating priest on the occasion would rise from a seat beside him. This proposal, coming as it did from his own side, would meet with greater rather than less opposition from him on that account, because it was always the more to be regretted when one's foes were found among the members of one's own household. The proposal made by his hon. and gallant Friend was founded upon no prin
  1234
  -ciple at all, or if there were any principle in it it was at best but a meretricious and distorted one, because it disturbed the settlement of the question at which the Committee had determined on a former occasion. His hon. and gallant Friend agreed to the limit of 10,000 in all cases, excepting four. Those four he took from the boroughs bordering most closely on the limit. The result of that invidious proposal would be particularly disastrous to the boroughs remaining on the frontier. They would inevitably be regarded as victims to be sacrificed to any constituency whose claims to additional representation could find a sufficiently pertinacious and clamorous advocate. He had been in hopes that they had escaped from the barbarism of former days, which delighted in projects of disfranchisement. The Government had given up the dual vote—had given a lodger franchise—then do not let Gentlemen on either side of the House ask for more. He had always been in favour of acting in a spirit of compromise, and the whole of the conduct of the Government, from the first day of the Session until that moment, had been dictated by that spirit. By the concession so made, the Opposition had been considerable gainers, he thought, therefore, he might fairly appeal to their generosity. If they had been extortionate hitherto, he trusted that they would not also be unfair and dishonest, and unsettle an arrangement when it had been effected. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not contented himself with moving the first portion only of the Amendment, leaving the settlement of the means to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, as the right hon. Gentleman would probably have expressed it, to the wisdom of Parliament and the liberality of the Sovereign. The claims of three Northern boroughs had been well supported, and he, therefore, only proposed to refer to the Southern boroughs. The appeal to which they had listened that evening from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) might be taken as a fair sample for the appeals made by the Members for the moribund boroughs. His hon. and learned Friend's comparisons, however, were scarcely correct; for the fact was that the population of Tiverton was

  1235
  rather less than half of that contained in the town of Luton alone. In point of magnitude and importance, too, the lace trade at Tiverton would bear no comparison with the straw trade at Luton. The straw-plait trade had no representative in that House. Why should that trade be denied a representative more than the worsted, or cotton, or any other trade? It was said that the straw-plait trade was mostly carried on by women. But if that were an objection, what would become of the argument of the hon. Member for Westminster? There was no town, the enfranchisement of which had been proposed, the population of which between 1851 and 1861 had increased so rapidly as that of Luton. That it afforded employment to a great many women who were enabled to earn livelihoods without working in vitiated atmospheres or neglecting their domestic duties was an argument rather in favour than against conferring representation upon a place where such a trade existed. He thought that the proposal to give a Member to a borough of this kind, and thus secure for an important trade a voice in the Legislature was a sound one, and as such he should support it.
  MR. J. PEELsaid, he wished to say in favour of Tamworth that it was a rising borough with varied interests. It had a considerable cotton manufacture, a large earthenware manufacture, and an important seed-crushing establishment; while the farmers in its neighbourhood were the most intelligent in the kingdom. His constituents would be unwilling to stand in the way of any large scheme for the re-distribution of seats, but would feel justly aggrieved at being deprived of one of their Members in order to facilitate fancy additions being made to the Government scheme. The town from its historical associations, also, was entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Commitee. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the arrangement he had made to be disturbed.
  MR. REPTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would not entertain the proposal. The northern division of Warwickshire was represented by six Members, and an additional one had been given to Birmingham, making seven. The southern division possessed only four Members, two for the division and two for the borough of Warwick, and yet those four Members were to be reduced to three. He objected to a large agricultural district like the
  1236
  borough of Warwick being deprived of one of its Members in order that Luton might return a Member to Parliament.
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, that the case of St. Helens had been placed in his hands. St. Helens contained an area of nine square miles, with a population of 41,000. Its rateable value was £140,000. Half the glass that was made in England was manufactured at St. Helens. The manufacture of glass and the coal raised in the district was of the annual value of £3,000,000. That showed that the demand made for St. Helens was not an absurd one.
  MR. A. PEELsaid, that it had never been proposed in any Reform Bill up to the present time to reduce the representation of Warwick, neither was such reduction proposed in the original scheme of Her Majesty's Government. He had reason to complain that it was now sought to deprive it of one Member for the purpose of carrying into effect a piecemeal and fragmentary plan of re-distribution. What was the principle upon which it was sought to take away one of the Members from Warwick? The hon. and gallant Member, to gratify a statistical crotchet, proposed to deprive the borough of one of its Members simply because its population happened to be between 10,000 and 12,000, totally regardless of its claims in other respects. He complained that the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire endeavoured to obtain representation for the four towns named at the expense of a principle. The Committee had decided to disfranchise below 10,000 to the extent of one Member. If the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member were adopted, the House of Commons would shortly have to consider whether they were not bound to restore the Member it was now proposed to take away. The borough was not a decaying town. It was a nourishing and increasing one, and in its immediate neighbourhood was the large town of Leamington. Should the Boundary Commissioners take it into their heads to include that town in the borough of Warwick, the very act it was now sought to do would have to be undone. Warwick might have 22,000 persons added to it. He hoped, therefore, that, pending the action of the Boundary Commissioners, a Member would not be taken away from it. As a resident in Bedfordshire he shared in the wish to see the straw plait capital represented; but he would appeal to the Committee whether it would not be fairer to

  1237
  go down to the bottom of the list and disfranchise the four boroughs with the smallest population, than to reduce the representation of places with between 10,000 and 12,000 inhabitants, after having adopted 10,000 as the standard of disfranchisement? He wished to take the sense of the Committee upon an Amendment that Arundel, Ashburton, Honiton, and Lyme Regis, having a less population at the Census of 1861 than 4,000, should cease to return Members, and that the seats should be given to St. Helens, Barnsley, Keighley, and Luton.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause must be read a second time before this Amendment could be moved.
  MR. H. BEAUMONTsaid, he thought Barnsley had been unfairly treated. It was not the smallest of the boroughs proposed for disfranchisement, Darlington, for instance, having 16,000 inhabitants, whereas Barnsley and its contiguous parishes had 30,000, its gross estimated rental being £133,000, and its rateable value £109,000. Its population had increased 10 per cent in ten years. It was the principal seat of the linen manufacture in the North of England; and without prejudice to Rotherham and Doncaster, whose claims he intended to urge, he thought that, having been promised a Member, it was entitled to prior consideration. Barnsley, having been placed in the Schedule by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had a right to be considered before all other places. It was the duty of hon. Members to look after their own districts; and he expressed a hope that the Committee would not sanction the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not wonder at Torquay being disappointed, for its constituency would have consisted of old maids and consumptive patients, and would have changed every year. But Barnsley was entitled to better treatment than to be promised a Member, and then to have him taken away. It was like putting up a junior Cabinet Minister, and then knocking him down.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he believed that many Members who voted against his Amendment, disfranchising places with less than 5,000 inhabitants, had since repented, for these trumpery boroughs would not then have been left as a blot on the Statute book. As for Honiton, he thought one of the first acts of a reformed Parliament would be to ex-
  1238
  ecute justice upon that borough. He regarded Luton as entitled to enfranchisement, though not so much so as Gosport, and he should therefore vote for the clause. He knew nothing about Warwick and Tamworth, but Barnstaple and Tiverton were in Devonshire, which had too many Members, and each returned both a Liberal and a Conservative, so that they were really not represented at all. If one Member was taken away the opinion of the boroughs would be expressed in the House. What effect, however, could the opinion of Tiverton have on the Government of this country? He should support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire, because, as the House would not disfranchise, the natural principle was that requiring seats they should go for them to boroughs represented by two Members. He hoped they would go much higher than was now proposed, and take away one Member from many places which might be with advantage so dealt with.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he deprecated the partial disfranchisement of Warwick, the county, with its population of between 450,000 and 500,000, not being over-represented. When Lord Palmerston represented Tiverton, he represented the majority of the country, and when Sir Robert Peel represented Tamworth he represented the majority in that House. He could not understand on what principle this Motion was made, unless it was anxiety on the part of the hon. and gallant Member to obtain a borough for the agricultural county of Bedford. More than one Reform Bill had proposed to give a Member to Leamington, and the Boundary Commissioners would doubtless recommend that Leamington should be included in the Parliamentary borough of Warwick. If any borough ought to be spared, it should be one with so large and increasing a population in its neighbourhood. The House had come to a decision which had induced the Government to abandon the four boroughs that they once proposed to enfranchise, and this was only an attempt to resuscitate the claim. Unless the Committee were prepared to go further in the extension of household suffrage than it had already done, it ought to reject this proposal. He should certainly vote against the clause.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Perhaps the Committee will indulge me with permission to say a few words, as I have had the honour for the last seventeen years to re-

