Sitting of 29 July 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Downpatrick, v. David Stewart Ker, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class IV.—Education, Science, and Art.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Dominica Loan.*
First Reading—Skipton Grammar School* [290]; Militia Pay*; Dominica Loan* [291].
Second Reading—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) (No. 2)* [285]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [288]; Prorogation of Parliament* [277]; Patriotic Fund* [278]; Naval Stores (No. 2)* [289].
Committee—Parks Regulation (re-comm.) [273] [R.P.]; Customs Revenue* [238]; Inland Revenue* [239]; Metropolis Subways* (re-comm.) [249].
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 6)* [244]; Customs Revenue* [238]; Inland Revenue* [239]; Metropolis Subways* (re-comm.) [249].
Third Reading—Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* [253]; Poor Law Board, &c.* [271]; District Lunatic Asylums Officers (Ireland)* [269]; Admiralty Court (Ireland)* [209]; Indemnity* [280]; Bank Post Bills (Ireland)* [281], and passed.
Withdrawn — Parliamentary Elections* (re-comm.) [247]; Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [124].

IRELAND—POOR LAW MEDICAL SALARIES.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government approve of the recommendation of the Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland with respect to the Grant from the Consolidated Fund of "a moiety of the cost of medical salaries and of medical appliances in Irish workhouses and dispensaries" — namely, "that a large portion of the Grant should be applied to improve the medical arrangements of unions on the Western Coast of Ireland;" and, whether such an apportionment of the Grant would not be in distinct opposition to the practice in England of the re-payment of a moiety of the medical salaries and appliances of each union; contrary also to the intention of the Select Committee on Irish Taxation, who first called attention to the subject, and, in fact, involving an application of the principle of a "rate in aid?"
LORD NAASsaid, that in the early part of this year, when the Grant was voted for the first time by Parliament, he, on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners, submitted to the Treasury some suggestions as to the mode in which it was advisable to distribute the sum. It was finally determined that it would not be desirable to depart during the present year from the rule adopted in England — namely, that the money should be given in proportion to the expense incurred by the Union. The Grant for the year would, therefore, be distributed on that principle. If the proposal made by the Poor Law Commission had been carried out, the county which the hon. Member represented would have been benefited to the amount of £115, and Galway, another county which objected to the proposal, would also have been benefited. He therefore did not think that the question was properly understood in Ireland. With regard to the second portion of the Question, he must remind the hon. Member that this grant was, in fact, a rate in aid given from the Imperial to the local funds; and he hoped that that
330
fact would be borne in mind in considering this question in another year.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, Whether, looking to the state of public business, the advanced period of the Session, and the importance of the interests concerned in the Public Schools Bill, he intends proceeding with that measure during the present Session?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was important that they should go on with the Bill as soon as possible, as the subject had been two years before the House. He therefore proposed to put the Bill for a second reading for Friday after Supply, and to go into Committee on it on the following Tuesday morning.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to make any alteration in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission or of the Church Estates Commission, as to the number or powers of the Commissioners and their Staff; or whether the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management Act will be prolonged by a simple Continuance Bill?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Government had no intention of making any alteration in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission, or of the Church Estates Commission; and, as to the second part of the Question, the Capitular Estates Management Act would be continued by the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill.

ARMY—THE 86TH REGIMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the detention of the 86th regiment when bound for the Mauritius, at the Cape, Whether it is the intention to make any and what compensation to the Officers for the extra expenses they have been compelled to incur, there being as alleged no preparation for them at Port Elizabeth, the station to which they were so ordered?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the 86th had been detained at the Cape on their way to the Mauritius on account of the dreadful fever which had lately prevailed in that colony. He had not heard any complaints of the officers having incurred any extra expense. Till he had an account before him he could not say what course he might be inclined to take in regard to compensation for extra expenses.

FRANCE, PRUSSIA, AND DENMARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Government have remonstrated with that of Prussia against their requiring any engagement as to the protection of the German population of North Schleswig from Denmark as the condition of their giving effect to the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Prague; and, whether the English Government have offered any opinion on the subject?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that communications had passed between the Governments of Prussia and France upon the subject referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question. With regard to the precise nature of those communications he did not think he should be justified in going into detail, inasmuch as all the information that had reached England was of a confidential character; and the Governments concerned would, no doubt, make it public when they thought fit to do so. Her Majesty's Government had offered no opinion whatever on the subject.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN OGILVY: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Scotch Reform Bill this evening; and, whether he will make any statement to the House respecting that Bill, and the alterations which are proposed to be made in it? Great interest prevails in Scotland respecting what it is intended to do regarding this Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government
332
to proceed with the Scotch Reform Bill, either this evening, or any other evening this Session. An hon. Gentleman the other evening expressed a wish that the Bill might be reprinted, in order that the alteration agreed to be made in it should be shown. I see no difficulty on that head, and what I intend to propose is, that the House should go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ, in order that it may be reprinted. But it would be clearly premature to go into Committee pro formâ to-night, because we do not as yet know what alterations may be effected in the English Bill in another place, and we could not, therefore, adapt the Scotch Bill to those alterations. What I intend is, that the Committee on the Bill should be fixed for this day week.
COLONEL FRENCH: I should like to ask, Whether it is intended that there should be any discussion on the Scotch Reform Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not contemplate any discussion on the Bill, as we are merely going into Committee upon it pro formâ.
MR. M'LAREN: On Friday night an answer was given on behalf of the Government that an opportunity would be given for discussion of the Scotch Reform Bill, and I should now like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state when that opportunity will be offered?
COLONEL FRENCH: Next Session.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not aware of the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I thought I had expressed in the most distinct manner that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Scotch Reform Bill this Session; and, further, I understood that that was an arrangement which was agreeable, if not to the whole, at least to a large majority of the Scotch Members. They will, therefore, make their arrangements accordingly. What I subsequently promised, and what I have already referred to, is, that the Bill should go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of being reprinted, and to show the alterations proposed in it.
MR. M'LAREN: I beg to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the hon Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) who gave the answer on Friday night to which I referred. He distinctly said that an opportunity would be given to the Scotch Members for discussing the Bill.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that what I said on Friday night, with the sanction of my Colleagues, was, that no progress would be made with the Scotch Reform Bill without an opportunity being given to discuss it. But I never understood, or was authorized to say, that any progress would be made.

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

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY.

  RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that he had to bring under the consideration of the House the cases of Lieutenant Frederick Nind Woodall and Lieutenant and Adjutant Henry Currie, of the 74th Highlanders, and Lieutenant and Adjutant Romaine F. Stirke, 69th Regiment. The case of these officers was that of those who had arrived at the top of their several ranks. Their regiments being under orders for foreign service—the 74th being increased by two companies, and the 69th by two companies—these officers considered that after their long and faithful services a grievous injustice was done them, by being passed over with respect to promotion. The senior lieutenant of the 74th Highlanders was an officer of fourteen years service, and had been for six years musketry instructor of his regiment, and at the School of Musketry, Hythe. Lieutenant and Adjutant Currie, was an officer of sixteen years service, and had been ten years adjutant of his regiment. Lieutenant and Adjutant Stirke had been nine years adjutant and between three and four years senior subaltern, but they had both been purchased over on several occasions. In 1866 an agreement was entered into between the Secretary of State for War and the Treasury, by which sixty commissions were given away, thirty majors being mad lieutenant-colonels, and thirty captains being made majors. In his opinion twenty cut of the sixty commissions thus give away should have been awarded to the subalterns. This agreement was not brought under the consideration of the House of Commons; if it had, he (Colonel North) should certainly have objected to it on the ground that it set aside the interests
  334
  of the old subalterns, who were in no way considered. He, however, did not now mean to find fault with either the present Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) or the noble Lord opposite, the head of that department under the late Government (the Marquess of Hartington), believing that they were both influenced by their sense of justice in the matter. What he did find fault with was, that officers of such merit and length of service as those in question should be passed over for any money consideration. Since 1861 the Treasury had taken out of the reserve fund no less a sum than £342,000 for the purpose of buying up half-pay commissions. He protested against this course on the part of the Treasury, because both the infantry and cavalry had contributed largely to that fund. If it were considered an advantage to buy up the half-pay of those officers, and save the amount to the country, the money to do so should have come out of the Consolidated Fund, or be made the subject of a special Vote. He found that this year only 143 commissions, including those of quartermasters, had been given away, while 400 had been sold. This was a great hardship upon the cadets at Sandhurst, who had been given to understand that those of them who obtained 1,950 marks would obtain commissions without purchase, whereas, in fact, out of forty cadets who were lately examined and divided into two classes, only seven out of the first and five out of the second received commissions. It was very unjust to have sold one of these 400 commissions while the forty cadets who had obtained the requisite number of marks were unprovided for. He bagged to make the Motion of which he had given notice.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he seconded the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, which he regarded as being of the utmost importance to the interests of many of the most deserving officers of the army. The question was one of money only, and though the present cases were strong ones, he knew of many cases of equal hardship with those which had been adverted to by the hon. and gallant Member. He regarded the system of purchase as most anomalous and disgraceful, and as long as it continued he did not well see how any effective remedy could be applied to the present state of things. It was worth noting, perhaps, that the practice had become worse since it had been mooted in that House, and it was carried so far that

  335
  adjutancies in the militia and Volunteers were sold in the most barefaced manner. Nothing could be more disheartening to a soldier than to know that after he had spent many years in the service and had well earned promotion, he was to be passed over by the system of purchase. He trusted that the evils so justly complained of would be speedily put an end to, especially as this might easily be done by a slight expenditure on the part of the very country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no money considerations should delay the promotion of Lieutenant Frederick Nind Woodall and Lieutenant and Adjutant Henry Currie of the 74th Highlanders, and Lieutenant and Adjutant Romaine F. Stirke, 69th Regiment,"—(Colonel North,)
  —instead thereof.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend had forgotten to state that these lieutenants had actually seen more service than one of the majors of the regiment. Would his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) say that these officers, who had already been passed over, should for a second or third time be treated in a similar manner? The question was, he thought one of justice and not of money, and he had such confidence in his right hon. Friend as to believe that he had only to have the case brought before him to have justice done. He felt certain that the Treasury would listen to any recommendation on the subject made by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, that the case now brought under the notice of the House was by no means a singular one. Not long ago, in the 60th Regiment, the two senior majors obtained unattached lieutenant-colonelcies. Two of the captains received the steps to which they were justly entitled, but in order to keep up the reserve fund the two lieutenants who ought to have been promoted were passed over. One of these officers, who had seen a great deal of active service, had been similarly treated fourteen times. It was, moreover, understood that, though there were two fresh companies to be formed, these officers would again be passed over to benefit the reserve fund.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must decline entering into a discussion on the reserve fund until the Report of the Committee had been presented, which had
  336
  been appointed to consider all the circumstances connected with that fund. The case of the 3d West India Regiment, to which the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County had alluded, was entirely different from that of the three lieutenants whose case had been brought forward by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, and he would only say, with respect to that case, that he had already dealt with it in the manner in which justice required it should be dealt with. He had not the slightest doubt that these three officers were fully deserving of the high character that they had received from his hon. and gallant Friend, and he did not yield to him in his regret for the painful position in which officers were placed who had been purchased over and over again. That, however, was an evil incidental to the purchase system. With respect to the immediate case of these three officers it turned upon a change of system in the army which was adopted by the late Government about two years ago. They at that time found it necessary to reduce the strength of the army, and they determined to do that by cutting off two companies from every battalion of the thirty-five or forty then quartered at home. Great inconvenience and great hardship to individual officers had arisen from the policy which was then adopted by the late Government of having regiments abroad of one strength and regiments at home of another strength. It was out of this arrangement—the policy of which he greatly doubted, and the results of which he very much regretted—that the immediate case of these officers had arisen. There were no less than 240 officers—captains, lieutenants, and ensigns—of the battalions so reduced, for whom it became necessary in some manner to provide. The arrangement made was this. The Treasury consented to promote sixty captains, without purchase to brevet rank, on the understanding that all the remaining officers were to continue as supernumeraries in their different regiments to be absorbed into those regiments as vacancies occurred. The present case was the result of that arrangement. The 69th regiment, to which Lieutenant Stirke belonged, was under orders to go abroad, and would, consequently be increased by two companies. When that regiment was formerly reduced one of the captains remained with the regiment as supernumerary, and the other was among the sixty officers promoted. The supernumerary captain would, consequently,

  337
  be appointed to one of the vacant companies, and the other appointment would be filled by one of the officers who on the former occasion did not receive promotion. In the case of the 74th, also, the same course would be pursued. Thus two of the supernumerary officers were to be brought in from half-pay to fill up the vacancies occurring under the arrangement entered into between the War office and the Treasury. He was extremely sorry if any disappointment had been experienced by the officers in question, but he reminded the House that they would not be in any worse position than they would have been had no reduction of the regiment taken place. They would remain exactly in the same position, and their ill-fortune, if any, arose rather from the system of purchase and the unfortunate fact that they could not buy promotion, than from anything like injustice on the part of the army authorities. But, while he sympathized with the officers, he did not see how he could disregard, in their favour, so distinct an arrangement as that under which their case came. In the case of the 4th Hussars he had prevented the occurrence of unpleasantness, but his hon. and gallant Friend knew that circumstances permitted his dealing in a satisfactory manner with that regiment. The event showed how inexpedient it was to have different establishments at home and abroad. The cause of this disappointment was traceable to what he considered the unfortunate arrangement to which he had referred. It would be his duty before Parliament met again to devise some arrangement by which these cases might be put an end to in a legitimate manner by equalizing the strength of the regiment whether stationed at home or abroad.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he was disappointed at the answer given by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War. It was a cruel thing, because officers of long service and of the highest merit and reputation did not happen to have sufficient money with which to buy promotion, that they should therefore be deprived of that advancement in their profession to which they were legitimately entitled. It was the duty of the Government to mitigate the hardships of the present system, which they could do when opportunities like the present arose. He thought the House ought to adopt the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, and not reject it for some pitiful saving of the reserve fund. No
  338
  money consideration ought to interfere with the promotion of these officers.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 54: Majority 11.