  1239
  present one of the boroughs which are affected by the Resolution before the Committee. I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). For no reason or principle that I can understand is the town of Luton to be one of those which are to be elevated to the rank and dignity of returning a Member to the House in the place of the borough which I represent, I have received numerous communications, like the hon. Member, urging me to support the claims of Luton, but I never read a memorandum or memorial which contained less of force, of which would less induce me, even if my borough were not affected, to give representation to a place like Luton. I venture to say there are not twenty people in this House who ever heard of the town of Luton. I understand it is in the county of Bedford. I have seen straw bonnets which have been made there, but to tell me that Luton is worthy to return a Member to this House is what no one can understand but the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Gilpin). The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke below the gangway (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) found fault with the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) because he said that as long as his own borough was spared he felt no commiseration for any other place that might be sacrificed. That, Sir, is not my feeling. I commiserate every borough that is affected, and they have a right to make their voice heard. The learned Serjeant asks what voice Tiverton has in the councils of this country? I am surprised, considering the illustrious connection of that borough with this House for fifty years, that any hon. Gentleman should have made such an observation as that. I have not troubled the House during the discussions on this Bill, because I have been most anxious to see it passed, if possible, during the present Session. This Bill gives the franchise to about 2,500 persons in the borough of Tamworth—that is to say, it gives votes to what would have been a very considerable constituency under the old régime. But I think that something is due and will be paid by this House to a constituency which for 100 years has been illustrious in the annals of Parliament. I recollect that during the long discussions on the Reform Bill of last year, one Gentleman whose borough was to be affected said, with an amount of assurance and limited self-sacrifice which I do not pretend to imitate,
  1240
  that he was prepared to consider the interest of his country at the sacrifice of his Colleague. Now, my hon. Friend and Colleague, who sits near me, represents independently, I am bound to say, the interests of the borough of Tamworth. On many occasions during the present Session my Colleague and I have voted in different lobbies. I speak for myself and my Colleague when I say that there are no two Members in this House who, during the last three or four years in which he has had the honour of a seat here, have endeavoured more conscientiously and honourably to perform their duties, and represent the interests of the country in all the matters that come before us. But that is only doing what every Gentleman in this House may have equally done, I therefore take no credit to ourselves on that account, nor do I allege it as a reason why we should be spared if any curtailment of the representation of Tamworth should be discussed. But what I do find fault with is the underhand and ungenerous manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman endeavours to disfranchise such boroughs as Tamworth and Warwick, and that he should seek to take a Member from each of those places in order to give them to Luton and other towns. I do not say one word against the character of Keighley, Barnsley, or St. Helens—I do not even know where Keighley is — but we are enfranchising so many places that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put up a map in the lobby indicating localities that are to be affected by the Bill. These three places—of course I leave out Luton altogether—ought, perhaps, to be represented in this House. But I hope the Committee will pause before they accept the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and will at least consider the claims of boroughs which I and others represent to a continued representation in the House of Commons.
  COLONEL STUARTsaid, he denied that there had been anything underhand in the clause proposed. Nearly all the additional borough Members were to be conferred upon places in the North. The only two exceptions were in the case of Gravesend and Luton. The latter place was now to be sarcastically remarked upon and to be sacrificed, after a Member had been promised to it, because it happened to be a manufacturing town not situated in the North of England, but in an agricultural county, with which, however, it was in

  1241
  no way connected by similarity of interests or pursuits. Luton was not only a rising place, but it had risen of late years to a very considerable degree. It had trebled itself in twenty-five years, and its rateable value had increased within the last seven or eight years from £45,000 to £55,000, If Members must be taken from boroughs, he maintained that they ought rather to be taken from places that were decaying than from those that were increasing. Now Tiverton was declining. [Mr. DENMAN: No!] Then the Parliamentary Return was not correct. At any rate the remark applied to Warwick. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Barnstaple was in the same position, and it was only Tamworth that had slightly increased in population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that Luton and Barnsley should be represented; and he trusted that the expectations to which the promise had given rise would not be disappointed.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to correct one statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, He alluded to a decrease of the population of the towns affected by this clause, and said that their population has not increased in the same ratio as that of Luton. Now that is not accurate as regards Tamworth. Its population has increased about 2,000; and if Tiverton or Warwick have decreased slightly within the last few years the Committee must recollect that the inhabitants of Luton are principally composed of women—I do not wish for a moment to cast any slur on the morality of Luton; I am sure the hon. and gallant Colonel knows Luton well—but when we have a population in Luton in which the women exceed the men in numbers, there cannot be any doubt, without inquiring further—and I should move for Returns as regards legitimacy and illegitimacy if this clause passed—there cannot, I say, be any doubt that if that town has increased in the manner which the hon. and gallant Gentleman states, it must have been attributable to causes over which he probably has no control.
  COLONEL STUARTsaid, that the number of houses which had been built in Luton for the last twenty-one years showed that the town had not increased its population in the way which the right hon. Baronet supposed. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: They are all built of straw!] It was by the straw trade that the inhabitants gained an honest
  1242
  livelihood. The relative proportion of the sexes was now about equal.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I am sorry that some Member of Her Majesty's Government has not yet risen to state his views on this question. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire, or some Motion of a similar character, appears to me to be the necessary and inevitable consequence of the adoption by the Government the other night of the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) with respect to the large boroughs. The Government assented to that proposal, and that fact imposed on them the obligation of re-considering, to a certain extent, their plan for the re-distribution of seats. They at first said they must deprive Salford of the additional Member which had been promised to it. Some abjection having been made to that course, the Government agreed to Salford obtaining a second seat, and it having been decided that Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds should also each receive a third Member, the Government suggested that the names of four large new towns which they had proposed to enfranchise—namely, St. Helens, Keighley, Barnsley, and Luton, should be allowed to drop quietly out of the Schedules. What the Committee have now to determine is, whether they will follow that course, and thus disappoint the expectation of the four towns which the Government deemed to be fairly entitled to receive representation, or whether the means of fulfilling those expectations should not be found by carrying the principle of the disfranchisement of the small boroughs further than we have. For my own part, I must say I should much prefer that we should take four of the smallest class of boroughs, and absolutely disfranchise them, which I think would be a fairer mode of proceeding than that proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who proposes to deprive four boroughs of their second seats. How can the Committee justify the retention of Members for places with only 2,000 or 3,000 residents? It would be better to provide the seats for the four rising towns—whose fair claims to representation the Government themselves have admitted—by entirely disfranchising an equal number of the smallest boroughs, whose continued existence, after this Bill has passed, must offer a vulnerable point of attack to those who may refuse to regard this measure as affecting a permanent settlement of this

  1243
  question. But one of the two plans should be adopted. St. Helens, containing a population of 40,000, Barnsley, and the other two towns contained in the original Schedules, are all places of importance, as seats of industry and as possessing large populations; and if you disappoint the hopes held out to them, not by the Motion of any private Member, but by the proposal of the Government itself, made, as we must suppose, after due consideration of all competing claims, you will be adopting a course which I believe will insure the renewal of agitation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to bring back the Committee to the practical consideration of the circumstances before us. We have had in the course of the evening to consider a question very analogous to the present, and I then ventured to say that we could not settle such questions with any close approximation to arithmetical precision or political symmetry. We have been discussing the question of Parliamentary Reform for many years. In the first Bill brought in there was an anxiety displayed to adapt the representation of the people generally to some arithmetical propriety; to adapt it to what was called by philosophers in the preceding century "the fitness of things." But places unknown then have since risen into importance. What, for instance, was the position of the town of Middlesborough when first this agitation was begun? But it is now a place more rapidly increasing in population and more distinguished by enter-prize than almost any community in the United Kingdom. If no margin had been left for rising places we now should feel, with respect to Middlesborough and similar places, great embarrassment. We therefore, at the present day, have practically endeavoured to make as good an arrangement as we could, and did not attempt to set up an idea which it might be almost impossible to accomplish, and which, if accomplished, would fail to realize what we wished to achieve. The Committee have arrived in the course of the discussions on this Bill at three decisions. First of all, not satisfied with the programme which we brought forward, they decided in a full House by a large majority that no borough with a population not exceeding 10,000 should be represented by more than one Member. They then came to the decision that no borough with a population not exceeding 5,000
  1244
  should be disfranchised. These were, I may say, the spontaneous Resolutions of the Committee, which served as two great starting points to guide us in the conduct of this measure. Again, contrary to the opinion of the Government, the Committee came virtually to a decision that there should be an increased representation of some great towns. That proposal was, it is true, rejected by a small majority; but many hon. Members supported the Government in that instance only because they thought the Motion would, if carried, lead to a great change. Still they entertained the opinion that some concession should be made to the claims of those great towns, and were prepared, to prevent further agitation, to support some moderate measure, as they ultimately did, to effect it. Those, then, were the three Resolutions to which the House of Commons virtually came, and which were to operate as a guide to the Government in the prosecution of their difficult task. An understanding was thus arrived at. And these understandings, instead of being ashamed of, I think we ought to regard as one of the most honourable characteristics of our public life, for without such understandings the public business could never be satisfactorily carried on. These three decisions accordingly were regarded by us as guides to aid us in passing this measure. Now, you ask us to deviate from a course upon which you yourselves voluntarily entered for the purpose of completing this measure. It is not for me to say that those four boroughs originally introduced into our Schedules have not claims to be represented in this House. There is, in fact, no end of such claims. But then you must consider the immense inconvenience which is likely to result and the disturbance which will ensue from abandoning the ground you yourselves have taken up. We are told that we shall have a great agitation if those towns are not represented in this House, the claims of which the Government not only sanctioned, but to which they themselves proposed that the privilege of being represented should be granted. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who has been a Secretary of State, and who is one of the most experienced Statesmen in the House, tells us that the rejection of the claims of Luton will lead to that result, and we ought, perhaps, to bow to his authority. I do not know whether he was a party to the

  1245
  first Reform Bill, but his political existence had at least its rise in that atmosphere of turbulence. If Luton not being represented will bring about a revolution, we must prepare ourselves for the emergency. But is it, I would ask, a thing novel that it should be proposed in this House, even by a Minister of State, that a place should be enfranchised whose claims to representation were not afterwards sanctioned by Parliament? What about Burnley, which is soon, I hope, to be represented in this House? Burnley was, if I am not mistaken, mentioned in the Bill of 1832, and in every Reform Bill which has since been introduced it has invariably been scheduled. But, although we have since 1832 had some disturbances in this country, and considerable discontent, I never heard that delay of justice to Burnley was the cause of such disaffection. The Chartist movement has never, so far as I am aware, been historically traced to the fact that Burnley, which was promised representation in 1832, and which had a similar promise given to it in five subsequent measures of Reform, is still unrepresented in the House of Commons. I trust, therefore, that the philosophic temperament of the people of Luton will lead them to forbear from meditating any such assault on the Constitution or the tranquillity of the Empire as that with which we are threatened. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that we are disappointing expectations that have been encouraged in a most authoritative way. I can only state that what we have done was done by our predecessors under similar circumstances. Having a certain number of seats, we have offered to the House that scheme which, on the whole, we believe to be the most advisable to adopt. Generally speaking, our views have not been disregarded; but in one or two instances they have not been adopted, consequently we have modified our Schedules, as our predecessors did. I do not under rate the claims to representation of those four boroughs, which I should have been glad to see enfranchised, as we originally proposed, instead of the course being adopted which the Committee have thought fit to pursue. But it seems to me a grave question whether, having by successive votes laid down certain arrangements as those which ought to be made, the Committee ought now, at the very end of the Session, to turn round and say, "We will disturb
  1246
  everything, instead of adhering to the principles which we have already decided." The adoption of such a course may lead, I would remind the Committee, to endless controversy, and have a very serious bearing on the fate of the measure. We may imagine that things are to be easily settled by making proposals in this House; but we must remember that no Bill of this kind can be passed without being subjected to the operation of many influences. The House of Commons alone cannot decide this Bill. You have laid down principles in accordance with which you say a satisfactory re-distribution of seats can be devised, and, when everybody is reconciled to the arrangement which you have made, are you capriciously at the last moment to turn round and to re-open the whole matter, thus taking a course which may lead to consequences which nobody can foretel? I do not think it worth while that for the purpose of giving representation to Luton and the other three towns, the Committee should deviate from the positions previously occupied, depart from the principles and unsettle the arrangements previously adopted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that the Committee must have some difficulty in reconciling the modest proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gilpin) with the inflamed description of it given by the right hon. Gentleman. It has been described as calculated to disturb principles already sanctioned, to lead to consequences not candidly expressed, and to imperil the fate of this great Bill; and all this to be done at the last moment. This description would be of great force and effect if it were fairly applicable to the case before us. But is not much of this really idle and empty sound? Let us look how the case stands, and, bringing the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman into definite shape, let us consider what he has really urged. In the first place, I think the argument about arithmetical propriety and political symmetry has been ridden rather hardly to-night. Whatever has been proposed—whatever claim has been urged—however it has been shown that upon the principles laid down and acted upon by the Government—this claim or that claim ought to have been admitted, we have been answered by the argument that we cannot attain to arithmetical propriety or political symmetry. That may or may not be true, but it is not a good answer to a case which rests upon substantial grounds. The right

  1247
  hon. Gentleman wishes it to be understood that in point of fact he is acting upon principles which the House of Commons has defined for him; that he has had no choice; that he has been merely giving effect to the will of the House, and that in his endeavour to do so he is thus interrupted and impeded. Is that a fail statement of the case? The right hon. Gentleman says we have a certain number of seats to be disposed of, and that we should only consider the best manner of disposing of them. The right hon. Gentleman, in his own exposition of his plan, laid down a principle diametrically opposed to that he has now announced. He distinctly told us that we should first find out what was the amount of the fair and just claims to enfranchisement, and then set about deciding the question of the manner in which the seats ought to be divided. Therefore, so far from endeavouring to force on the right hon. Gentleman a set of proposals, and then to induce him to deviate from them, we only ask him to proceed on the principle he has himself enounced—namely, that the just claims for enfranchisement should be ascertained first, and next the manner of providing the seats. The right hon. Gentleman says that the House of Commons arrived at three great decisions. First, that no town up to a population of 10,000 should return more than one Member; secondly, that no town under a population of 5,000 should be disfranchised; and, thirdly, that four great towns should receive an additional Member each. I demur to the whole of those propositions. In the first place, is it true that the House of Commons, in declaring that they would deprive all towns up to a population of 10,000, bound themselves under all the circumstances never to go beyond that point? In the next place, can it be sustained that when a majority voted that towns under a population of 5,000 should not be disfranchised, that that was a spontaneous action on the part of the House? Was not the whole influence of the Government used to bring about that decision? But, accepting the decision that all towns under a population of 5,000 should not be disfranchised, on what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman assert that none of them are to be disfranchised? Supposing we had arrived at the point indicated by the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)—supposing that we had read this clause a second time—and then we were
  1248
  considering his proposal, that in lieu of taking four towns above 10,000 we should take four of the lowest of the towns below 5,000, would that be in contradiction of the Vote which the House has come to? ["Yes, Yes!"] Then, if it is a contradiction, why did you in contradiction to that Vote as to the six great towns recognize four of them? The right hon. Gentleman having obtained a Vote of the House to the effect that these six great towns should not have an additional Member, spontaneously gave four of them an additional Member. Now when a Motion is made which would require only four towns to lose a Member he says we are abandoning our previous decision, and it is impossible to entertain such a proposal. Now, I venture to submit with great confidence this proposition that, when the House accepted the proposal of giving an additional Member to the four great towns, it was not the meaning of the House that the four seats so obtained should be taken from the towns which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Burnley, and asks how is it that it has never been enfranchised, although it was included in so many Bills? It was never enfranchised for the simple reason that no Bill which contained it has received the sanction of the Legislature. That town is not the case of a place in which the Government recognized the claim to representation and then withdrew it, not under pressure from the House of Commons, but in open contradiction to the principle it itself had announced. Let us then put away the rhetoric of the right hon. Gentleman. We do not say that Luton or the other towns mentioned in the Motion before the House will endanger the permanence of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to re-distribution. I think the right hon. Gentleman is under obligations to those who, like the hon. and gallant Member for Bedfordshire, endeavoured to introduce into the scheme of re-distribution those moderate extensions which some of us think will give it permanence and stability. We ask him, in conformity with what we believe to be the wish of the House of Commons, to fulfil, not our promise, but his, to act not upon our principle, but his own, and we are of opinion that in such a course he will find the greatest likelihood of giving permanence to the measure he has brought in.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that as some personal allusions had been made to him,