REVENUES OF INDIA.—QUESTIONS:
MR. OTWAYsaid, that he rose to put Questions—certain Questions of which he had given notice — to the Secretary for India with respect to the authority possessed by him to draw on the revenues of India for purposes of expenditure in this country. The subject was one which involved grave constitutional considerations. The right hon. Gentleman had some time ago informed the House that he was about to give an entertainment to the Sultan, the expenses of which were to be derived from the Indian revenue. That entertainment was, he understood from those who were present, a very magnificent affair, and he should say nothing more with respect to it beyond correcting an error into which the right hon. Gentleman had fallen. He had spoken of the entertainment as one, which, as a matter of policy, it was desirable to give the Sultan, in consequence of his being the head of the Mahomedan religion, imagining that it would produce a good effect among the Mussulman population in India. He was, however, afraid that the right hon. Gentleman would find himself very much deceived in that regard, for the newspapers in India which would contain an account of the entertainment were almost, without exception, in the hands of the Hindoos. There was not, he believed, a single instance in which one belonged to a Mussulman, and the Hindoo press could not be well disposed towards the Chief of the Mussulmans. He did not wish to say a single word as to the guests who had been invited to the entertainment, beyond stating it to be his opinion that it was desirable, inasmuch as the expense was to be defrayed entirely out of the taxes of India, that the names should be found in the list of those who were more particularly identified with the interests of that country. He quite understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had a great pressure put on him, and he had no doubt that if he could have followed his own inclination he would have wished to issue invitations to all those who might have desired to be present on the occasion.

339
He was perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would never seek to spend money belonging to the Indian Treasury for the purposes of his party; but, there was nothing to prevent him from doing so, provided he were so disposed. If he possessed the power to give an entertainment, the cost of which might be £20,000 or £50,000, without the sanction of Parliament, it was a power not possessed, by any other Secretary of State or Minister of the Crown; and he might, perhaps be able to draw out the whole £50,000,000 constituting the Indian revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had great power over the revenues of India, and the mode of transacting business was not satisfactory. He (Mr. Otway) had called for a Return respecting the expenditure, and the granting of it did the right hon. Gentleman infinite credit. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to court inquiry, and thereby relieved himself from the censure that might otherwise be cast upon him. The expenditure was not confined to entertainments such as that to which he had just been referring. It appealed that the right hon. Gentleman had the power, if the Commander-in-Chief in India or any of the military authorities got into bad odour, of making matters square by offering considerable sums byway of "hush money." A flagrant instance of that sort occurred in the case of Captain Jervis, which the right hon. Gentleman decided by a short note, stating that he would give him £1,800 if he would call at the India Office. Now, that was not, in his opinion, a satisfactory way of conducting the business of the Department, nor did he think the right hon. Gentleman possessed any such power until he saw the Return which he held in his hands. The Return was a most singular document, and was accompanied by another relating to the bounty of the Crown. The bounty of the Crown, he found, was conferred on Mr. H. J. Toogood, to the extent of £40 a year, for his connection with literary pursuits and Parliamentary reporting, and in consequence of his now being blind and paralyzed. Corresponding with that, in the case of India, he perceived that a pension of £60 was awarded to a lieutenant who had been drunk on duty, and who had been cashiered by court-martial. Then, again, the bounty of the Crown was given to Mr. G. T. Thompson in consideration of his services in connection with periodical literature, he being now afflicted with blindness, to the extent of £40 a
340
year, while £242 was allotted to a major in the Indian service who had been charged with having indulged in abusive conduct towards the authorities. It would appear from the contrast thus furnished that those who committed offences were those who were awarded the largest sums of money. He was informed by a gallant officer (Lieutenant Percy), then within the walls of the House, that the Return having reference to India was entirely inaccurate. Lieutenant Percy was the son of a distinguished brigadier-general. He said that he was charged with "inefficiency," but that he had claimed a court-martial and had indignantly refused, under the circumstances, to accept the sum of £50 a year which was offered him. It appeared his offence was that, having married into an Indian family, he had introduced to the mess of his brother officers his brother-in-law, who was a person of dark colour, and that he was ordered to send in his resignation, but that he refused to do so. Nevertheless, the £50 a-year was offered to him, but he declined by accepting it to be mixed up with fraudulent and drunken men. He had subsequently been induced, under protest, to accept it. He should not enter further into the subject on that occasion, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had signified it to be his intention to bring the whole subject before the House before long, and should conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, whether there was any, and, if any, what limit to the sums of money which the Secretary of State for India in Council might expend in this country without obtaining the sanction of Parliament; and, should the balance in the Home Treasury be insufficient to meet any exceptional expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for India in Council, whether there was any, and, if any, what limit to the sum for which he might draw on the revenues of India; and if the Secretary of State for India could fix the day for the discussion of the Indian Budget?
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he altogether approved of the ball. We had in India 15,000,000 of Mahomedan subjects, many of whom were of the same sect as the Sultan himself—the descendants, in fact, of the Caliph of Bagdad, who regarded the Sultan as their Pope. A compliment to the Sultan would touch the feelings of these Mahomedans. As a matter of policy, therefore, he highly approved of the compliment paid to the Sultan. The

341
Secretary of State, autocrat as he might be in most matters, was under the most complete control with regard to money, for, of his own motion, he could not spend a shilling of the Indian revenues. All was in the hands of the council, which consisted of fifteen members.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would suggest that it would be more convenient to discuss the subject when the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrlon) brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had stated, with perfect accuracy, that the expenditure was in the hands of the Indian Council—that being the intention of Parliament when the Act of 1858 was passed. Unless they could place the entire expenditure for India under the control of the House, it would be difficult to deal specially with any particular portion of it. They could not control Indian finance effectively "piecemeal." There was a large home expenditure for stores ordered for India. He did not suppose the hon. Gentleman contemplated that when he asked if there was any limit to the power of the Secretary of State over the expenditure of money for home purposes. There was no such limit, because they could not know what the demand for stores might be in any year, and there was no other fund on which they could draw. He did not know of any distinction between the Indian Home Treasury and the revenues of India. There might be a sum of money that came into the hands of the Government of India by payments from railways and others, and by the sale of bills on India, but he could not distinguish any difference between the one and the other. The whole of the revenues of India were at the disposal of the Secretary of State and Council, and they drew upon them for all the expenditure which the service in this country or out of this country required. There was a limit to the salaries of the Secretary, Under Secretary, and the members of the Council, which could not be altered by them. There was also a provision that the Secretary of State and Council should not increase the debt of India without the sanction of the House, and that the return of the expenditure should be laid before the House within fourteen days after the 1st of May. He agreed that they should, as far as possible, let the House know what was going on, and how the power of the Secretary of State
342
was exercised. The allowances referred to were awarded to prevent the scandal that would arise from dismissed officers being left in a state of absolute destitution. The payments assumed the character of compassionate subsistence allowances. He rather approved of the power of making compassionate grants, for they enabled the authorities to get rid of officers where the good of the service required such a step to be taken, without leaving the discharged men to starve. At the same time there was no doubt a great deal to be said against it; but it would be more convenient to take a discussion upon the matter when the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £74,621, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had to move, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and by his request, the Vote for the British Museum. Upon a comparison of the Estimates it would be found that some items had increased and some decreased. The items of increase had chiefly reference to salaries and purchases. The Estimate for last year amounted to £102,744, while that for the present year was £99,621, or £3,123 less this year than last. He did not mean that this showed an actual decrease of expenditure, which was likely to be repeated year by year; for last year there was an exceptional expenditure of £8,000 on purchases—namely, £2,000 for the Castelani Collection, and £6,000 for Mr. Cuming's remarkable collection of shells. There was an increase in the present Estimate of £1,700 in the item of Mediæval Antiquities, and he hoped that the Committee would approve of what had been done, for the greater attention that was now paid to this subject made it really necessary that the increase should take place. The increase of £600 in Roman Antiquities would be easily understood. There was an increase under the head of Oriental MSS., which he hoped would meet the approval of the committee. The collection of Mediæval Antiquities was so great and

343
so rapidly increasing that it required the independent attention of a gentleman who was placed at the head of the department. There was also an increase of £1,880 in the printing of catalogues. That was one of the most important items of expenditure. Unless the cataloguing was kept up and in good order the value of the collection would be proportionally diminished. £200 had been spent in the cataloguing of Hebrew books, which had been very defective down to a recent period. He was glad to find that the number of those who visited the collection and those who went there to study was still increasing; and the accommodation provided for them was, he believed, remarkably good. With reference to the Blacas Collection of Antiquities, which had been brought before the House last Session by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a very general concurrence and approbation was expressed as to its purchase, he considered it one of the best acquisitions which had been made to the Museum of late years. It would be recollected that last year it was proposed to take a Vote of £50,000 for providing the first instalment towards a building to be erected at South Kensington for the Natural History Collection. During the present Session the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been so much occupied with other important business, particularly the Reform Bill, that he had not been able to give sufficient consideration to the plans of the new buildings which had been submitted to the Trustees, but had not been finally approved. The whole subject, with the reasons that existed for separating the collections, the necessity of making adequate provision for them when separated, and the ultimate management of them, must be brought under the notice of the House and thoroughly investigated. He was authorized by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that he proposed at the commencement of next Session to state the views of the Government on the subject, and he hoped the settlement proposed would be satisfactory to the House. He begged, in conclusion, to move that the sum of £74,621 be granted to complete the sum required by the Trustees of the British Museum.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the only part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which he had heard with some regret was with reference to the separation of the collections, which had been again postponed
344
for another year. But no doubt what he had stated was very true, that so many things had occupied the attention of the Government this Session that it was impossible to bring forward a subject which was important, but which, he believed, divided opinion in that House. He had always been of opinion that until that separation was made it would be impossible to put the British Museum in a condition worthy of the collection and the country. We had the most noble collection of antiquities in the world, as illustrating civilization and the arts. The reason why the British Museum was not properly appreciated and shown was the want of space. The separation of the scientific and art departments must take place. It ought to be determined in what museum the Mediæval Collection should be placed. They ought not to have collections at South Kensington and the British Museum of the same kind going on at once. He wished to know how the cataloguing was going on; he did not grudge the expense of having well-digested catalogues. Such collections as the Blacas Collection was an honour to the country. Curiosities of interest if not purchased here, would be purchased elsewhere. Only recently, when a coin, which was altogether a magnificent specimen—indeed, unique—was offered, the British Museum proposed to give a large sum for it, but it was taken to Paris and the Emperor gave a larger sum by one-third. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he had made, and trusted the Government, would early next Session, bring forward the subject to which he referred with the view of adopting some definite step in regard to it. He should himself, probably before the end of the Session, give notice of his intention to move next year for leave to bring in a Bill for the better management of national collections and museums. He would submit some scheme to the House, and have the Bill referred to a Select Committee. He believed the result would be a great increase in the efficiency and usefulness of these collections.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was glad that the objection he had always urged to the Museum Vote being brought forward by Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had at length prevailed, and that the present Estimate had been introduced by a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. He regretted that further arrangements had not been made for

345
making the Museum accessible to the public. It was perfectly easy to light the Museum with gas, without any danger from fire, or injury to the collection by the gaslight. This had not yet been done; but it might be useful to bring the subject forward every time the Estimates were moved, in the hope that the Trustees might at last be rendered capable of understanding the subject. When the step of which he spoke had been taken by another institution at the West-end of the town—the South Kensington Museum — it was vain to pretend that it was impossible. The concession made of opening the Museum between four and six on Saturday afternoons had failed, because that was just the period when the working classes were taking their tea, and it would be much better to open the Museum for two or three hours in the evening. He observed that the number of visitors to the Museum had increased 10,000 as compared with the number in the previous year; still it showed a considerable decline as compared with many previous years. He was informed on one occasion that this was partly owing to the want of reasonable accommodation for the visitors, and he did not know whether any improvements had been made in this respect. But there could be no reason why the British Museum should not be open during the evenings, when thousands of visitors would find their way to it who were now virtually excluded. He was sorry to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lately been made a convert to a plan which would render the treasures of the Museum still less available—he alluded to the proposed removal of the most popular part of its contents, the Natural History Collection, to a distant part of the town, out of the reach of the great body of visitors. If the collection were to be broken up, the best plan would be to keep by themselves the Egyptian gods and goddesses and the heavy and bulky articles of antiquity now on the ground floor and in the vestibule. It was chiefly the inhabitants of the West-end who took an interest in this portion of the collection which took up much room. It might be right therefore to provide additional ground space in that locality for those heavy articles, which would afford additional room for the lighter objects, and the specimens of natural history which afforded much pleasure to the masses of the people, on the upper floors. This would have the great advantage of keeping the principal part of the collection together
346
in a place the most convenient to the largest part of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and would prove the most economical in the end. The convenience both of the visitors and the inhabitants of the Metropolis would be best consulted by retaining the collection in a central position. If we were going to dig up the remains of all the ancient cities of Greece, Italy, Asia Minor, Persia, and India, and to bring them to London, considerable space would be required for their proper exhibition. The ground floor of the present building might be easily enlarged for that purpose, and the upper stories of the new building might be appropriated to the exhibition of other collections which were more attractive to the generality of people.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought the result obtained was by no means commensurate with the immense expenditure of money on the British Museum. He found that in 1861 the number of visitors was 779,000; in 1863, 554,000; in 1865, 677,000; and in 1866, 516,000, showing a progressive decrease in that period. In the same way, the number of those who visited the Museum for purposes of study and research, declined from 136,000 in 1861 to 99,000 in 1866. He trusted those to whom the management of the Museum was now committed would exhibit a little more life and energy in the discharge of their duties. He thought such a result was a miserable failure, when it was contrasted with the thousands who daily attended the Crystal Palace.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that the question of separating the collections had been deliberated for the last fifteen years. A Committee had reported against a separation, but, on the other hand, distinguished Members of that House had expressed their belief that it would be impossible to keep all the collections together. It was clear to his mind that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on the one hand, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, on the other, had made up their minds that a separation should take place, there ought to be no further procrastination and delay in ascertaining whether their opinions were entertained by the majority of the House. He trusted that the Government would come forward with some definite plan at the commencement of next Session. The hon. Member who spoke last evidently thought that, if the British Museum could offer some of the attractions of Cremorne,