  1249
  he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words before it proceeded to a division. An hon. Member near him had stated that he was astonished at his bringing forward this Motion because he thought that he (Colonel Gilpin) belonged to his household. He could only say that he had been returned to Parliament as an independent Member, and that as such he had endeavoured to do his duty, and without wishing to give offence to anybody. The hon. Member for Warwick had said that it was bad taste on his part to have placed Luton at the head of the list. He (Colonel Gilpin) thought that was a very silly observation. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) had thought proper to comment somewhat severely on his conduct, and stated that nobody ever heard of Luton but himself. He would remind the right hon. Baronet that he had not brought Luton prominently forward in that House. It was the proposal of the Government to enfranchise Luton, together with other large and important places. He felt he had only done his duty in bringing forward the proposal he had submitted to the House. In reply to the observation that nobody had ever heard of Luton, he would observe that the rateable property of that place had increased 50 per cent within the last five years. The trade of straw plaiting gave employment to upwards of 60,000 persons, and that nearly £2,000,000 were turned over in that business every year. An observation had been made which he regretted should have been uttered in that House. He did not understand the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) when he charged him with acting in an under hand manner They were not known to each other; but he was satisfied that those who did know him believed that he would not do an under hand action. He had given Notice of his clause; he did not know what more he could do. He could, therefore, only say that the right hon. Gentleman judged of him by himself. He would not make any comment on what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further than to say that after his vacillating and inconsistent conduct on this Bill he was not at all surprised that he should now ridicule a proposal of his own a few nights ago.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 224: Majority 29.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow at Two of the clock.

COURTS OF LAW OFFICERS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 145.]
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Lord Naas.)
COURTS OF LAW OFFICERS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 145.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 35 (Vacancies in Offices of Pleading and Record Assistant and Chief Clerk to be filled by Judges).
  MR. VANCEsaid, he moved in line 28, to leave out "Judges of the Court," and insert "Chief Justice or Chief Baron, as the case may be." His object was, that the Chief Judges of the Court should have the appointment of the superior officers, as was the case in England.
  Amendment proposed, in line 28, to leave out the words "Judges of the Court," in order to insert the words "Chief Justice or Chief Baron, as the case may be,"—(Mr. Vance,)—instead thereof.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that the only object he had in view was to secure the appointment of efficient officers, and that could be best done by leaving the matter to all the Judges, every one of whom was as much interested in having proper officers appointed as the Chief Judge.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would rather give patronage to the Government than to Judges; but, if it were conferred on the Judges, there should be a practicable system of exercising it.
  LORD NAASsaid, he considered the proposal of the Bill to be preferable.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the patronage, if left to four, would be exercised without responsibility.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he concurred in that view.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would ask on what principle the patronage was to be exercised if the four Judges differed in opinion?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 88; Noes 35: Majority 53.
  Clause 37 (Officers of abolished Offices to continue Officers of Court to which they shall have been attached, and to receive Salaries if they discharge Duties imposed upon them).
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he had to move an Amendment that any Officer who had served more than twenty-five years should be able to retire upon a pension amounting to his full salary, instead of having to serve forty years, as provided by the Bill, before he should be entitled to his full pension.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, he must oppose the Amendment.
  Clause withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he had to move an Amendment that Officers who had served twenty-five years, and whose services were no longer required in the same capacity, should be required to serve in some other suitable position, and that if they refused to do so they should not be allowed to retire on full pay.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  GALASHIELS JURISDICTION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Bill to include the whole of the Burgh of Galashiels within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff and Commissary of Selkirkshire, ordered to be brought in by Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts, and to make further provisions concerning Turnpike Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 232.]

  TURNPIKE TRUSTS ARRANGEMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made under an Act of the fifteenth year of Her present Majesty, to facilitate arrangements for the relief of Turnpike Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 233.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sir John Port's Charity* (206).
Second Reading—Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* (186); Public Records (Ireland)* (204); Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation* (198).
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (167 & 207).
Committee—Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (208); Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt (138); War Department Stores Protection* (183 & 209); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* (177).
Report — Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt) (138); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* (177).
Third Reading—Morro Velho Marriages* (182), and passed.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 144.)
(The Bishop of Oxford.)
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 144.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Power for Bishop to sign Instrument of consecration at Churchyard without presence of Chancellor, &c).
  LORD PORTMANmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to enable the Bishop to perform the acts necessary for opening a Churchyard without going personally to the ground.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("at the Churchyard or in the Church to which it belongs.")—(The Lord Portman.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that under the existing law the Bishop was required to perform certain acts on the ground set apart for burials, and in the presence of his Court, his Chancellor, and other officials. It was proposed by this Bill, in order to reduce the expense of the ceremony, to relieve the Bishop of the necessity of taking his Court with him, and to provide an inexpensive mode of witnessing his performance of the necessary acts. But it would be going too far to empower the Bishop to perform the acts not in the place itself, but at any distance from the place. His noble Friend did not usually propose to add thus largely to the powers of Bishops, and the promoters of the Bill did not propose that a Bishop sitting in his lodgings in London should be able to consecrate a churchyard in
  1164
  Cornwall. The service of consecration was one which addressed itself to all the better feelings of the people; and unquestionably consecration would become a mere piece of formalism if, instead of a Bishop going through the service and the people being affected by it, he was to consecrate a place at a distance of 150 miles. The whole purpose of the Bill was to diminish expense to parishes by rendering it unnecessary for a Bishop to be accompanied by his Court; but if the Amendment were adopted and the necessity for a Bishop's attendance dispensed with, the effect of the alteration would be to change the whole theory of consecration. As the Bishops were satisfied with the provision which imposed upon them the trouble of personal attendance, he trusted they would be allowed to undertake it.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, that cases had arisen of a Bishop whose age and infirmities obliged him to delegate the duties of consecration to a stray Bishop who happened to be within the diocese, or to a Colonial Bishop. Now doubts had arisen as to the legality of consecrations so performed by Colonial Bishops, and, in consequence, the consecration of a cemetery had been deferred, and in one case burials had been performed by licence until the Bishop could attend to consecrate the ground. With the object of avoiding difficulties of this character, he cordially supported the Amendment of his noble Friend. The Archdeacon had the care and charge of churchyards and churches, and the question arose whether the Archdeacon's certificate of consecration might not be accepted as sufficient.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he fully concurred in the opinion that it was the practice of the Church that consecration should always take place on the spot; he believed it was the unwritten law of the Church; but this would be the first instance in which the requirement had been embodied in a statute. There was at present a certain degree of ambiguity as to whether the presence of the Bishop on the spot was absolutely required or not; and if the few words objected to were omitted from the Bill, there would still be no interference with the practice of consecration, and the Bishop would still usually be called upon to consecrate. If his presence was required by Ecclesiastical Law, of course he would be present, but as there was a doubt about it, although it was but a slight one, it seemed undesirable to de-