347
it would be much improved. If the suggestions of the Member for the Tower Hamlets were adopted, and the Museum was lighted at night, no doubt some of the attractions of Cremorne would be secured. It was, no doubt, possible, as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had remarked, to light up the Museum at night but, independently of the risk, many of the objects preserved there could not be properly seen by gaslight. It included a vast variety of minute articles, as well as specimens of natural history, which could only be very inadequately seen by night. As to attracting a larger number of the working classes it was not likely that many of them would care to visit the Museum in the evening after working all day. If they really wished it to be accessible to the working classes they would get rid of some of their Pharisaical notions and open it on Sunday. He wished to make a suggestion that a small sum should be inserted in the annual Estimates for excavations. They had derived some of their most interesting objects from the excavations at Nineveh, Halicarnassus, Greece, and other places. As a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, the specimens obtained by these researches would, if sold, over and over again cover the expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had stated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was a convert to the new plan for separating the national collections. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in error; for he was, perhaps, the first person in that House who expressed an opinion that it would be impossible to place the great collections in a proper position unless the principle of separation were adopted. Observation and reflection on the subject had confirmed him in his original opinion that the country would never see its matchless collections in a position to do them justice until that principle was adopted. How it was to be applied was another matter, but that the separation should take place, and that they should take advantage of the land which the country had purchased, he had no doubt was the wisest course. The line of demarcation between the collections of literature and art and those of science was so easily distinguishable that he could not understand there would be any difficulty in making the necessary arrangements to bring about results which were
348
so desirable. Last Session, and again in the present Session, it had been found impossible to bring forward the Vote on the original Estimates, which would have sanctioned that policy on the part of the House. So that delay was inevitable. But the course they had then taken had not occasioned any substantial delay. It was impossible on a subject of this magnitude that the House of Commons would be satisfied with passing a Vote on Account without a clear idea of its application. The subject must be thoroughly investigated and fully placed before the House, so that a correct opinion could be formed upon it. The time had come when such a course was one of the urgent duties of the Administration. If he had the opportunity, he would at an early period of next Session lay before the House the course which they thought ought to be adopted, and he should be perfectly ready to avail himself of the: excellent suggestions which might be offered by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), and other Gentlemen who took an interest in the matter. But what the House wished was not the proposal of a Vote, but a clear plan. A Bill would probably be necessary to insure the separation of the collections. They wanted the site of the new building to be indicated, and to have plans placed in rooms where they would be fully considered, so that they might clearly understand what was proposed, and how it was to be accomplished. It would be the duty of the Government to undertake that office; and he trusted that next year they would be able to bring the question, which had so long occupied the attention of so many able and accomplished men, and in which considerable national interests were involved, to a happy conclusion. It was to him a matter of conviction that the collections never would be appreciated until they were exhibited in a manner in which their matchless beauty and value could be known. He quite admitted the propriety of the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite relative to making these collections more generally available for inspection, and he trusted that, through the measure to be proposed by the Government, this as well as other objects would be accomplished. Some persons, represented by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lusk), thought that the object of a national collection was to establish a popular and agreeable exhibition. No doubt, when a country possessed rare illustrations of art and antiquity, it was

349
most expedient that the great body of the people should have an opportunity of studying them. It was very desirable that the great body of the people should have an opportunity of refining their taste, and he believed, if they had the opportunity of properly visiting the collections at the Museum, they would understand in time that there were objects quite as interesting as stuffed birds, which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think were the only objects of attraction. The exhibition of works of refined art would have a beneficial effect on the public taste; but the object of these collections was not to make a popular exhibition. If no single individual visited these collections it would still be the duty of the nation to spare no cost in obtaining the finest libraries, the most valuable galleries and choicest subjects of art. To turn from the abstract question. The state of affairs in the British Museum was such that some change could no longer be delayed. Not only were our splendid collections unknown to the people, from being packed almost in warehouses, but there were no inducements to private individuals to add to the collections by contributing from their own stores. It was a most unfortunate circumstance, but one well known to those interested in these matters, that there were at this moment individuals in possession of matchless collections, especially as regarded libraries, who would be most happy to add their stores to the national collection; but who thought, in the present state of affairs, that such arrangements could not be made, as they had a right to expect. That was a great evil, and it was in his own experience that very rich collections which might become part of a national collection were not so, because there was not space or order to justify or encourage those gifts. He thought, therefore, the time had come when this great duty ought not to be neglected by Government or the Parliament. He did not wish to bind the House in detail to any arrangement, but he thought the principle of separation ought to be recognized with a view of its being acted upon. Knowing that the country possessed a considerable portion of land which was unappropriated—one of the rarest possessions in this metropolis—he trusted, at the commencement of the next Session, the Government would be able to place before the consideration of the House such a scheme as it could adopt, and bring about those results which were so desirable.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he believed the feeling of the House and the country was decidedly against separating the collections, which, like the British Constitution, although raised up without any definite plan, formed a magnificent whole. The difficulty which existed—preventing persons from leaving their valuable collections to the country — was to be attributed to the different Governments which had had to deal with the subject, which had prevented the purchase of sufficient space for the erection of proper buildings. The British Museum was located on part of a large square, which was offered on moderate terms by the Duke of Bedford. Everybody but the Government of the day had desired to accept the offer of the Duke of Bedford, which would have enabled a sufficient enlargement of the British Museum in a manner satisfactory to the country at large. But he supposed there was an end to such proposals now, as he observed that several hon. Gentlemen had suddenly been converted to the separation proposal. Every Government since 1850 had set their faces against all the collections being exhibited on that spot. He deeply regretted the course which had been taken, and supposed they had now heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the death-knell of the British Museum. It was a great mistake to suppose that the collections when divided would be anything like what they were when united. With regard to the natural history collection, the hon. Member for Galway was formerly eloquent on the site in Bloomsbury, and was one of the great champions for keeping the collections together. A change had now come over him, and he had turned his back on his former opinions, having apparently been initiated into some secret reason for separation. [Mr. GREGORY: Quite the contrary.] He was glad to hear that no Vote was to be asked for until the House knew what was to be done. He believed it would be possible to make the collections far more accessible to the public than they were at present. The danger of fire had been alluded to. Only two years since the place was on fire in the binding department. That was not from showing it to the public. Fires were kept up for the attendants and for certain purposes in the Museum, and they were far more dangerous than any lighting with gas for the purposes of exhibition. The Kensington Museum, the Jermyn Street Museum, and

351
many other public institutions were illuminated with gas. The British Museum was the least inflammable of all these exhibitions, a great portion of the building consisting of stone. At Rome the Vatican was lighted up at night, and displayed the sculpture to the greatest advantage—artificial light being most favourable for such a purpose. He thought that some system of lighting the Museum might be adopted without any danger to the Museum itself. He believed there was a very strong feeling in the country against opening the Museum on Sundays. He was, therefore, decidedly opposed to any such proposal. Finding year after year that neither the Trustees nor the Government would deal with the subject, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to it. He could not move an Amendment now, as he had no desire to move the reduction of the Vote.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that far from being a recent convert to the breaking up of the British Museum, he recollected that in 1859, when he accompanied the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on a visit to the different collections, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of astonishment at the state in which they were found, and in his view, that it would be impossible to properly exhibit them without further accommodation. He felt confident that if the right hon. Gentleman had remained in office he would have brought forward some plan to put it in a better state. It was impossible to go on placing the collections one on the top of the other; and that the different objects could be seen while they were stowed away in attics or cellars, or remained in the cases in which they had arrived. He entirely approved of what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if not one single individual visited these collections it was still the duty of a great country like England to lose no opportunity of possessing herself of the most complete collections in every branch of science and art which she possibly could. For ten years he had considered that the best thing to do would be to divide the collections. He rejoiced to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to grapple with the subject.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he regretted to find that the Natural History Collection was to be removed, as it brought nine-tenths of the visitors to the Museum. If it were required there would be no difficulty
352
in purchasing additional ground in the immediate neighbourhood. He strongly recommended the lighting of the Museum at night, to enable the working classes to visit it. All danger from fire might be avoided by the adoption of sun lights, and the keeping of the gas entirely in the exterior of the building. He wished to ask, whether the antiquities in the Museum were intended for the instruction of a particular class of the community or for the community at large? At present the operative classes had no opportunity of visiting the Museum. The same facilities which were given at Kensington ought to be given for viewing the British Museum. He believed more good was done to the working classes in the way of enlarging their minds and giving them new ideas by visiting the Museum at Kensington than was ever accomplished by any act of legislation which the House had passed.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he did not agree with those who held that the only way of making the Museum generally accessible was by opening it on the Sabbath. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Southwark object to its being lighted up. He expressed his belief that the remarks which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be read with great satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman promised next Session to propound a scheme which he felt satisfied would be of a comprehensive character.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that as far as he was at present informed he hoped the Trustees would not be induced to light the building with gas until the subject had been more seriously considered. If he were a Trustee nothing would induce him to agree to such a course. He did not believe that the working classes visited either the Kensington Museum or the Royal Academy at night after a hard day's work. The classes who did go there were persons who could equally avail themselves of the morning. The introduction of gas into the British Museum would not only be attended by danger, but would injure the objects exhibited. The Trustees of the National Gallery had considerable doubts whether the pictures deposited by them at Kensington had or had not suffered from the lights. He thought himself that they had suffered, and the question was one of such importance that it was now under the consideration of the Trustees. Gas made the atmosphere so dry, that articles were injured in consequence.

353
By the use of gas the binding of the books at the Athenæum Club had suffered considerably. [Colonel SYKES: Before the sunlights were introduced.] He believed that the books had suffered since the use of those lights. Nothing would induce him to run the risk of the Museum being destroyed, for it contained many objects which could never be replaced. They should remember that the Museum was a trust, not only for this country but for all civilized countries in the world, and for all time. Any unnecessary risk incurred through the indulgence of a merely sentimental feeling would be highly blameable.
Vote agreed to.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in moving the Education Vote, said, he would briefly explain the expenditure which had taken place during the past year, and the Estimate with regard to it. The Estimates of this year showed an increase upon the expenditure of last year owing to the enlarged sphere of operations in the encouragement of education. Last year the expense of building, enlarging, and improving schools and teachers' residences, was £24,267. The Estimate for the present year was £30,000. The grants of the past year had called forth voluntary contributions to the extent of £91,555. The sum expended for the maintenance of elementary schools had been £416,582, and for the maintenance of night schools £13,302. In the present Estimate they asked for £427,345 for the former, and £16,000 for the latter. Altogether the expenditure in the maintenance of schools last year was £429,884, and the Estimate for the forthcoming year was £443,345. The voluntary contributions for the maintenance of schools had been £369,253, and the endowments £56,318. There were thirty-eight normal schools, on which the expenditure last year was £75,792. The Estimate for the forthcoming year he was sorry to say, was somewhat smaller, being only £74,500; that reduction was owing to the decreased number of male pupil-teachers educated there. The cost of administration, inspection, and offices was, last year, £78,895, and the Estimate for the forthcoming year was £81,790. The balance remaining in hand last year was £9,328. He had stated the cost of the means which had been used; he would now turn to the work which had been done. During the year 1865–6 eighty new
354
schools or departments had been built, fifty ad been enlarged, and sixty-one teachers' residences had been raised. They had afforded during that year, new accommodation for 20,546 scholars. The schools under inspection numbered 13,586, showing an increase over the years 1864–5 of 636 schools. The children on the books of the inspected schools at the end of last year numbered 1,510,871, and of those 1,287,604 were present at inspection. The number of night scholars at the end of last year was 42,872, showing a large increase over the number in the previous year, which was 35,846. That increase, therefore, was 7,026 children of twelve years and upwards; the increase in the number of the night schools was 240. That, however, was not altogether a matter for congratulation, for, to a certain extent, night schools had taken the place of day schools. In Lancashire and certain other parts of the country it was, he feared, a rowing custom to farm out the schools to the schoolmaster, whose only object was to obtain the grant with the least possible trouble and with the greatest possible certainty. Although the schoolmaster did not obtain so large a grant for each scholar in a night school as for each child in a day school, yet there were fewer conditions imposed on the former, and therefore the grant was more easily and certainly obtained. For instance, in a day school, if a child was examined in one standard one year it had next year to be examined in a higher standard. But that was not the case in the night school, where the children might be examined, for the grant, year after year in the same subjects; the master was therefore more certain of obtaining his grant in a night school. The schoolmaster was therefore liable to take charge of the night school himself and to pay more attention to it, leaving the day school to an assistant. One of the inspectors (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the farming out of schools in rural districts also (Report p. 212), while Mr. Koe (p. 120) asserted that night schools were growing up in the rural districts, because that the farmers who employed labour would not engage the parents unless they took their children with them; the children therefore could not go to day schools, and had to go to night schools instead. He believed that in themselves night schools were excellent and likely to do much good; but if they at all supplanted the day schools, then the increase of them was not