  1165
  cide by this Bill that he must be present—for the Bill would make it impossible for him to be absent—while at present there was a doubt whether his presence was absolutely required or not. As to the Colonial Bishops, he believed the doubt that had existed had been entirely removed. Indeed, unless he was mistaken, it referred only to one or two Indian Bishops, and it was now decided, with reference to Colonial Bishops generally, that consecration by them was perfectly valid. With regard to the necessity for re-consecration when a church had been enlarged, there was one point which seemed to be lost sight of. The effect of consecration, whatever else it was, was to hand over a place as property for a certain purpose. It was analogous to the legal act of taking possession. If you had a house and rebuilt it, you did not require to enter into possession of it again. But if you added twenty acres to an existing estate of twenty acres, in law you would be required to take possession of the new land. This fresh conveyance of additional land was analogous to the fresh consecration of a church when its area had been enlarged. If it were re-built on the same spot, there was no necessity for re-consecration, unless the position of the Communion Table had been changed by an advance of the building.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the tendency of the Bill and of the argument in support of it was to convey the impression that some mysterious good was produced by the ceremony of consecration.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he was willing to omit from the clause the words "not elsewhere," but he could not give up the rest of the clause and must take the decision of their Lordships if the compromise he offered were not acceptable. The argument suggested by the noble Earl was one of which their Lordships ought to be specially cautious. Because there were persons who, in the judgment of the noble Earl, were endeavouring to introduce superstitious views into the Church, he would have them not only exclude those superstitious views, but go a great way on the other side and strike at existing customs with which no superstition whatever was connected. This was one of the worst arguments possible, and he was sure that the adoption of it would encourage superstitions instead of keeping them out of the Church. If that with which the Church was universally familiar
  1166
  and which contained no superstition should be swept away, the effect would be to enlist on the superstitious side the sympathies of whose who loved the present unsuperstitious use. In point of fact, there was no superstition whatever in consecrating a churchyard, any more than there was in saying grace before dinner, and no more mysterious power was exercised over the ground consecrated, than upon the meat over which grace was said. He was personally willing to leave out the words "but not elsewhere," though he must give his hearty opposition to the proposal to strike out the rest of the clause.
  On Question, That the said Words stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 81; Not-Contents 35: Majority 46.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Cork, &c., Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Beaufort, D.

  London, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Abercorn, M.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Cairns, L.

  Carew, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Bantry, E.

  Churston, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Derby, E.

  Denman, L.

  Devon, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Feversham, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Home, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Powis, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Wilton, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricard.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Southampton, L.

  1167

  Stratheden, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Camden, M.

  Normanby, M.

  Aveland, L.

  Westmeath, M.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Airlie, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Foley, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  De Grey, E.

  Monson, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Ellenborough, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Grey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Morley, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  Taunton, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3, amended, and agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved the addition of the following clause:—
  "And whereas Doubts are entertained whether in Cases where a Church or Chapel has been repaired or enlarged, and the external Walls have been partly destroyed, or the Position of the Communion Table altered, a Re-consecration or Reconciliation of such Church or Chapel be not necessary in order to the due and valid Administration of Divine Offices there: Be it declared and enacted, that all Marriages, Rites, and Ceremonies heretofore or hereafter celebrated or performed in a consecrated Church or Chapel, which may have been repaired or enlarged prior to such Celebration or Performance shall be valid and effectual for all Purposes, notwithstanding that upon such Repair or Enlargement the external Walls of such Church or Chapel may not have remained entire or the position of the Communion Table may have been altered, and notwithstanding that since such Repair or Enlargement neither a Re-consecration nor a Reconciliation of such Church or Chapel may have taken place."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDassented to the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Short Title).
  Clause amended by altering Title of Bill to "Church and Churchyards Consecration Act, 1867."
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 208.)

CONVOCATION AND THE COMMISSION ON RITUALISM.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, who had given Notice "to call the attention of the House to the subjoined Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Guardian," of 26th June, 1867, said, My Lords, I am aware that it is not usual for one Member of this House to ask a Question of another who is not a Member of the Government; but in putting the Question to the most rev. Primate (The Archbishop of Canterbury), of which I have given Notice, I act towards him as a great public functionary, and not only as Metropolitan of all England, but as President of the Upper House of Convocation—the very body whose powers are affirmed in the document I desired to bring under your Lordship's notice. If any doubt existed as to the public nature of this document, its postcript would set it at rest; for the most rev. Primate says to his correspondent, "You are quite at liberty to publish this." That being the case, I will read the letter addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Rev. H. T. Barnard, rural dean of Portishead. It is as follows:—
"Rev. and dear Sir,
"I have duly received the Memorial of the Clergy of the Deaneries of Chew and Portishead, expressing their Opinion of the Danger that would result from any Alteration to the Book of Common Prayer, &c., by the sole Authority of Parliament."
Mark these words, "the sole authority of Parliament," and these which immediately follow:—
I quite agree with the Memorialists in this Matter; and I have the satisfaction of informing them that Convocation will be duly consulted upon the Matters submitted to the Royal Commission alluded to, before Parliament shall make any Enactment touching them.—I am, Rev. and dear Sir, Yours, very faithfully, C. T. CANTUAR."
"To the Rev. H. T. Barnard,
"Rural Dean of Portishead."
"You are quite at liberty to publish this.'
This letter, my Lords, acquires very great importance when taken in connection with the Memorial to which it is a reply. The Memorial is addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury from a meeting of the Clergy of the Deaneries of Chew and Portishead assembled at Yatton, and these are its words:—
"That a Royal Commission has been appointed for the consideration of certain rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Table of Proper and Daily Lessons, with power to suggest alterations in the said rubrics, and in the said

1169
Table of Lessons. That, in the opinion of your memorialists, it would be opposed to the Divine principles of the Church, and unconstitutional and exceedingly distressing to the consciences of many sincere Churchmen, and would establish a most dangerous precedent, if any alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, or in the rubrics, or in the Table of Lessons, should be made by the sole authority of Parliament. Your memorialists therefore pray your Grace to withhold your sanction from any measure introduced into Parliament which shall propose any alteration in the Book of Common Prayer, or in the rubrics thereof, or in the Table of Lessons."
And mark these words—
"Unless such alteration has been previously submitted to and approved by Convocation."
That is the Memorial in answer to which the most rev. Primate says, in effect, "I quite agree with all that is stated by the memorialists; I quite agree that it would be most dangerous and improper that anything should be done by the sole authority of Parliament;" and the most rev. Primate must also necessarily assert, if he agree with the Memorialists, "that no such alteration as that specified can be tolerated unless it be previously submitted to and approved by Convocation." Upon this I may be allowed to make one or two preliminary observations in order to show the value of the Question I am about to put. In the first place, I think that we have to inquire whether the Commissioners appointed to serve on the Commission were apprised at the time they consented to serve upon it that their decision would be subjected to the criticism and perhaps the revision of Convocation? We have also a right to ask what course will be pursued in case the decision come to by the Commission be submitted to Convocation, and Convocation come to a conclusion different from that of the Commissioners? What will be the state of things then? Which of the two decisions in that case will prevail? Having regard to these points, I say that upon the answer of the Archbishop to the Questions I am about to put will depend very serious issues. It is quite clear that if Convocation assert the powers here ascribed to it some collision will arise between it and the Parliament, which, I believe, is fully prepared to deny that Convocation has those powers. And, my Lords, if we ascertain from the most rev. Prelate that he has authority for what he states in his letter—if we understand from him that Convocation concurs with him in the opinion that nothing can or ought to be done in respect of "the matters submitted to
1170
the Royal Commission" by "the sole authority of Parliament," then it will be necessary for us to demand an explanation as to what is the meaning of Convocation. If Convocation is to be erected into a body of such power, we must know what Convocation really is; we must ask whether Convocation is to be confined to the single Province of Canterbury, or whether it is to be extended to the Province of York? Indeed, my Lords, we must look further, and ask whether Convocation is to embrace the Provinces of Dublin and Armagh, with the representatives of some 2,000 clergymen in Ireland? All this must be clearly set out before we can recognize Convocation as a power to which we are to yield or to listen; and we must know exactly what this great power is which has assumed such magnificent proportions and pre-eminence. We must then know what is the relation which Convocation is to bear to the two Houses of Parliament. When, too, such language as this is used we have a right to ask whether Parliament is not entitled to act by its sole authority, and whether Convocation has any concurrent jurisdiction? Indeed, we ought to learn whether the authority of Convocation be supreme, whether it be concurrent, or whether it be subordinate? All these Questions will depend upon the Answer which I expect to receive from the most rev. Primate, although it is quite possible that the Answer of the most rev. Primate may remove the apprehensions which his reply to these Memorialists has excited, not only in my own mind, but in the minds of others. I will, therefore, take the liberty of putting the Question of which I have given notice, and will ask the most rev. Primate on what authority it is stated that—
quote>"Convocation will be duly consulted upon the Matters submitted to the Royal Commission before Parliament shall make any Enactment touching them?"
LORD TAUNTONsaid, that before the most reverend Primate replied to the Question of the noble Earl, he desired to ask some information with reference to the Report of the Ritual Commission, because as their Lordships might remember, the second reading of the Clerical Vestments Bill had been postponed for a couple of months, a majority of their Lordships' House deeming it advisable that the Commission should have an opportunity of considering those questions to which it referred before the Bill was proceeded with. There

1171
was, however, a large minority, including eleven Prelates of the Church of England, in favour of immediate legislation. He would therefore ask the most rev. Primate how far the Commission had proceeded with the consideration of the subject, and how soon they would be in a position to make a Report? He should be exceedingly sorry if a Session passed without Parliament giving some proof to show that they were desirous of remedying evils which were inflicting a mischief on the Church of England which it was impossible to overrate. The feeling of the country would be greatly disappointed unless something were done.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will first answer the Question of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton) by stating that at a meeting of the Royal Commission held this morning, when 26 out of the 29 Commissioners were present, the following Resolution was unanimously agreed upon:—

"1. The Commissioners, having at their first meeting resolved to report upon the question submitted to them on the ornaments of the Church and the vestments of the minister, before they applied themselves to any other branch of the subject, have already taken, and they are taking, evidence on this particular question, and as soon as that evidence is concluded they will apply themselves to a consideration of their first Report.

"2. The Commissioners have now obtained in great part the information which they desired to receive as preliminary to their deliberations, and next week, or at the very furthest the week after next, they hope to be able to commence the consideration of their first Report."

Now, I have not the slightest difficulty in answering the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and although I at first entertained great doubt as to whether it ought to have been put at all; having given that point consideration, I do not wish to press that objection, but will at once proceed to answer it. I will, however, make this preliminary remark. I think my noble Friend has scarcely dealt quite fairly with me, in respect of my letter, because when I say "I quite agree" with the Memorialists he interprets those words as meaning that I agree with everything stated in the Memorial, which is really not the case. What I really agree with them in is in thinking that serious danger would arise from any alteration being made in the Book of Common Prayer upon the sole authority of Parliament, and to that opinion I still adhere. I think such alteration would raise very serious questions, and nothing would induce me to agree with it. When
1172
I am asked on what authority it is stated that "Convocation will be duly consulted upon the matters submitted to the Royal Commission before Parliament shall make any enactment touching them," my answer is — my authority for the statement is founded on law and precedent. That power alone that enacted the law can alter the law. The question then is, what authority enacted the Book of Common Prayer? The Book of Common Prayer was framed, sanctioned, and enacted by the joint authority of Parliament and Convocation. That I assert as an historical fact. For what occurred after the failure of the Conference of the Savoy? Charles II. immediately issued a Commission to Convocation to consider certain alterations in the Book of Common Prayer. That was in 1661. Convocation took a month to discuss the alterations, and then made their Report; and in March 1662, the Act of Uniformity was passed. What again took place in conformity with law and precedent with reference to the Clerical Subscription Act within the last two years? The Commission having made their Report, Her Majesty's Government (Earl Russell being at its head) granted a license to Convocation to discuss the question, and Convocation having come to a decision the Bill was submitted to Parliament and passed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) spoke of the possibility of Convocation and Parliament disagreeing. All I can say is, that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. I do not profess to say that there is no power in Parliament to settle these matters; but I adhere to everthing which I have stated in my letter, although I may not agree with every word contained in the Memorial, and I repeat my conviction that all the matters referred to the Commission will be submitted to Convocation before Parliament proceeds to legislative enactment.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I must remind your Lordships that a Petition has been presented, signed by 10,000 persons, praying that no change may be made in this matter without Convocation having been consulted. It is, therefore, very important that there should be no misunderstanding, because, by exciting false hopes, we may induce many of the clergy, who view this matter with great anxiety, to expect more than can perhaps be done, and they may therefore be dissatisfied when they compare the promise with the performance. From the satisfactory

1173
explanation made by the most rev. Primate, he appears to have intimated that the same course will be pursued as was pursued some years ago in case of the Clerical Subscription Bill. But I am afraid that the clergy, especially after the prominent manner in which the subject has been brought forward this evening, may form an exaggerated notion of what took place at that time. While Parliament was engaged in considering the Bill for an alteration in the subscription, the members of the Lower House of Convocation very properly assembled, and, though they had been very doubtful previously as to the advantages of a change in the subscription, agreed unanimously that the Bill before Paliament should receive their hearty approval. Convocation, therefore, in this case, expressed their approval in anticipation, and the measure received the subsequent sanction of the Crown. It is evident that great difficulties must constantly arise in consequence of the complicated machinery which regulates the relations between the Church and State, and while I heartily approve of Convocation being recognized and consulted on matters of this kind, I do not attach to its action, or to the words of the most rev. Primate respecting it, the importance which seemed to be attached to it by the petitioners. Therefore, the words that appear so objectionable to the noble Earl do not appear in the same light to me.
Convocation is rightly recognized in such matters, as the Dean and Chapter of a diocese are recognized when they receive a Congé d' Elire to elect a Bishop. It is said that Convocation has assumed a very different position of late years from that which it occcupied in former times. But one point which I would press upon your Lordships' attention is, that Convocation is frequently spoken of in the singular instead of in the plural number, which would be the more proper form; for though Convocations in Ireland have long slumbered, and the Convocation of York enjoyed the same slumber until it was aroused a few years since by the most rev. Primate; yet, having been thus resuscitated, it is evident that the York Convocation will no longer rest contented with a position of subordination to the Convocation of Canterbury now that the Northern districts have so greatly increased in importance. And this has brought about a great practical change in the position of Convocation, because now that there are
1174
two Convocations in this country, each of which has an equal right to be consulted, it might take a long time before any definite agreement was come to in respect of any change in the practice of the Church. As an instance of the inevitable dilatoriness of such a body, I may remind your Lordships that, five years ago a simple and peculiarly appropriate question—with regard to baptism—whether fathers might stand sponsors to their own children—was submitted to the consideration of Convocation. It was supposed that the opinion of the clergy was unanimous on the subject, and that a definite judgment would be arrived at; but five years have passed; the question has been bandied backwards and forwards, from Her Majesty's to Canterbury, from Canterbury to York, and back again from York to Canterbury, and at the present moment I believe that the prospect of a settlement is more remote than when we began. Under these circumstances, Convocation, as it at present exists, must not be offended because the Imperial Parliament is disposed to regard its machinery as too cumbrous to fit it for the real decision of these questions. It is perfectly true that in old times certain Acts received the approval of Convocation as well as that of Parliament; but out of a compilation by a learned civilian of 2,000 pages of statutes relating to the Church only seven Statutes appear to have received the sanction of Convocation, the rest having been adopted by the sole authority of Parliament. Among these are two Acts of Uniformity. Therefore, it can scarcely be said that in every case the authority of Convocation is required to sanction alterations in the Church. Although I quite agree that all respect should be paid to an ancient body which does represent—in an imperfect manner, no doubt—the clergy of the Church of England, yet it is well that we should see what those who have high ideas of Church authority say as to the propriety of consulting Convocation. The Rev. W. Bennett, in a letter addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., entitled "A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England," says—
"But, as it (that is, Convocation) is now, the fact of a prolocutor and a session of presbyters in one House, surrounded with technical etiquette in approaching the other, evidently cuts off the joint spirit of deliberation, and at once destroys the Convocation of the clergy as an assembly working for Clod's Church under the influence of the