355
altogether a matter for congratulation. He would now explain the results which had been obtained by this expenditure and work. The children presented for examination in the year 1865–6 were 664,005, showing an increase over the preceding year of 6,247. The number of night scholars presented for examination was 32,399, showing an increase over the previous year of 24,591. The number of passes obtained for reading was 596,886; for writing, 573,224; and for arithmetic, 500,103. That showed a very good state of learning in the schools. The subject of Education had of late been exciting much attention throughout the country. In subsequent years, it would be likely, because of political objects, to do so still more. An argument had lately been used by the right hon. Member for Calne, and repeated by many others since, that as they had extended the franchise they were constrained to enlarge the sphere of the educational system also; they educated children; they gave the franchise to men. If this was to be regarded as the final cause of State education, they must bear in mind that the end would not be reached for fifteen years after the education had been begun. Yet he was glad to hear the argument; for it was the acknowledgment of a great truth—namely, that the end of all education was to make men good citizens—that the only ground on which State interference in the matter of education could be defended was, that it was a duty of the Government to make men good citizens. This object, then, was always to be kept in view to regulate the action of the Government in promoting education; it was necessary to adapt the means always to this one end. It was well, therefore, this year to take stock of what had been done. This was all the more necessary, for it appeared from a Return which had been included in the Report of the Committee of Council, that there were 7,780 parishes in the country, each with a population below 500, that had no schools receiving aid from the State. These were not ecclesiastical parishes, but Poor Law districts, and not conterminous with ecclesiastical districts; there were 12,000 of the latter and 15,000 of the former. One reason why there were no schools in some of these parishes was, that they were mountainous districts, or that the population was scattered; it must be borne in mind that the area of these parishes might be large although the population was
356
small. Nevertheless, the system was permeating even into these parishes; for 216 more of them received aid from the State than received aid four years ago. It must be remembered, also, that these parishes were not all educationally destitute. The Privy Council took account only of those schools to which annual grants were given by the Committee of Council; and then persons exclaimed, contemptuously, that 7,780 parishes were without education. In some of these parishes there were schools of a very high class, which had no grants from various causes. In some, the managers did not apply for them. Some of the parishes found it cheaper to employ an un-certificated teacher and forfeit the grant, than to take the grant and have a high-priced certificated teacher. Frequently, landlords entirely supported the schools on their estates, and did not desire to receive aid from the State. Then there were certain clergymen who refused the grant because they desired to be independent, and keep their schools free from government inspection; these schools also did not appear in the list. The following was a copy of a letter which had been put into his hands only that day:—
"July 1, 1867.
"Rev. and dear Sir,—Do not pronounce me discourteous for declining to receive you on the 23rd instant in your capacity of Government school-inspector. I deprecate official visits, from any quarter, to clergymen's schools, deeming them inexpedient and intrusive; and, although pecuniary assistance would be most acceptable, I prefer the alternative of complete independence."
But supposing he yielded all that was said on this head, the utmost it proved was that their work had not yet been completed. Yet it must be allowed that the system was gradually permeating the country: they were making advances sure and certain, and educational destitution was retiring before them. It is well then to take stock of their progress, and to examine minutely the amount of educational destitution which there really was at present. There were three kinds of educational destitution—the want of school building, the insufficiency of attendance, and the deficiency of teachers. Now, with regard to the want of school buildings, there the charge of destitution could not be sustained. It had been stated, in the Duke of Newcastle's Report in 1861, that "parishes are seldom unprovided with school buildings," although many of them were small and ill-ventilated. But what

357
had been done since that time in the matter of school buildings? The year 1866 showed a great increase over the former year. In the year 1865 building grants of £18,882 for schools had been made, of which £15,458 had been made to Church schools. In 1866 the grants were £24,222, of which £20,445 were to Church schools. The local subscriptions called forth by these grants in the former year were £62,247, of which £52,620 was for Church schools. In 1866 the amount of local subscriptions was £91,555, of which the Church schools received 77,374. The new schools and teachers' residences built in 1865 were 111, of which 91 were Church schools and residences. In 1866 there were 141 new schools and residences built, of which 123 belonged to the Church. In 1865 new accommodation was provided for 15,302 pupils, of which accommodation for 12,518 was in Church schools. In 1866 new accommodation was provided for 20,456 children, of which the Church schools provided 17,311. The number of schools or departments under inspection in 1863 was 11,230; in 1864, 11,818, showing an increase of 588 schools and departments; in 1865, 12,950; showing an increase of 1,132; and in 1866, 13,586 schools and departments of schools; showing an increase of 636. The significance of this fact would appear stronger if they considered the number of preliminary statements made in each year. Preliminary statements were applications from schools to come under the Privy Council system. In 1863 the preliminary statements were 520; in 1864, 553; in 1865, 578; in 1866, 644; and in the first half of the present year, 364, which was at the rate of 728 in the year. Now let him turn to the second species of educational destitution, the attendance of the children; and let it be borne in mind at the same time what were the obstacles with which they had to contend. Those hindrances were the claims of labour, the indifference of parents, and sometimes the apathy of the rich. There were also natural causes, such as sickness or bad weather, which prevented the attendance of the children. The Report of the Committee of Council for that year stated at page xxi.—
"The progress of education is retarded by circumstances outside the school-room rather than by faults within it. The age at which school is left and the amount of actual attendance are influenced by causes beyond the control of managers or teachers."
358
Yet it would be seen what advances had been made in this particular. In the year 1863, the number of children present at inspection was 1,092,741; in 1864 there were 1,133,291 present at inspection, showing an increase over the former year of 40,550; in 1865, 1,246,055 were present at inspection, showing an increase of 112,764; in 1866, 1,287,604, showing an increase of 41,549. Last year the rapidity of increase was not maintained; but the reason was that in 1865 (Feb. 8) a new Minute was issued, permitting children in night schools to be examined in the absence of the inspector. In 1863 the average attendance of children was 998,925; in 1864, it was 1,011,134, showing an increase in average attendance of 12,209; in 1865 the average attendance was 1,057,745, showing an increase of 46,611; and in 1866 the average attendance was 1,082,055, showing an increase of 24,310. From this it was apparent that the increase had all along been satisfactory, and that there was a steady augmentation of numbers. Now, with regard to the deficiency of masters he must acknowledge that, to a certain extent, this charge of deficiency was just. There were certificated masters enough to fill all the old vacancies, but scarcely sufficient to fill the new schools, which were every year springing up. If they considered the case of the pupil-teachers the deficiency would appear still worse. In 1863, there were 13,849 pupil-teachers; in 1864, they had fallen to 11,712, showing a decrease of 2,137; in 1865, the number was 11,383, showing a decrease of 329; and in 1866, they were 10,955, showing a decrease of 428. That was to say, in 1863 there was one pupil-teacher to 69 scholars; in 1864, 1 to 81; in 1865, 1 to 85; and in 1866, 1 to 96 scholars. This decrease was chiefly confined to male teachers, not to females. In 1862 there were 7,963 male pupil-teachers, and 1,016 were presented for admission into normal schools; in 1863 there were 7,043, and 726 were presented for admission; in 1864, 5,725, and only 506 were presented for admission; in 1865, 5,207, and 511 were presented for admission; and in 1866, there were 5,032 pupil-teachers, and 508 were presented for admission into normal schools. The force of pupil-teachers had therefore been undergoing constant diminution. One reason for this was that it was the interest of managers or of those who farmed the schools, to do with as few pupil-teachers as possible, consistently with

359
obtaining the grant. Another cause was the competing claim of labour. The following statement would be found in the yearly Report, p. ix.:—
"The principal reduction continues to be in the number and quality, or both, of male pupil-teachers. This reduction is not due so much to deficiency in the number admitted, as to removals in the course of apprenticeship. The boys, as they grow up, are tempted with higher wages in other employments, and the managers are disposed to let them go, as they become more expensive. Thus a considerable part of the apprentices never get beyond the third year."
What was to be done? The examinations had already been made as easy as was at all consistent with efficiency. Thus Mr. Cowie, in his Report (p. 395), said—
"The present certificate examination is as low as it can be with any claim to be sufficient, or to be a test of power and knowledge, and men who cannot satisfy this criterion must generally be unfit for the office. The extension of the system which is so loudly called for is impossible without a ready supply of teachers."
That year a Minute had been passed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) which he hoped would have the effect of augmenting the number of the pupil-teachers, and increasing the efficiency of the schools. But they must wait another year to see its effect. In the meantime, he thought more might be done to increase the number of teachers and to extend the benefits of education. What if they were to make the claims of labour an additional motive and incentive to induce the children to attend school? What if the indifference of parents to the value of education were to be overcome by putting a money value on the goal to be reached? What he alluded to was a system of technical education, which might be gratuitously offered as a reward for those pupils that distinguished themselves in the elementary schools. He would presently explain what he meant. But first he would show the amount of technical education which the country already possessed. There was, first, the School of Naval Architecture and Naval Engineering; this had last year thirty-seven students, of whom twenty-four were from the Admiralty. Then there was the Royal School of Mines, which had altogether 108 students, thirteen of whom had entered with a view to becoming Associates. There was the Chemical Laboratory, with 116 students, and the Metallurgical Laboratory, with twenty-three students during the past year. There were also three courses of lectures on mines, &c., to working men; these were
360
attended by about 600 students. There were the Science Schools with 601 certificated teachers. Last year there were 153 schools; in May, 1867, there were 212 Science Schools. Last year they contained 6,835 students; in May the number had risen to 10,108 students. There was the Art Training School, which contained 511 students. Of thirteen students who had been trained as designers last year, three were now in business. Then there were ninety-nine Schools of Art, giving instruction to 17,210 students; and there were 560 schools for the poor at which drawing was taught, and in which 80,084 children were under art-tuition in 1866. That was the amount of technical education which the country possessed. It might be greatly extended. There might be schools for civil engineering, for navigation, for mechanical engineering, for chemistry and chemical manufactures; there might be trade schools, or schools in which trades are taught, and mercantile schools. The latter he would explain by example. At Leipsic there was such a school where the pupil was taught to correspond in all the modern languages, the weights and measures and coinages all over Europe were expounded, and the students were trained in the theory of Exchanges, in Political Economy, and in all that was requisite for mercantile life. Let the Committee consider what was done in the matter of technical education abroad. In Switzerland, for instance, there was an elementary school, and a trade school in every village, he believed. In every town there was a Higher Technical school; and at Zurich there was a Technical College for the education of the heads of the various branches of business. A boy who showed capacity in the elementary school was sent, at the expense of the canton or parish, to the trade school; and if he distinguished himself there, he was sent to the Higher Technical school. Thence he could rise by study to a studentship in the Technical College. So that technical education was made the spur and incentive to bring children into the elementary school, and to force them on while they were at school. If they could do that in this country they would find the benefit not only in the extension of technical education, but in its reflex influence upon elementary schools. Let them consider the effect, for instance, upon a single village where there were 100 children, and where only one distinguished himself by his exertions, and was sent on to the

361
higher technical schools, so that in after years, by his learning and studies, he raised himself into the upper ranks of society. What would be the effect of such an example upon the youthful population of his native village? If they multiplied that effect by all the villages in England, they might estimate in some degree the benefit this scheme would confer upon the country. He had shown that two of the three kinds of educational destitution could not be charged against the system, as it had already made great progress, and was year by year making rapid advances. With respect to the third kind, he thought that an extension of the technical education, which the country already possessed, would do much to remove it. He moved the Vote of £705,865 for the furtherance of education in England.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £531,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, for Public Education in Great Britain."
MR. GRANT DUFF: Before this Vote passes, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. In the Report of the Committee of Council for 1865–6, it is stated, and, I think, not only stated, but demonstrated, that, in the case of large schools, numerously attended, a very small amount of local and voluntary effort suffices to meet the moderate requirements of the Education Department, and to call down in favour of the managers of such schools the golden shower of the Government grant. Again, in the Report of the Committee of Council for 1866–7, it is not only stated, but demonstrated, that, even in the case of small schools, with an average attendance of sixty-five—nay, in the case of schools with an average attendance of only forty, a very moderate annual subscription in the locality, not exceeding, under any circumstances, £23, is quite sufficient to open the floodgates of Government liberality. Nevertheless, in spite of its being so easy to enlist the department over which the noble Lord presides in aid of local effort, I observe, on turning to a Table in the last Report, that, out of 14,877 parishes or districts maintaining their own poor as parishes in England and Wales, the Government grant only reaches between 3,000 or 4,000, while it leaves unaided between
362
10,000 and 11,000. Now, I want the noble Lord to tell me the explanation of this. It cannot be that the department is in any way to blame, because there is a general consensus that it discharges its difficult duties very ably. How, then, is it that the system is so utterly inadequate to the wants of the country? How is it that it fails to reach three-fourths of the parishes of the country? How is it that it leaves about 100 parishes in Berkshire, close to the very centre of intelligence—under the very eyes of the department—unhelped and uncared for? Is there some mysterious reason which is known to the noble Lord, and which he can tell us, or is the primâ facie explanation which suggests itself to the outer world the only one which the noble Lord can give? Is the system now administered by the Committee of the Privy Council a mere temporary expedient, good as far as it goes, but quite unable to do what is wanted—namely, to educate the whole people; and must we, despairing of success by its means, come to rating and a national system after all?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wanted to see more results for the money spent on education, and then he should desire to see that amount largely increased. He trusted that the time would soon come when the House would see that it would be right to educate the people, whether they would or not. The objection to the present scheme was that it was too elaborate; some of its regulations would tend to retard rather than advance education.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had always been a strong advocate of night schools. Considering the early age at which children went to work, it was impossible for them to acquire much knowledge, or to retain what they had learned, unless they could be induced to return to their teachers till they had quite grown up. Children were generally withdrawn from day schools at the early age of twelve years in order to earn for their parents a few shillings a week by their labour. He would be inclined to go the length of advocating a compulsory system of education, and of making the parents and guardians of children responsible for sending them to school. In Prussia, where compulsory education had been adopted, nearly one in six of the population was at school. We had nothing like that proportion in England. There was something very like it in Scotland, where there was a school in every parish, and

363
where the masters, even of the smallest, were, in a great majority of instances, graduates of a University. The result was that Scotch peasants took such an interest in the knowledge they had gained, that they kept up their studies after they had the left school, and thus Scotland had taken the highest rank in science and art.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he was glad to learn that the present system was making tolerable progress. He had heard with great pleasure what had fallen from the noble Lord respecting technical schools. He believed that such schools would afford what was so much wanted, an incentive to children to pursue their studies to a more advanced age. Such an incentive had, to a great extent, been supplied by the pupil-teacher system, and the opening of several branches of the Civil Service to open competition. In the West of England a plan which had been adopted of assembling large numbers of children for examination, and giving prizes to the most deserving, had also had a most salutary effect. There was a positive want of educated workmen; and there were many branches of industry which were obliged to be handed over to foreigners simply because there were no Englishmen qualified to undertake them. The Arundel Society, for example, on the Council of which he had had the honour to serve for many years, were obliged to get their chromolithography done in Berlin, or Paris because the Prussian and French Governments had long ago instituted technological schools; whereas private enterprise had not yet supplied them in England. As to the schools which enjoyed no Government aid, it would be a mistake to suppose that they were all bad. He was intimately connected with four parishes in Somersetshire and Wiltshire, in only one of which there was State aid; but there were very good schools in the other three. But it was not only the schools of the poor that needed attention. There was a most pressing want for better middle-class education. Small shopkeepers and farmers really did not know where to find good schools for their children, even if they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices. He had for years thought that it was the duty of the State to do something for the middle classes in this matter. After the Report of the Commissioners of 1860, he thought that the subject had been very inadequately dealt with; and he was disappointed that the Government at that time had introduced
364
no measure for utilizing the educational endowments of the country, which had been estimated by Mr. Senior at £500,000 a year. He hoped the time would come when all the children of a parish would be able to receive elementary instruction together in the same schools. As to compulsory education, he did not think it by any means so impracticable as was supposed. It had already been adopted in a modified form; and there was evidence on record that children who spent half their time at school and half at work, in many cases, beat those who remained all day at school without working. He hoped this hint would not be lost on the Government, and that they would extend the principle of the Factory Acts to the agricultural districts, in which were employed nearly half the population of the country. The fact was, that, without some such arrangement, the children of the peasantry would never be properly taught. Farmers would naturally employ those whose labour was cheapest, and parents would as naturally send their children to work as soon as they could, so that employer and parent entered, as it were, into collusion, to deprive the child of his schooling. Our parochial system needed re-adjustment. It was quite necessary that some steps should be taken to increase the pace at which education was being extended in the small parishes, and there were several minor steps which might, he thought, with advantage be taken with that object. Some parishes were much too small, and greater facilities should be given for their ecclesiastical and civil union. In the next place, the civil duties of a parish should be separated from the religious, so that all its business should not be left to the exclusive care of the rector and the churchwardens. The Church would not, in the least degree, suffer from such a change. He fully admitted that the clergy in the agricultural districts had been, hitherto, the great bulwarks of our present system of education; but the parishes and their secular affairs ought to be governed by something analogous to a maire and a commune. The Church would not suffer by the division of the civil from the ecclesiastical government, and education ought to be regarded as belonging to the former. At present, however, civil affairs were so entirely subordinated to ecclesiastical in small villages, that if the clergy did not take an active interest in the schools, they would, in many cases, be neglected altogether.
MR. POWELLsaid, there was on ordinary occasions difficulty in interposing suggestions during the consideration of the Vote for National Education. But that difficulty was greatly enhanced on the present occasion from the circumstance of the discussion extending beyond the subject of the common schools of the country to that of schools of technical education and of schools for the middle classes. He wished to know whether the Committee was to understand, from what the noble Lord had said with regard to technical and other schools of that character, that the Government were prepared with, and intended to submit to Parliament any plan relating to their establishment. In every county middle-class schools were springing up, by the free action of the people, with a success that went beyond the wishes of their enlightened founders; and there was every expectation that the want in that respect which had been so long felt, would soon be supplied. His desire was that the voluntary action of the people should supply that want. It was impossible, he thought, to have in England a great system of middle-class education without its being under Parliamentary control; under a minister in London, or functionaries distributed over the country. To the reduction of the grants for schools of art was to be attributed the absence of technical education in this country. He hoped the Government would take advantage of the improved feeling of the House in this respect, and increase the grants for art education. They had now escaped from the jealousy, anxiety, and dread which had so long existed, that some of the money so granted would be expended for the benefit of those who were able to pay for that branch of education. He therefore hoped that in some future year many of those rigid laws which at present bound the grant might be relaxed, so that those above the labouring classes might be able to obtain benefit from the Government grants for art and science education. He hoped the day was far distant when an education rate should be proposed; it would be both rash and foolish to disturb a system which was producing great advantages. Although they might escape some evils by rating they would fall into others not less grave, and the example of America where the rating system existed, showed that it would not remove those evils which they all regretted should exist. Compulsory education was repugnant to Englishmen, and the
366
best way to enforce education was to act on the conscience of the parent. The Government were, however, largely extending the factory system. They were not therefore open to the charge of languor or indifference on that head. He regretted to find that in Lancashire the system of farming out schools was so extensively adopted as to require official notice from the noble Lord. Such a course was a complete abdication of every duty imposed by Parliament on the executive government and managers of schools. He could hardly consider anything more detrimental to a system of public education than the farming out of schools. He hoped the noble Lord would take advantage of the new Minute of this year, and carry forward the education of young children into the higher branches. If taken advantage of by the classes to be benefited, he hoped the grant would be further increased. He objected to the system on which the examination of night schools was conducted, especially with respect to the manner in which the examination papers were returned to the Government, which prevented any accurate comparison being made between the state of education in such schools in different years. As to the schools in Manchester, there was a want, not of buildings, but of scholars. Efforts should be made to draw in the scholars to the existing schools; the obstacle to success being the unwillingness of the parents to send their children to those schools. A large number of the schools in Berkshire were in a healthy state, and by no means so deficient as they had been represented. The managers of many of them, from a false sense of delicacy, did not apply for Government assistance, but the schools were in a very efficient state. In Reading there were eight schools receiving the Government grant, and in Windsor seven or eight. There was no reason why many small parishes should not receive Government assistance. There were 7,295 parishes with a population below 500; 5,641 parishes with a population below 300; and 3,923 parishes with a population below 200, in which the schools received no Government assistance. To obviate that, it had been suggested that several parishes should be amalgamated for the purposes of education. He thought that objectionable, because it would be impossible for parents to take their young children two or three miles to the school. It was far more desirable to keep them in

367
their respective parishes, and assist them with Government aid. It had been said that the money granted by the Government was most spent where it was least wanted; but it must be recollected that in large and populous places where there was an accumulation of wealth, there was a large fund from which to draw the means for building schools, and to assist in supporting them. It could not be too often repeated and recollected that if they had a large number of children attending the schools, there must be a considerable sum accumulated by the weekly pence. He was afraid, after all they could do, they would still find there were parts of the country—sparsely populated districts—into which it was scarcely possible to carry the education which they so ardently desired to diffuse.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Committee would have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Lord opposite that the number of children attending schools assisted by the State during the past year had hugely increased. He wished, however, he could share the noble Lord's belief that the prospects of continued increase were such as would warrant them in coming to the conclusion that, in a reasonable number of years, the assistance of the State would be extended to schools through out the whole country. The noble Lord had stated that the increase of the number of children present at inspection during the past year had been 41,549 only as against 112,764 the previous year. The past year, however, he (Mr. Bruce) candidly admitted was an exceptional one. These figures could not in any way be taken as representing the increase in the number of children receiving education in schools aided by the Government grant. The only way to arrive at a just estimate of the latter increase was by taking the annual amount of the building grant. In 1865 the building grant amounted to £18,882, and in 1866 to £24,222. This would give accommodation for an average annual increase of 17,000, instead of 33,000, which was the proper number that school accommodation should annually be provided for. So far from the present state of things being satisfactory, it would be found on examining the statistics furnished by the annual Reports that while 3,500,000 ought to be on the books of the schools of England and Wales there were, in fact, only 2,400,000 on those books, there thus being upwards of 1,000,000
368
children in England and Wales receiving no education; while, of these 2,400,000 children, only half were in schools assisted by the State, the other being educated at schools, public and private, far the greater part of which were stated by the Royal Commission presided over by the late Duke of Newcastle, to be of a very inferior description. So that of our labouring population it would be no exaggeration to say that one-third were receiving education for only too brief a period at good schools, one-third at indifferent schools, while one-third were at no school. His noble Friend had not stated the result of the examination of the children during the year. If he had done so he would have been obliged to state that only one-third of the children who left the best of the aided schools passed an examination up to the third standard—in other words, received a degree of education likely to be of service to them in after life. Still, his noble Friend drew a hopeful picture of results. He (Mr. Bruce) had listened with astonishment to the assertion that the rate of progress was satisfactory, for that whereas in 1862 there were 7,960 parishes with populations below 500 without unaided schools, within the last four years the number of those unaided parishes had been diminished by 216. At this rate, it would take nearly 150 years before the remaining parishes were brought within reach of the aid of the State. Under these circumstances, he thought the existing system had been proved to be utterly insufficient to supply the educational wants of the country. The failure of the system was even greater in the large towns than in the rural districts, seeing that, notwithstanding there might be ample school education in such places as Manchester and Birmingham, it was most unevenly distributed. While there might be a number of schools in the eastern portions of those towns, there would be none at all in their western parishes. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had expressed a strong hope that we should not be driven to adopt the rating system. But why should not a system of local rating, which had been found to work well elsewhere, work well in this country? In Prussia, in Saxony, in France, in Belgium, in Holland, and other places on the Continent of Europe, as well as in the United States of America, there was no system of State assistance to schools at all approaching in liberality our own. The schools there were all supported

369
by local taxation. All our other institutions excepting schools were already supported by local taxation; and that exception with regard to education must be removed, if we wished education to be entirely successful. The noble Lord drew attention to the want of technical education in England. Such education was certainly much wanted among our middle classes. Manufacturers were, in many instances, obliged to look to Germany in consequence of the inefficiency of English workmen. General elementary education must, however, in all cases precede technical education. Something had already been done, and a great deal more than was generally thought, by the Science and Art Department; but the operation had been very irregular. It flourished, for instance, in Lancashire, while it languished in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The falling off in the number of pupil-teachers was a circumstance that demanded serious attention, and threatened in an alarming manner the future supply of schoolmasters. It appeared that the female pupil-teachers were stationary in number, but those of the other sex were declining. In the case of the young men, there were no doubt many competing professions; but he could see no reason for the unsatisfactory prospects as regarded the female teachers, nor did he doubt but that, if proper measures were taken, the supply could be increased. A remedy for the falling off of male teachers might be found in the introduction of women to an increased extent. In this they would be following the example of America, where there was a great preponderance of female teachers in elementary schools with most satisfactory results. They would also be finding employment for women, and would thus be securing two much desired ends by one act. The successful effect of the Revised Code in reducing expenditure, might be gathered from a few figures. This year's expenditure amounted to £622,000. The expenditure in the year before the introduction of the Revised Code amounted to £813,000. It was a great thing that we should be educating 350,000 children more than in the year before the Revised Code passed, and yet that the cost of the education should have sunk from £813,000—at which it stood in the year before the Revised Code — to £622,000, and that it should be still in process of diminution. But this great economical result was not an unmixed good. It had developed tendencies against which precautions ought to be taken
370
without loss of time. The tendency of the present order of things was to concentrate the attention of the schoolmasters upon reading, writing, and arithmetic, to the exclusion of the other and higher branches of education. Again, the value of the work done in the schools depended on a proper supply of educated masters. These could be got by a system of liberal payment only; and, if this system were not practised, the result would certainly be grievous harm to the schools sooner or later. If hon. Members had read the Reports of the Inspectors which had been on the table during the past three weeks, they would find the Inspectors unanimous in giving credit to the Revised Code, but qualifying their Report by the observation that there was a retrograde movement in respect of the higher branches of education. It was hardly necessary to say that some remedy should be found for this evil, which robbed education of the chief advantages it was intended to confer—namely, the strengthening of the faculties, and the enlargement of the range of knowledge.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought the discussion showed that much information was still wanted by the House on the question of education. The assumption that none but Government schools were good schools was one that required verification. He trusted that the Government would cause to be prepared, during the Recess, ample and reliable information on the nature and extent of elementary education in England. In many unaided schools admirable instruction was given, and if it were so unsatisfactory as was represented by some, he could not see why a Return, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the education in those schools, should not be procured. Until that was done, no one had a right to assume that the education was defective. The farming of schools he looked upon as a great evil, but it was the inevitable result of confining the Government aid to schools conducted by certificated teachers. But, admitting for the sake of argument that the present system was faulty, where was to be found the system by which it was to be superseded? Were we to go in search of that system across the Atlantic? To anybody who advocated that course he would recommend the perusal of the Report of Mr. Fraser, an intelligent Inspector, who had been sent out to report with respect to the schools both in Canada and the United States. Nothing could exceed the frankness and ability

371
with which that gentleman discharged his duties. He found that the schools in the United States—which at their origin took the religious system as their basis—had been obliged to resort to the ratal and subsidizing system for the purpose of maintaining themselves. The consequence was that, having to consult the wishes of every ratepayer anything like religious teaching had been gradually eliminated from the American system—a similar result having been produced in the Canadian colonies. And what had been the result on the morals of the people? Mr. Fraser having compared the police returns of a large town in the United States with those of one of our own—he believed Wolverhampton—ascertained that, while both had nearly the same number of inhabitants, the American system, which was supported by a lavish supply of funds, failed to secure a more orderly, sober, and industrious population than our own. With regard to the social condition of the people, it was stated on unimpeachable authority that the moral sense of the scholar educated in the American schools was of a far lower description than could have been expected where a system of discipline and order was to be enforced. And how had family education been affected? It was admitted that parental authority was almost lost, and that filial reverence was hardly to be found in the rising generation. These facts ought to induce us to pause before introducing a system which must, sooner or later, lead to the extinction of the religious element and carry with it all the consequences he had described. With regard to the question of rates, Mr. Fraser stated that the establishment of a rate-supported system must lead to merely secular education; and unhappily there was no middle course between a purely secular system and a purely denominational one. He further stated that even where religious instruction was professed to be maintained, no provision was made for it in the American school system, and that anything like sectarian or dogmatic teaching was emphatically forbidden in the American schools. With respect to the schools in this country, he said there ought not to be so many of which those who had the control of them had reason to be ashamed. He entirely concurred with Mr. Fraser, that our system founded upon the religious convictions of the people, and continued for so many years, was one which ought not to be set aside. We
372
ought to endeavour to improve that system, and to ascertain whether the failure of it might not be ascribed to a system which year by year diminished the building grants, and refused to pay for results. He trusted before the next meeting of Parliament that the Government would place before the House such information as would lead the House to consider the subject with a more perfect knowledge of it than it at this moment possessed.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that when the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) replied to the observations which had been made in the course of this debate he should be glad if he would give some information with regard to a point which he desired to bring under his notice. It appeared from these Estimates that a sum of £344,000 was to be granted for education in Ireland, while only £73,000 was to be granted for Scotland. Again, for science and art, while Ireland was to have £26,000, Scotland was only put down for £5,800. In going through these Estimates he found that the sums granted to Ireland for the various Colleges, hospitals, schools, and establishments of all kinds, were enormously greater than any similar payments made to Scotland. Now, from a Return recently laid before the House, he found that the revenue derived from Ireland was £6,015,000, while the revenue from Scotland was £7,740,000, so that while Scotland put one-fourth more into the national purse than Ireland did, Ireland took about four times more for educational purposes than Scotland did. But this difference was not observable only in matters relating to education; take, for instance, the police grants; while Ireland had £707,000 for this purpose, Scotland had only about £50,000. Taking education and the police together, he found that Ireland got about £1,000,000, or about one-sixth of all it put into the national purse; while Scotland, which contributed to the revenue one-fourth more than Ireland did, only got back about £130,000. There was hardly a charitable institution or hospital in Dublin which was not supported out of the public purse, while nothing was given to Scotland for any such purposes. He did not wish to assimilate Scotland to Ireland regarding this class of grants, but he did wish to assimilate Ireland to Scotland. He considered it was wrong in principle to give all this money to Ireland, at the expense of the sister country, and he very much wished to know how the