1175
Holy Ghost. On this ground, therefore, we could not trust it."
Again—
"What chance is there of any really pure, spiritual unbiassed deliberation on the affairs of the Church in such an assembly as this? It is impossible to say otherwise than that the Convocation, however eminent and estimable many of its members may individually be, is no true representative either of the laity or of the clergy of the Church of England."
It is clear then that there is very little hope of conciliating the party represented by this gentleman.
I have nothing to add further than to advert to the reason given by some persons for thinking that Parliament is quite unfit to decide these subjects—namely, because no questions of this kind should be determined by an assembly consisting of persons belonging to religious denominations other than the Church of England. In reply to that proposition, I must say that it was not until the year 1672 that Roman Catholics and Nonconformists were excluded from Parliament, and that many important Acts affecting the Church were passed before that time, and were, therefore, enacted by the authority of a Parliament exactly resembling in this respect the Parliament of the present day.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had supposed that the most rev. Primate had expressed the opinion conveyed in his letter on the authority of Her Majesty's Government. He now understood that it was merely the expression of the most rev. Primate's personal opinion; but he hoped that before the discussion came to an end the noble Earl at the head of the Government would set the matter satisfactorily at rest. No human being could doubt that Parliament possessed the power of making any alteration it chose in this or any other matter; though he quite agreed with the most rev. Primate, on the other hand, that as a matter of fairness and of constitutional usage, it was highly expedient that subjects of this sort should be referred to the opinion of Convocation.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I desire to state that I wrote that letter without having any authority from Her Majesty's Government. I also wish to say that when I spoke of Convocation in the singular number, I used it in a general sense, and did not mean to exclude that of York.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he could not, as a legal Member of the House, permit the observations of his Friend the most
1176
rev. Primate to pass without notice. That most rev. Prelate said, that as the Book of Common Prayer had been settled first by Convocation and then by Parliament, it could be unmade only by the same authority that made it. The rule quo ligamine ligatum est eodem dissolvi debet, might be very well as a principle of law; but the most rev. Primate was mistaken in supposing that the authority of the Book of Common Prayer resulted in any degree from Convocation. It was very true that before the Act of Uniformity was passed, a Commission, or something in the nature of a Commission, was issued, which consulted learned persons, and afterwards Convocation; and it was probably the support the Bill received from that body that influenced Parliament to pass it; but it was not that body that gave it any efficacy. He wished to make that explanation lest it might go forth to the public that the assent of Convocation in any case was necessary. It might be expedient that Convocation should be consulted—upon that point he would express no opinion; but that any binding efficacy could be added by Convocation to any measure that received the assent of Queen, Lords, and Commons was wholly untenable.
LORD EBURYwished to ask a Question of the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville); it was, Whether, when the Bill with respect to Clerical Subscription was under consideration, the noble Earl had not stated that the Government had not thought it necessary to consult Convocation respecting it?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that there was some little difficulty in answering Questions without Notice, and that difficulty no doubt had been experienced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), who had not risen to answer the Question put to him by the noble Baron (Lord Lyttelton). He should be sorry to give a precise answer to the Question of his noble Friend, but he thought that his noble Friend's recollection was correct. At all events the late Government absolutely denied any right in Convocation to be consulted in the matter. He remembered the discussion that had taken place as to the course that should be taken, and also the Correspondence which had taken place between the Home Secretary and the most rev. Primate on the matter.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, the answer of the most rev. Primate had

1177
carried dismay through the length and breadth of the land; and that dismay would be greatly increased if the noble Earl at the head of the Government should give the weight of his authority to the position which had been taken up in the letter of the most rev. Primate. That answer, he conceived to be, that nothing would be done in this vital matter of Ritualism until Convocation had been previously consulted. The words of the most rev. Primate's reply were—
"I quite agree with the Memorialists in this matter; and I have the satisfaction to inform them that Convocation will be duly consulted upon the matters submitted to the Royal Commission alluded to before Parliament shall make any enactment touching them."
Now, if that were done, it would give Convocation, or rather, as had been said by the right rev. Prelate, Convocation, an opportunity of interposing very serious delay. All that the Ritualists asked for was delay. They said—"Give us two years and we will revolutionize the Church. We will put ourselves beyond the reach of all legal enactments whatsoever. Give us two years and we will put ourselves beyond all Episcopal control." Now, it appeared to him, and in that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) thought with him, that to take counsel with Convocation in the matter would be playing into the hands of the Ritualists. What had been the whole history of the movement? It had been nothing but one series of postponements and delays. Two years ago the matter was brought forward, and they were told that they should try the effect of paternal counsels upon the innovating party. Well, the right rev. Prelates who presided over the dioceses of London and Winchester had given counsel in the most fatherly spirit; and yet the number of the churches in which the objectionable practices prevailed had increased in spite of private admonition and public exhortation. They were then told that they should ascertain the law on the subject. Several Members of the Episcopal Bench, of whom he was one, agreed that a case should be drawn up with great care and laid before four of the most eminent counsel of the day, one of whom was the Attorney General of the late Government, and another a man who had lately taken a place in their Lordship's House to the great advantage of that assembly. Those eminent persons gave an unanimous opinion against the legality of vestments
1178
and of those practices which their Lordships all reprobated. Then it was proposed to try the question in a Court of Law; and it was said that the English Church Union were taking the opinions of nine very learned men, and it would be important to ascertain their opinions before proceeding further. It was evident that those gentlemen had the greatest difficulty in arriving at a conclusion favourable to the Ritualists; but at last, after several months had elapsed, a very impotent result was produced in opposition to the opinions of the four eminent men to whom he had alluded. Time passed away, and then it was suggested that a Royal Commission should be appointed. Then there was found considerable difficulty in getting a deputation to wait upon the heads of the Government, until his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) brought forward his Bill. Influence was brought to bear to have the Bill abandoned, and the noble Earl at the head of the Government was called upon to announce the appointment of a Royal Commission. The special constitution of that Commission was a subject upon which he (the Bishop of Carlisle) would not like to enter; but he was only speaking the truth when he said that it failed in recommending itself to the general confidence of the country. It had now, however, oozed out that the facts which had been brought before the Commissioners were of so startling a character that they felt that it was absolutely necessary that the matter should be dealt with.
THE EARL OF DERBYrose to Order. He was unwilling to interfere with the freedom of debate, but he thought that the right rev. Prelate was going beyond reasonable limits. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had given Notice of a Question which he wished to put to the most rev. Primate, and the most rev. Primate had given a plain and distinct Answer. The debate had no doubt taken a very wide range; but the right rev. Prelate was now not only departing from the subject matter of the Question, and going into the general topic of Ritualism, but he was giving information to the House which he said had "oozed out" from the proceedings of the Commission—information taken merely on the authority of newspaper paragraphs. Not only was the right rev. Prelate irregular in entering into that discussion, but still more so in dealing with the questions about which he

1179
could have no possible information, but the vaguest rumours—questions which ought not to be presented in that shape to their Lordships.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that the question was of such vital importance that he trusted their Lordships' indulgence would be extended to him. All he wished to say was that he was in hopes that they would have prompt legislation upon the subject. They had been told that Convocation must be consulted before legislation could take place. But how stood the case? The Convocation of Canterbury was already showing an unmistakeable—
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD rose to Order. If their Lordships were to have this sort of irregular debate, arising without notice, where was it to end?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that for many years—ever since he had been a Member of their Lordships' House—it had been the practice of this House to allow a discussion arising out of Questions put and Answers given. Here Notice had actually been given of the Question. He submitted that it was entirely a question of discretion as to whether the subject-matter of the right rev. Prelate's remarks arose naturally out of the debate; and, at all events, it was quite clear that the right rev. Prelate might put himself in order by some formal Motion.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he wished to warn the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Derby) of the serious consequences which might follow his Answer. If he said that Convocation must be consulted before anything was done by Parliament, he would leave all over the country the impression that he was unconsciously playing into the hands of the party of innovation in the Established Church, whose only cry was "Give us time!" The Convocation of Canterbury had shown itself remarkably unwilling to deal openly and decidedly with the question of Ritualism. The Bishops some time back drew up a most important document on this subject; but when it was referred to the Lower House it was shorn of all those parts which contained the pith and marrow, and a mere vague and impotent Resolution was adopted. Was it to be expected that Convocation, which acted in this way, would yield its assent to any really efficacious legislation on this subject? There were other parties to be considered besides those who asserted their right to liberty of action within the Church. Large numbers of laymen were
1180
estranged from the Church by the proceedings of the ritualists; and it was impossible also not to help feeling deeply for the poor people who were being led away by those delusions. In conclusion he hoped that the noble Earl in the remarks he would presently make would give no sanction to this policy of delay, and that prompt and serious action would be taken in this most serious matter.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not going to add to the irregularity of which I have complained. I understood the most rev. Primate to say, as the fact is, that he had no authority from the Government for the statement contained in his letter; and I only rise therefore to relieve the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken (the Bishop of Carlisle) from the dismay which he says will be felt in the country if I pledge myself to the opinion that Parliament has no right to deal with this question without the consent of Convocation. To relieve his mind I will say that I have not given any opinion on the subject, nor am I going to give one now. I think it is perfectly competent for Parliament to take any course which it may see fit to take. On the other hand, I think it desirable that Convocation should have an early opportunity of expressing its opinion upon any important change which is contemplated with regard to Church matters. But there is no doubt that the legislation of Parliament is not in the slightest degree dependent upon the deliberations of Convocation.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, in reference to the statement of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle), respecting reports which had oozed out and appeared in the London papers, that it was remarkable that the right rev. Prelate should have overlooked a statement made by the most rev. Primate that those reports were entirely without authority, were incorrect, and in some instances opposed to the fact.
THE BISHOP OF OSSORYsaid, that if it was thought expedient that the opinions of the Convocations of the Provinces of Canterbury and York should be taken in these matters, it was equally important that the Convocations of the two Provinces of Ireland should be consulted. These Provinces were as much an integral part of the Church of England as the two English Provinces.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in reply, said, he had heard with satisfaction