373
noble Lord accounted for this great disparity between Ireland and Scotland; and, in particular, whether the department over which the noble Lord presided, would, in next year's Estimates, make an increased grant for science and art in Scotland, to complete the Industrial Museum in Edinburgh? Doubtless, he might account for the difference in one respect, and it was in that respect that he desired to see Ireland assimilated to Scotland. In Scotland there were about 1,000 parish schools maintained by a tax upon the land of the parishes. Now, why should not Ireland be taxed upon the land the same as Scotland—if not for the whole expense of schools, at least for one-half? Her Majesty's Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the state of education in Scotland, with a view of making important changes. That Commission had recommended a tax of 2½d. in the pound, to be levied upon all property in Scotland, to go towards the establishment of additional schools. He thought this proposal very unwise in present circumstances, because if adopted it would only increase the present disparity between the burdens of Scotland and Ireland. The fact was, that at present Scotland was paying for nearly the whole of its own education. It also paid a portion of England's, and contributed largely towards that of Ireland; and yet Scotland only sent half as many Members to this House ass Ireland did.
MR. BARROWsaid, he agreed in what had been said with regard to adult and infant schools by the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Sykes). He concurred with the hon. Member for Buckingham, that religion was a necessity in the education of the people of this country. Religious responsibility ought to be impressed on the mind, for, where it was wanting, mere secular education was of little value.
MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he wished to express a hope that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) might be able soon to lay before them the Minute of the Council of Education, laying down some definite rule for carrying into effect the very great—that inestimable improvement which he had announced in the educational arrangements. He meant not merely the introduction of technical education, which was in itself an important addition to our present arrangements, but above all the adoption of the plan which had been found so useful in many foreign countries—that
374
of making the advantages of technical education a reward for the good use of the advantages of elementary education—holding out an inducement to the pupils of elementary education to distinguish themselves so as to obtain the benefits of technical education. He could not conceive anything more calculated to alleviate a great deficiency in our present system—namely, the strong inducement to take children away from the schools before there had been imparted to the pupils all that those schools were intended to teach. It was true that it was not only the clever and apt pupils who had to be thought of; but that it ought also to be a great object to retain those who did not attain such proficiency as would entitle them to the reward he had referred to. Consequently, the proposal could not be regarded as one that would remove the whole difficulty. But it was judicious and well judged, and, he believed, was likely to be an effectual measure for removing the difficulty in part. He congratulated the noble Lord on what would be so important an improvement.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) had drawn a very gloomy picture, which seemed to be the result of some pre-conceived feeling in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 children ought to be at school in England, but he had not told them, as was the fact, that that number had been arrived at by taking the ages from three to thirteen, which was hardly the proper mode of calculation. The right hon. Gentleman had told them the number of children at the assisted schools, and the increase in these, but he did not tell them what had been the relative increase in the numbers of the children at the unassisted schools. That was not a fair mode of arriving at results. The right hon. Gentlemen had pointed out that, from the increase of the population, they ought to allow an increase in school room for 30,000 odd in the year, whereas the Privy Council only allowed for an increase of about 17,000. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took no heed of the increase in the unassisted schools. It was not unnatural to presume that the unassisted schools advanced in the same ratio as the assisted schools. With regard to quality, no doubt the Commissioners reported that the unassisted schools were inferior to the assisted. But they also reported that, in a good many of the assisted schools, the children could not read or write. The

375
Privy Council acted upon that, and determined to pay only upon results. But when the unassisted schools applied to be paid by results the Privy Council said, "No, you do not use our means,—which have failed,—in arriving at your results, and we say that you are good-for-nothing, and will not pay you a farthing." They had heard a great deal about the desirability of technical education. He hoped it would be successful. But when he heard so much about the deficiency in the education of our middle class he could not help remembering that there were two kinds of knowledge—the knowledge of things, and the knowledge of how that knowledge could be turned to advantage. He was not quite sure that they were not running away with the notion that, because a man obtained his knowledge in a different manner from another, he was therefore necessarily ignorant, although, in fact, he might know a great deal more than the other, who perhaps did not know how to apply the knowledge he had obtained. Men who could not read and write might know a great deal more than those who had learned to do both and had never turned either to account. What nation on earth had advanced more rapidly than we had; or in what nation had so many men raised themselves from the ranks? As to skilled labour, where did nations on the Continent who wanted skilled engineers go for them but to England? It seemed hardly creditable for us to call "stinking fish" of our people in this manner. Certainly no nation had ever shown greater capacity for adapting to its use the wonderful inventions and discoveries of modern times. The right hon. Gentleman had a great crotchet in favour of State education, which he (Mr. Henley) believed must do away with religious education. There was a considerable party in the country who wished to do away with it altogether, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was not going to put himself at the head of that party. If he did he would have a hard battle to fight. The great body of the people would rather have their knowledge based on religion. They would be content with a little less secular knowledge if they could have it with sound morality based upon religion.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had objected to the figures used by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce). His right hon. Friend had said that there ought to be 3,500,000 of children in England
376
and Wales on the books of the elementary schools, whereas there was only 2,400,000. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) said this calculation had been made by taking the ages of children between three and thirteen years, and urged that that was unfair. The calculation, however, was not made in that way. As head of the Education Department, his right hon. Friend found there were certain districts well educated, where the proportion of children attending school to the population was one-sixth. That was the proportion the Educational Department fixed as the proper standard. Applying that standard to the population of England and Wales—namely, 21,000,000—one-sixth would give the number stated by his right hon. Friend as that which should be on the school books. But only half of the 2,400,000 were at assisted schools, and his right hon. Friend had assumed that another half would be at the unassisted schools. But the increase in the unassisted schools was not in proportion to the increase in the assisted ones. A great deal of the increase in the assisted schools was obtained from the unassisted ones, owing to the fact that year after year fresh unassisted schools were submitting themselves to the requirements of the Privy Council and obtaining assistance. He (Mr. Forster) did not think any Member of the House would like to leave the education of the country to be conducted by the unassisted schools, and even in the assisted schools in five years hence we should require a much higher standard. The Committee would agree with his right hon. Friend that we had no occasion to flatter ourselves that we had yet arrived at anything like the proper standard. The observations which were thrown out by the hon. Member for Buckingham with regard to education in the United States were not borne out by the very admirable Report on the education of that country that had lately been published. He (Mr. Forster) could only hope that if, after hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech, any one thought we were in a better position than the United States, he would himself read Mr. Fraser's Report. He was sorry to hear the very strong remarks which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hubbard) had made respecting the results of the American system with, regard to religious teaching. He could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman meant what his words implied—namely, that there was not only no religious teaching

377
in American schools, but that the moral sense of the children brought up in them was extinct. Comparisons were odious, and we ought to do the best we could for our country. But if the hon. Member would compare the moral sense and religious practice of the population of New England, where the American school system was chiefly enforced, with the moral sense and religions practice of his own county of Buckingham, he did not think he would be induced again to give the strong opinion which he had just pronounced against the American system. The hon. Gentleman had quoted some extracts from the Report of Mr. Fraser. But that gentleman had distinctly stated that the main difficulty he found in influencing the people of his parish in a religious sense, by reading and preaching to them, was their slowness of apprehension, their scanty vocabulary, and their inability to appreciate, or even understand his arguments, in consequence of their want of general mental culture. That reminded him (Mr. Forster) of an anecdote told by a hardworking clergyman in the north of England. He had devoted all his life to the religious teaching of his parishioners. In order to maintain his influence among them as a minister he felt himself obliged to attend to the secular education of the children as well. He was visited by an American episcopal minister, who on seeing him engaged in secular teaching expressed his wonder at his being so engaged. On being informed that it was absolutely necessary to do so, he told him that if the American system of secular teaching were introduced he would find a perfectly different state of things to that which existed, and that the minds of his parishioners would be found perfectly fitted thereby to receive religious instruction. The impression left on the mind of his friend the clergyman was, that if he could change the English for the American system, so that the children should be well instructed in secular knowledge on the same principles as the children of New England or New York, there would be a much better chance of their being able to receive and appreciate religious teaching. It was most unfair to charge him, and those who thought with him, with being desirous to substitute a system of secular education for a system of religious education merely because he was anxious that a large portion of the country should not remain untaught. A few years hence it would be regarded as a most extraordinary
378
thing that that House should have gone upon the principle of leaving utterly neglected the districts which did not contain any persons wealthy enough to be able to afford money to give voluntary educational assistance to their poorer neighbours. He knew very well that mere reading, writing, and arithmetic were not sufficient to form the mind; and that they could not instil into the minds of the people a desire to do their duty in this world without having recourse to the highest motives, and bringing them to bear on the ignorant. But what he objected to was, that a large portion of the population should remain untaught because in many districts the aid of the Government was unsought, although the inhabitants of the districts themselves were willing to subscribe for the promotion of the education of their poorer neighbours. At the present moment they witnessed the monstrous anomaly, that while the Government grant was given in those parishes in which wealthy people subscribed, the education of those who lived in parishes which contained no wealthy people, or where people subscribed and did not ask the aid of the Government, was utterly neglected. He begged to congratulate the noble Lord upon his willingness to take steps towards introducing a system of technical education into this country. At the same time, he must remind him that the mere expression of good-will would not be sufficient, and that he must take practical steps to bring about the desired result. What was required was that we should have good technical schools in order to enable this country to preserve its position in the markets of the world in its competition with other countries. It was an undoubted fact that we did not possess in this country the good technical schools that were established over the Continent. The subject was too new to the Committee for him to make any definite proposals to the noble Lord; but he trusted that, before the debate concluded, the noble Lord would state more exactly what it was that the Government intended to do with regard to extending technical education in this country. The time was coming when the middle classes of this country would not, like the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, be content with saying that, stating that we had not a sufficiently good education was crying "stinking fish." They would have done so up to a short time ago, but they were now becoming aware that this country was suffering in its trade and in its competition

379
with other countries because our people were not so well taught as their continental competitors. Not only were the middle classes of Switzerland better educated in technical knowledge; but they were consequently enabled to compete successfully with England in the markets of the world. Our middle classes were looking forward most anxiously for the introduction of a better system of technical education. They knew that they were paying much for the education of their poorer fellow-countrymen; but they were willing to pay even more, to tax themselves for the education of the middle classes. This feeling was growing stronger throughout the country, and he hoped the noble Lord would respond to it.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who had asked him why the Scotch received a smaller grant for education than the Irish, must remind the hon. Member, in the first place, that the population of Ireland was greater than that of Scotland. Moreover, the Scotch had passed various Bills which governed their education grants. They were also blessed with a quasi-rating system; so that large sums were locally raised and locally spent on education in Scotland; these sums never appeared upon the Votes of the House; while, on the other hand, all that was spent in furtherance of education in Ireland was voted by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce) had laid great stress on the Returns which appeared at p. cviii of that year's Report of the Committee of Council, and then supposed that he had legitimately arrived at the conclusion that the present system was not sufficient for the wants of the country, but should be exchanged for a more national system. All he could say was that Rome was not built in a day. They had commenced this system in 1846, and within the twenty rears that had since elapsed they had undeniably made considerable progress. Was it nothing, he asked, to have 700 preliminary statements of new schools which came under the Privy Council system every year? Was it nothing to take in, year by year, fifty-four of those very unaided parishes, with a population less than 500, on which the right hon. Gentleman himself had laid so much stress? The right hon. Gentleman said that it would take about 150 years at that rate to bring them all under the Privy Council system. But was it to be
380
supposed that those parishes were utterly destitute of education? Had not many of them schools to the full as good as the Privy Council schools? The hon. Member for Poole had alluded to four parishes in the district with which he said he was connected, in only one of which there was a school aided by the Privy Council; while the three others had schools which were indeed unaided, but still most excellent. The other day he was speaking of the subject in society, when one landowner who was present stated that he entirely supported, in the highest state of efficiency, two schools adjoining his own place; that he never had asked for Government aid, but bore the expenses himself, and made the schools his hobby. Another gentleman did the same. These were gentlemen who had met by chance? Was it to be supposed that there were not many others like them throughout the country? If so, this would account for many of the parishes being unaided. It should be recollected that there were many gentlemen in the country who established schools in their own parishes, and felt a pleasure in supporting them independently out of their own resources. Such schools, he thought, might often be considered as good as aided schools. But the right hon. Gentleman refused to re-cognize such schools; he would not take them into account; he said contemptuously that there were 7,700 parishes of less than 500 inhabitants which were utterly destitute of education; he regarded the unaided schools as utterly worthless. But if so, what became of another position of the right hon. Gentleman. When he (Lord Robert Montagu) had said that the Privy Council had brought 112,000 more children under their system in 1864–5, and 50,000 new children in the year 1865–6, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) exclaimed that this was no gain, it was no acquisition, it was nothing upon which they could congratulate themselves, because that those children had been merely abstracted from the unaided schools and transferred to the aided schools. No gain? No gain, of course, if the unaided schools were fully equal to the aided; but otherwise a matter for great congratulation. The Government system was a voluntary system, and must be allowed to permeate of its own accord all over the country. It had already began to percolate through the richer parishes, and was beginning to pervade the poorer. Yet he would

381
confess that in some parishes they could never expect to see good schools established no more than they could expect to see a good tailor or a good shoemaker in those same parishes, for it was contrary to the nature of things. But if the system was essentially voluntary, any remedy which was to be applied to it must be a remedy applied to the wills and desires of the people. That was what he meant by the suggestion which he had made regarding technical education. Their great enemies were the claims of labour and the indifference of the people. If they could overcome those two obstacles to the progress of their scheme, the success of the system would be complete. Nay, let them make those very enemies fight on the side of education. The claims of labour abstracted children from the elementary schools. Then let them offer to the children a higher and more remunerative labour which they might attain by remaining at school. The parents were apathetic and indifferent to the value of education. Then let education be the means of their reaching the higher walks of life. Let them take the case of Switzerland. There were elementary schools and trade schools in every village. There were the Higher Technical schools in the larger towns, and there was a Technical College in Zurich. When a boy had completed a course of study at the elementary school he might rise to the trade school. If he there distinguished himself he was sent, at the expense of the Commune, to a Higher Technical school. Thence, by successful study, he might reach the Technical College, and be started in life at the head of some business. Let them conceive what an allurement was there to enter the elementary schools! What an incentive to study! Let them imagine the effect on a quiet village if they learnt that one of the boys of the village, by a few years of industrious study and application, had been launched into the world full of honour, with a competence to support it, and his path in life smoothed before him. That was the use which he thought might be made of the desire for technical education and the complaint that elementary education was neglected and undervalued.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he believed that the statistics from which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had drawn a comparison between Ireland and Scotland were erroneous.
MR. M'LAREN: I hold in my hand the Return. It is dated March, 1867.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must complain of the elaborate and artificial machinery adopted to the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic to children under ten years of age. They had an army of inspectors of the highest classical rank, at a cost of £57,000 per annum, to go into village schools and examine these children. There could not be a greater perversion of the talent of these gentlemen than the task so imposed upon them. The Training Colleges, which were kept up at a cost of £75,000 per annum, had failed because they had produced a class of men who were above their work. Much public money was thus thrown away. The system was most unfair and partial. The encouragement given to male teaching over female teachers in these elementary schools was a great mistake.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Walpole, Lord John Manners, Mr. Attorney General.)
PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 273.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose to move by way of Amendment—
  "That this House deems it inexpedient to proceed further at the present moment with any Bill touching the regulation of the Parks."
  He was induced to make that Motion from the fact that throughout this Session, and the greater portion of last Session, this question had been continually before the House; but, notwithstanding so many attempts had been made to legislate upon this subject, they had all signally failed. On the 3rd of May a Bill was brought in for the better and more effectually securing the use of certain Royal Parks and Gardens for the enjoyment and recreation of Her Majesty's subjects, and that Bill was called "Meetings in the Royal Parks Bill." The Bill now before the House was one different in its enactment and title, and was called the "Parks Regulation Bill." There had been, no doubt, great difficulty felt by the Government in dealing with a question which in a great measure affected the liberty of the subject

  383
  and the privileges enjoyed up to the present moment. That they found great difficulty in dealing with the subject was apparent, because no sooner was the first Bill read a second time by a great majority than the Government dropped it immediately, from a feeling, gathered probably from the tone of the debate, that it would be impossible to carry it. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: The Bill was not read a second time.] If not, why not? The Bill was brought in, and he thought it was read a second time—that something happened to it. Some one told him it was abandoned, and now another Bill had been brought forward on the same subject. That was a Bill, as they said in the City, that "won't float." The provisions of that Bill were so unacceptable to everybody that the right hon. Gentleman abandoned it. By the first clause that Bill was made to apply to all the Royal Parks, Gardens, and possessions, the management of which was vested in the First Commissioner of Works. The present Bill was much more extensive, as it applied to all the parks in London, including those recently made and placed under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The 3rd clause of the first Bill proposed to enact that no meetings of a public character should take place in the parks without the permission of Her Majesty. That clause had been abandoned in the present Bill. The first Bill went on to enact a penalty, and, in addition, there might be imprisonment for a calendar month. That Bill had been abandoned by the Government because they knew it could not work. He was not going into the question of pulling down the palings in Hyde park on a recent occasion and other matters. It might be advantageous that some regulations should be made with regard to the parks; but this should be borne in mind, that they were approaching the end of the Session, and that the Government had had full time to draw up a Bill to meet the necessities of the case, and he would ask, in what respect did the present Bill differ from that which had been abandoned? The present Bill proposed to enact that—
  "No Meeting shall be held in any of the said Parks or Gardens for the purpose of making any political or religious demonstration, or for holding any political, religious, or other public discussion."
  It went on—
  "Any Meeting held in contravention of this Section shall be deemed to be an unlawful assembly,
  384
  and any person joining or taking part in such Meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and may either, on summary conviction, be adjudged to pay a penalty not exceeding £10, or, in the discretion of the justices or police magistrate by whom the case is heard, may be committed for trial for the misdemeanour."
  This clause introduced an entirely new principle into the law with regard to the punishment of persons who were engaged in any religious or political discussions in the parks, by giving to a magistrate the power of inflicting a penalty of £10. No number of persons was indicated as necessary to make a meeting. If persons entered the parks to talk over such questions they were to be treated as an unlawful assembly. Hitherto such persons had never been fineable by magistrates. This was quite a new principle of our law. Up to the present time the law had been that a person charged with a political offence must be tried by a jury. Nothing could be more unconstitutional and dangerous than to allow a political offence to be adjudicated upon by a magistrate appointed by the Crown and liable to dismissal by the Crown. Hon. Members ought to be tenacious of passing such a Bill, if they wished to uphold the liberties and privileges of the people, which they had been sent to that House to protect. There was an option given to the justices, if they did not choose to convict summarily and fine the offender, to commit him for trial for a misdemeanour. According to Russell on Crimes, an unlawful meeting was an assembly of persons for a purpose which, if executed, would make them rioters. Consequently, if persons met in the parks for the purpose of talking over the subjects mentioned in the Bill they would be regarded in the same light as if they met to commit a riot. The next clause allowed the Ranger or Keeper of a park to make such regulations as he might choose, and the First Commissioner of Public Works and the Chairman of the Board of Works might do the same where they had authority; and penalties were imposed for disobedience of the regulations made by the Ranger or the Chief Commissioner. By the Act of 57 Geo. III., c. 19, people were prohibited from meeting near the Houses of Parliament or Westminster Hall while Parliament was sitting, and it was there laid down that upwards of fifty persons assembling for the purpose of making any alteration in Church or State would constitute an unlawful assemblage. But that Act did not state that those who so met might be taken before a police

  385
  magistrate and summarily dealt with, as was now proposed. At the time of the discussion about the attempts at preaching in Hyde Park, it was said it would be a dangerous thing to entrust the police magistrates with the power of saying whether a man was preaching irreligion or sedition, and in the present instance the House ought to stand by the old landmark of trial by jury. Who were to be the witnesses against those infringing the rules and regulations of the Ranger or Chief Commissioner? Policemen were certainly not educated up to the point to enable them to listen to a speech in the parks and to give an opinion before a magistrate that should decide the question. He called upon the House to stand by the old landmarks of the Constitution. Government would gain no advantage by going on with this Bill at the present period of the Session. They had passed a Reform Bill which had given great satisfaction to the vast bulk of the country, and he was sure it had given satisfaction to the metropolis. A great source of public irritation was thus removed. Yet this was the period chosen for bringing forward a Bill imposing regulations unknown before for controlling the people in the use of the parks. The peculiar circumstances that occurred last July were not likely to be repeated. The surest way to revive those disturbances would be to pass this Bill, for it was a natural instinct with the populace to thwart what they would consider to be the unjustifiable attempt of the Government to encroach upon their privileges. There had been no enactment of this kind for centuries. The parks had been protected by the people and by their own good conduct when they went into them; why, then, irritate the public mind by bringing forward a measure which could not be put in force without creating the strongest ill-feeling throughout the metropolis? There was not the slightest desire to create disturbance: but, if this Bill were passed, it was extremely probable that, owing to the strong feeling thereby created, persons would be desirous to go to the parks who would never have entertained such an idea if the Bill had not been passed. There would be the greatest disaffection, and the complaint of the people would be just. He, therefore, would suggest to the Government that it would redound greatly to their honour if they would give up the Bill. If on some future occasion it should be thought necessary to introduce a measure
  386
  on this subject framed in a different spirit, the House would doubtless give it a hearty support. He was sure that the majority of hon. Members present would not give their sanction to a measure which was not only unnecessary, but was actually dangerous, since it would create heartburning and discontent in the minds of the people.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House deems it inexpedient to proceed further at the present moment with any Bill touching the regulation of the Parks,"—(Mr. Locke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought very decided reasons for proceeding with the Bill might be found in the circumstances of the day. By an account of a meeting of East End tradesmen held at the Cutlers' Arms, in the papers of that day, he found that a gigantic Hyde Park demonstration against the Sunday Trading Bill was threatened, so that it appeared there was an intention to use the Park for such purposes. There were two sides to all such questions, and he thought respectable people were at least as much entitled to protection and favour as the roughs. Sorely Hyde Park should not be made the battle-field for such questions as these. Meetings of a political character were certain to attract a number of roughs, and compelled the presence of troops and policemen, not for the purpose of preventing free discussion, but to protect Her Majesty's subjects from injury. It was easy enough to get up what were called demonstrations in which "the three B's"—bands, banners, and beer, predominated, but unfortunately it was not always so easy to suppress them. Under these circumstances a law should be passed which would make it clear to people that in attending such meetings they were doing an illegal act, and therefore he should support the Bill.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYsaid, that the hon. Member who had spoken last had failed to show that any great public inconvenience resulted from such meetings being held in Hyde Park. They were not altogether without experience upon the subject. On the occasion of the first meeting in

  387
  Hyde Park, which the Government opposed, great disturbances undoubtedly occurred. But on the occasion of the second meeting, when the Government only issued a threating notice which they did not follow up, no inconvenience or interruption to traffic took place. ["Oh, oh?"] Well, at all events, not to any serious extent. ["Oh, oh!"] He never heard it said that either property or life was injured upon that occasion. All that the newspapers in favour of the Government said upon the occasion was that the meeting was not very large and that no enthusiasm was manifested. If a time of excitement really came, the Bill would prove of no practical value, for either money would be raised to pay the fines, or if the magistrate sent the offenders to prison, every one of them would be made a popular hero, and the greatest possible mischief would thus be done. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not wish altogether to prevent public meetings being held, and he could not imagine any place so convenient for that purpose as Hyde Park. It might be said that, in times of great excitement, meetings in that place would be attended with danger; but would the provisions of this Bill be respected during times of great excitement? He was rather surprised at the present Government introducing such a, measure, which was intended in some measure to limit the right of public meetings. If ever a Government had derived assistance from public meetings, it was the Government now in office. They had heard the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, that the Cabinet of Lord Derby in 1859 would have adopted household suffrage, only that the public feeling of this country was not sufficiently strong to enable them to carry it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore would never have been able to have carried that principle had it not been for public meetings and popular agitation. He thought that the Government, having in this case co-operated with the Reform League very much to the benefit of the country, were somewhat ungrateful now to turn round upon those who had given them so much help and had enabled them to carry a great measure of Reform, from which the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of the Reform League would be for ever inseparable. He should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, believing, as he did, that the right of holding public meetings in the parks would not be
  388
  abused, and that it had been exercised with great advantage to the country.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that he valued as much as the noble Lord could do, the advantage of public meetings, which he regarded as most useful in the manifestation of the general feeling, and in informing the public mind. It was, however, just because they were so useful to the community that he did not wish them to be held in Hyde Park. In every public park there must be some authority to make by-laws and regulations against what would interfere with the public enjoyment. There must, however, be regulations against the holding of such public meetings as would interfere with the enjoyment of the inhabitants. Parks had been given by Sir Francis Crossley to Halifax, and by Mr. Strutt to Derby. In neither were public meetings allowed. Even in the case of the Central Park at New York the free Americans knew too well the value of the full enjoyment of the public parks for recreation and exercise to permit public meetings to be held there. If the opinion of the majority of those who frequented Hyde Park was obtained, it would be in favour of preserving the parks for recreation, and as a place where fresh air could be obtained without their being interrupted by meetings assembled to discuss political subjects. Meetings should be held in their proper places, and not where they could disturb or prevent the quiet enjoyment of the parks. The history of the parks showed that no right of the public to hold meetings there had ever been admitted. If the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark were carried, the inference would be that the parks were for the future to be open for carrying them on. When Lord Llanover was first Commissioner for Works public discussion took place in Victoria Park, and so much scandal was occasioned by the discussions, that the noble Lord issued directions to the constables to put in force the regulation against holding meetings there. During the time that he himself was in office discussions arose in the parks. He hoped that, as a mental exercise, it would produce good results, and that truth would prevail; but the speakers were ill-fitted to instruct or guide, and rushed into exasperating controversies to the annoyance of sensible people. The practice led to a battle between the friends of Garibaldi and the supporters of the Pope, so that the regulations prohibiting meetings had to be put in