1181
the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) that the most rev. Primate had no official authority for the statement contained in his letter. The most rev. Primate based his statement on law and precedent; but in some most important instances it had the sanction neither of law nor of precedent. The second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was established by Royal authority, without consulting Convocation; and the Prayer Book of Elizabeth passed in the first year of her reign, not only passed without the consent of Convocation, but against its wishes. All the spiritual Lords were against the Uniformity Act, all the lay Lords were for it, and yet the Prayer Book of Elizabeth was that of the kingdom of England from her time to that of the Protectorate. These were two vital precedents against the course indicated by the most rev. Primate. As he gathered that the Report of the Commission would be ready in a few days, it would be only courteous to the House and the Commission that he should postpone the second reading of the Clerical Vestments Bill which was set down for to-morrow, for one week; and he therefore gave notice that he would do so.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had not stated that the Report of the Commission would be ready so soon as the noble Earl seemed to have understood.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, the noble Earl must either persevere with the Bill or postpone it until after the Commission had reported. If the Commission had not reported, in what position would their Lordships be when the second reading of the Bill had been postponed for a week? He believed that there ought to be no postponement whatever, and the noble Earl ought to proceed with the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had understood the most rev. Primate to say that at the end of this week, or at least towards the end of next, the Commission would have completed taking evidence, and would be prepared to deliberate upon it, and to prepare a Report. However, after the lapse of a fortnight if the Report was not presented, nothing would induce him to postpone any longer the second reading of the Bill.
After further explanation,
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he would postpone the second reading of the Bill to the 23rd inst.

LIMERICK HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL—(No. 138.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, said its object was to authorize the Commissioners of the Treasury to compound a debt with its interest, owing by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. The Bill had been read a second time by their Lordships without discussion, on the understanding that it should be discussed at this stage. The debt and interest due from the Harbour Commissioners to the Government amounted to £230,000. At various periods from 1817 to 1847 sums were advanced by the authority of the Treasury, under various Acts of Parliament, for the improvement of the harbour and the construction of a bridge; and the principal at last amounted to £179,000. The bridge was to have cost about £23,000, but £89,000 had been expended upon it, and that outlay drew largely upon the funds available for the improvement of the harbour. It had therefore been found necessary to keep up shipping rates and other port dues to an amount which had been found to interfere most seriously with the progress of the city of Limerick. While Waterford, Cork, Belfast, and other places had been rapidly increasing in the amount of their tonnage, Limerick alone was going back. At last a memorial was presented to the Treasury, and the result was that a Minute was prepared by the late Government for the extinction of the debt. The change of Government occurred before effect could be given to it, and this Bill would give effect to a corresponding Minute prepared by the present Government. In the other House the Bill had gone through the ordeal of a Select Committee. That Committee had agreed unanimously to adopt the Bill. It was proposed to compound the debt for the sum of £65,000, of which sum £55,000 is to be paid to the Commissioners of Public Works by an annual rent-charge, calculated at the rate of 4·0729 per cent, to be paid by half-yearly instalments for a period of fifty years, and the remaining sum of £10,000 is to be a first charge on the tolls of the bridge at 3¼ per cent per annum. Power is given to the Commissioners to sell the bridge at any time for £10,000 to any

1183
Grand Jury or other public body. The Bill further enabled the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance a sum not exceeding £20,000 for the purpose of constructing a graving-dock and otherwise improving the port. A good deal of evidence was given before the Committee of the House of Commons respecting the causes of the decay of the port, and the best means of restoring its prosperity; the desirability of constructing a graving-dock being particularly dwelt upon. He hoped their Lordships would go into Committee on the Bill, not only because it would relieve the city of Limerick from the difficulties under which it at present laboured, but also on the more important and public ground that the probable effect of the measure would be to provide additional employment for the poor of Limerick and the neighbourhood.
THE EARL OF POWISgreatly objected to the Bill, and particularly to the 13th clause, which authorized additional advances to be made. Altogether the large sum of £179,000 had been advanced already, and the rates had been raised four times in succession by the Harbour Commissioners in order to provide security for the different advances. He wished to point out, that according to the Return which had been laid before their Lordships, the revenues of the port would not suffice to pay the interest on both the new and old grants. In his opinion, if this debt were to be compounded by the Treasury, it ought to be compounded absolutely. The reason assigned for making a further advance was that it would enable the port to compete with rival ports on more favourable terms; such rival ports being afterwards stated to be Dublin and Gork. But if they were to allow such a reason to have weight, they might be asked at no distant time, to enable other ports on the Shannon, such as Foynes and Tarbert, to compete with Limerick. The whole gist of the Bill and memorial was that the tolls were too high; but by a Bill now passing through Parliament 250 articles would be free from paying toll, and the deficit which had been mentioned would be thereby increased. He asked them whether advancing the money asked for would not be throwing good money after bad, and whether it was reasonable, after expending £179,000, which had been augmented by arrears of interest to £220,000, to ask Parliament to spend £24,000 more upon insufficient security.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYstated that
1184
the acts of the Government in respect of the matter touched on by the noble Earl who had just spoken were originated by himself. No one could complain of the tone in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) had approached the Bill, because it was one demanding most careful consideration. The memorial stood on better ground than was usual in such cases; a large sum of money had been expended upon a bridge which had proved to be of very little use to the harbour, although the harbour dues had been charged with the principal and interest of the cost. The making of that bridge was no doubt the result of a mistake on the part of the Treasury, and the people of Limerick now came to the Treasury for relief; and not unreasonably so, for the raising of the harbour dues to pay the interest had tended to diminish the trade of the port. He therefore supported that portion of the Bill which dealt with this matter, on the ground that it was the rectification of a mistaken policy. Upon the other point touched on by the noble Earl he was not so well able to speak, because the advance of money was not proposed by the late Government. If, however, the present Government felt convinced that the construction of a graving-dock would greatly improve the port of Limerick, the proposition should be considered on its merits without respect to the solvency of the port. On the whole he thought their Lordships would do well to let the Bill pass.
LORD CAIRNSsaid that both on local and national grounds it was advisable that the Bill should pass. He would remind their Lordships that the Bill had undergone the scrutiny of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. With reference to the objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) to the 13th clause, no one acquainted with the Port of Limerick would deny that a graving-dock was absolutely necessary for placing the port upon a proper footing. If such a dock could be constructed without the loan asked for, it would be most improper to grant it, but it would be vain to hope that £20,000 could be obtained on the public market for that object; and it would be most improper to grant the loan if the only end in view was the local one of enabling Limerick to compete with Cork. There was however the great public object to be gained of providing a refuge for ships in distress. The security provided was as good as any offered for capital to construct

1185
Public Works, and as the noble Earl who had last spoken had said, it would be very wrong to deny Limerick this assistance, and thus make it atone for the error of a Government which authorized the advance of £80,000 to build a useless bridge.
THE EARL of LIMERICKsaid, that the bridge was not only of no advantage to the shipping of the port, but a positive disadvantage, inasmuch as the small trading craft had to lose a considerable amount of time on each occasion that they passed the swing bridge. A graving dock was much wanted and would be of great benefit to the port, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Bill as it stood.
EARL GRANVILLEalso expressed his concurrence in the provisions of the measure.
Bill considered in Committee; Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'Clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'Clock.

LIMERICK HARBOUR (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL—(No. 138.)
  Order of the Day for House to be put into Committee read.