  389
  force. It could not be presumed that meetings would be confined to demonstrations of large proportions. If they threw out this Bill, did they suppose that smaller men and smaller communities would acquiesce in a law against them which was not to be enforced against larger bodies of the people? They could not suppose such a thing. The result would be that anyone who had a nostrum to proclaim, or an appeal to make to the public on any subject whatever, would have a platform and make his speeches in Hyde Park, which would become a general arena for discussion. They could not say that the Reform League should have the privilege of holding meetings in Hyde Park, and that temperance orators and socialists should not. They ought, therefore, to have an Act to enforce the regulations made by the authorities to prevent disturbance or annoyance to the public in their enjoyment of the parks. This was no hardship on the people; they had far better places to hold meetings. There could not be a worse place than the parks. Meetings should be held in buildings where the speakers could be heard and business transacted in an orderly manner, and not in public parks. The House had voted large sums of money for the purpose of beautifying them and rendering them places of quiet enjoyment, and could not consistently open them as arenas in times of political excitement to excited and angry multitudes, who must necessarily damage these gardens.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had forgotten to mention, in the list of meetings which he had enumerated, a meeting in one of them at which he himself was present and harangued the public on a religious question. He was not surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman advocating this Bill, for he found that Gentlemen who had been in office always joined with those who were in office in restraining the liberties of the people. The Bill was most outrageous. The Government had sanctioned the principle of holding public meetings in the parks by appointing a Review to take place there, which was a much more objectionable thing, and gave more dissatisfaction to the public, who were largely excluded from witnessing it, than any ordinary meeting. The Bill was very ill-drawn. It was highly objectionable that magistrates should be removable by the Secretary of State, and at the same time should be appointed to
  390
  adjudicate on political matters. The Bill would make any two men meeting in the Park and discussing a political question liable to be taken before a magistrate and punished for doing so. There would be no difficulty about getting a conviction, because the police always gave evidence against those whom they took into custody. ["Oh!"] It was all very well to say "Oh!" but they knew what Tory administration had done before—they could recollect Peterloo. How were they to know that the yeomanry might not again be called out against them? It would not be safe to entrust the Government with such extensive powers. In the same way a clergyman and his clerk might be convicted for preaching a sermon or conducting a religious service in the Park, or any other place mentioned in the Bill. He strongly objected to the power of summary conviction given to the magistrates, and indeed to the Bill altogether.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there is nothing in the Bill which interferes with the right of public meeting, or political or religious discussion. All that is proposed by it is to forbid the holding of meetings for such purposes in particular localities. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) will allow me to tell him that there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the right of private meeting. When the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Locke) speaks of this Bill as interfering with the rights of centuries, I must inform him that it is only since 1855 that any attempt has been made to hold meetings in the parks. The first meeting was not a political meeting. It was a meeting on the subject of the Sunday Trading Bill introduced into this House by the then Lord Ebury. One meeting followed another on the subject until at length much violence was committed, and a collision took place in which it was sought to cast blame on the police. A Commission was then appointed to inquire into the subject of the holding of such meetings in the Royal Parks, and the result was a unanimous recommendation that those meeting should be put a stop to, as they were attended with evils of the worst description. If one party were allowed to hold their meetings, the opposite party could not be prevented from doing the same, and scenes of open violence and disturbances would be the consequence, as occurred in the case of the Garibaldi meetings some years ago. When I succeeded

  391
  to my present office I told the House, that, in consequence of the excited state of public opinion, it was not then my intention to go on with the measure, but that I would wait until after Whitsuntide before presenting it again to the House. Do not suppose that these meetings are confined to Hyde Park. But a short time ago an attempt was made to hold a meeting in Kew Gardens, which are especially dedicated to the recreation of the people. The right of the Crown over these parks has been fully established. It has never been disputed. I am informed that the Reform League has taken the Opinions of eminent counsel on the matter, and that those opinions are directly contrary to what they contend. While upon this point I may say that Mr. Willes, who had expressed his Opinion against the legality of those meetings—an Opinion in accordance with that of Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Westbury—is not the learned Judge of that name but his brother. I am anxious to keep this subject free from political bias or party feeling, and shall not therefore notice the good humoured but biting remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Amberley) as to the action of the Reform League upon the Government. If that were the case a still better effect would have been produced had they held their meetings in a legal place instead of where they were wholly illegal. I myself have presented Petitions signed by large numbers of respectable persons residing in the thoroughfare through which those persons passed on their way to the parks, complaining of the interruption to the general traffic in consequence of those processions, and praying for protection. I deny that this Bill throws an undue power into the hands of the police. It gives the police a greater power than they already possess—namely, to take any person whom they find actively engaged at one of those public meetings before a magistrate, while at present they can only remove such person from the Park. The Bill is not directed solely against political meetings in the parks. It is equally applicable to religious or other discussions, all of which are prohibited by this measure. It is to prevent an act being done which, though legal in itself, is nevertheless illegal by its being done in a particular place. The magistrates under the Bill will not have the power of sentencing a party to imprisonment. If he should think that the offence deserved imprisonment, he would be
  392
  obliged to send the case before a jury. The question of unlawful assemblage is put by this Bill precisely on the same footing as the 51st Geo. III. There is no intention whatever to infringe the rights of any of Her Majesty's subjects. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark goes against any Bill of the kind. It is only a Sunday or two ago that certain preachers in the Park were interfered with and stopped by the police, notwithstanding their protest against the interruption. They said that when large meetings had been allowed in the parks they could not see why they should be prevented preaching. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Locke) referred to the number of persons who should be held to constitute a meeting. That is a question for Committee, as are also several other points to which allusion has been made in the course of the discussion. As to putting a stop to the smaller meetings, that has been done, because the proper officers are able to do so without creating any disturbance, whereas it has been deemed a lesser evil to allow the larger meetings to be held. The right of the Crown to prevent those meetings has, however, always been maintained by the Government for the time being, and we ask for further powers simply because the law as it stands is inefficient for the accomplishment of its object. I hope the House will go into Committee on the Bill, not with the view of putting down the right of public meeting, with which we have no wish to interfere, but to prevent, in certain localities, the pleasures and rights of others from being interfered with.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think this subject is one of very considerable nicety, and one in which a false step at the present time may lead to consequences far graver than some may imagine. I have nothing to complain of in the tone which has been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I shall endeavour to exclude from the few remarks which I have to offer a single word which could savour of an approach to bitterness. There are two questions before us. One with regard to the substance of the Bill; another with regard to the time at which it is introduced. As respects the substance of the Bill, supposing there were no objection to the time and the manner, I should not be prepared to refuse to legislate on the subject. It has been shown that legal rights of a certain character exist, and that the

  393
  remedies for the enforcement of those rights are defective. Consequently, I was not prepared to vote against the second rending of the Bill; but my own opinion is that it would have been wiser for the Government to have asked for a discretionary power than for an absolute prohibition. I think it proper, with regard to all these places in London or elsewhere, of which the Government are the appointed keepers, that they should have power to determine what are the requisites of public order within those places, from time to time, upon their own responsibility, and according to occasions as they arise. I do not doubt that any Government would act impartially in the exercise of such powers. But I do not think that this matter has been sufficiently considered, or that it would be possible at this time to settle it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) construes the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark as equivalent to a Motion that the Government should go into Committee on this Bill the day three months; but does it not occur to my right hon. Friend that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark must have had a reason for adopting a totally different form of Motion, and that if he had wished not to go into Committee until this day three months he could easily have made such a Motion? If he had made such a Motion it would have been a declaration capable of being construed as pledging the House to resist all legislation on the subject. But the Motion we have now before us is carefully worded. It expresses the opinion that neither the present time nor circumstances are such that it would be wise and judicious to entertain this subject, and consider what law ought to be enacted. That is a proposition I am prepared to maintain. I do not think an adequate sense has been shown of the extreme delicacy of questions of this nature, when general principles relating to public order come to be applied to the enormous masses of population comprised within the metropolis. Consider the physical difficulties in the way of public meetings in London; consider the immense distances the working men of London have to travel from their homes in order to reach one part. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) has spoken of collision; but if his argument is sound in principle, it would apply to meetings on Primrose Hill as well as to those in Hyde Park. If collisions might
  394
  take place in Hyde Park, might they not also take place on Primrose Hill? Yet the right hon. Gentleman suggests Primrose Hill as a fitting meeting-place. We are then told that processions through the public streets are very inconvenient; in my opinion this Bill would prove an incentive to such processions. You do not prohibit processions, you do not attempt to interfere with them, but you select some dozen places in which you say no meetings shall be held. Is this not making a suggestion, to those who desire to make demonstrations, to make them in the form of processions through the streets? It is undesirable to forbid these things. In these meetings there is a certain desire of demonstration which I believe to be perfectly innocent and entirely devoid of any ulterior intention of the use of force. There is then this desire for demonstration, and I know of no place where a demonstration is so inconvenient as in the crowded thoroughfares of London. While I am not therefore prepared to lay down that it is convenient to have meetings of this kind in the parks, or that such meetings, frequently held, would be expedient anywhere, I am apprehensive of a measure the effect of which will be to limit the power of holding open-air meetings. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think it wise or safe to do. If the people wish to make a demonstration they may hold meetings in the streets, in Trafalgar Square, and in the open spaces within the metropolis other than the parks, which will be more inconvenient to the public than the holding of such meetings in the parks. The results are these; in the first place, the subject requires more preparation than it has had; in the second, at the present moment there are circumstances in connection with the remembrance of certain events with which it is most desirable that this Bill should be dis-associated; in the third place, it is a very grave question if legislation of this kind is required, whether the provisions of the Bill ought not to be made to assume a much more general character, and not to be limited to the parks of London? As a matter of policy and prudence, I think that it would be wise to have the state of the law with regard to public meetings in the country examined without prejudice by a Committee of the House, and, with the aid of that Committee, we might be able to make some proposal on the subject. If this Bill is proper to be passed for London, why should it not be

  395
  made applicable to such places as Edinburgh and Dublin? Is the state of the law as regards the parks of Liverpool, Salford, and other places in a more satisfactory condition? I think the entire question deserves examination, and that there is very good reason for further investigation before the House is called upon to legislate. Without complaining of the Government, I am not prepared to legislate on the question at this moment, and I am not prepared to grant new powers to the Government without further consideration. There are certain events still remembered which it is most desirable should be allowed to pass into oblivion; and here I cannot help expressing my deep regret and extreme surprise that those unhappy palings should be allowed to remain as a monument of those unhappy events, not merely with respect to the breach of public order, but likewise with regard to the position in which authority was exhibited on that day. I say again it is impossible for us to legislate on the subject at this moment without a serious risk of producing in the mind of the people of London a sense of wrong. ["Oh!"] This is my conscientious opinion, and it is my duty to state that opinion to the House. The aspect which the matter would take would be an appearance, on the part of Parliament and of the Executive Government, of an attempt to obtain something like revenge for what was something like defeat in the attempt to stop the public meeting before. ["Oh!"] I am sorry if I am giving offence, but let it be understood that I have no desire to make any such charge against the Government. I am not charging the proposer of the Bill, but am merely speaking among ourselves. Such an impression may not be just—is not, but the probability is, that such will be the construction put upon our legislating on the subject. It is impolitic to run any such risk. We have to consider the question of the adoption of a permanent system of action. I fear that the most haste will be found to be the worst speed. I fear that inconvenience will result—not, I hope, from any attempt to resist the operation of the law, but from a sense of grievance and a diminished respect for the law—that law which it should be an object to surround with veneration in the minds of the people, and especially in the minds of the people of the metropolis. To legislation at this time, therefore, I am opposed upon grounds simply of prudence and of policy. That advice
  396
  I humbly and respectfully lay before the House without at all making any imputation upon the Executive for the proposal they have made, though I differ from them in part as to substance, and wholly as to time. I think we shall act wisely if we adopt the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, which declares that at the present moment it is inexpedient to enter upon the consideration of this subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that any Government which sets its face against public meetings, especially on political subjects, would do an unwise act. They are the safety valves of a free country, and I do not know that anybody benefits more by these public meetings than those responsible for the government of the country. There can be no doubt that the people of the metropolis are placed in a very unfavourable position as to their opportunities of meeting and the locality where they can assemble to express their opinions; and this is an inconvenience that will increase yearly with its increasing size. But I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) as to the best remedy under the circumstances, is to be treated in a spirit of depreciation. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire that public meetings must necessarily and generally be held in the open air. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford has expressed an opinion that the habit ought to be encouraged in a great metropolis of public meetings being held in buildings. I think this is the principle that must be adopted. We have had references to the celebrated meetings held at Manchester half a century ago, some of which were attended with very calamitous and deplorable results. Manchester was at that time, comparatively, of importance, but of no colossal size. Manchester must have trebled itself in size since that time, probably more than trebled itself. But you have since had great meetings at Manchester very frequently; and meetings that have given great colour to public opinion. And where have those meetings been held? They have been held for the most part in the Free Trade Hall. These buildings are constructed with no great amount of expense—no amount that is at all a grievance to a flourishing community. Buildings can be raised that will easily accommodate 10,000 people; and thus a

  397
  mode has been provided of meeting, discussing, and expressing opinions. Marylebone might surely be accommodated as well as Manchester. I admit that meetings are not always called for discussion. Sometimes they are held to make demonstrations of the opinions prevalent among the people. But there are places now—such as Primrose Hill, and Hampstead Heath, easy of access—where such demonstrations could take place, which can now be reached by masses of the people with a facility and economy which could not be enjoyed five-and-twenty years ago. Therefore, when there is an occasion when such a demonstration should be held, even in this metropolis, we are not absolutely deficient in the means of holding it. But I still believe that the proper mode by which these expressions of opinion—which are to my mind, highly salutary in a society like ours—should take place, are in buildings and in covered places. With regard to the present measure, I would recall the attention of the House to the fact that it is intended as a matter of social and police arrangement. What the House have to consider is, whether the parks of London, which at great expense have been established and appropriated for the amusement, recreation and general advantage of the community, should be preserved for those purposes, or whether recourse to them should be allowed for political meetings, which have at all events a tendency to disturbance. These parks are most important as a means of premoting the health of the metropolis. Their preservation for that purpose concerns to a greater extent the more humble and moderate in circumstances than ourselves. It is not the superior classes of society who are so much interested in the improvement and maintenance of the parks as the humbler classes of society. The people who have not country houses, who have no gardens of their own, who never or rarely go out of London, are the people who cherish and value these parks as places of recreation. What we have to do in the matter is entirely to dismiss from our minds all reference to past scenes, those scenes to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) has adverted and which he elaborated in such a manner that though I give him the credit which he claims for wishing to introduce kindly feelings into this discussion, the effect was rather to create impressions of a different kind. We should dismiss all this and come to a conclusion on this
  398
  question: do we think that the parks of London should be devoted to the purposes for which they were established or granted, and not made the scenes of political excitement? If we are of that opinion—and I believe the majority of the House and of the inhabitants of the metropolis are of that opinion—then is the measure before us adapted to accomplish that end? The hon and learned Member made a mistake when he said a magistrate would have to decide on questions of sedition or profanity. Nothing of the kind can occur under this Bill. But this is not the moment when the language of the clause ought to be canvassed or weighed. What we have to decide now is, whether the parks shall be preserved for the enjoyment of the population of the metropolis, and whether we will go into Committee to see whether the language and purpose of the Bill will accomplish that purpose which we agree it is desirable should be accomplished? We ought to confine ourselves to that. It is our duty, a duty which we ought to perform to the people of the metropolis before we break up and leave this scene, and it will be an act of cowardice on our part if, confessing our duty, we do not now endeavour so to adapt the measure.
  MR. BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer began his observations by referring to a great meeting which took place in the open air at Manchester many years ago. Doubtless he referred to the meeting that was held on the 16th August in the year 1819, and which was followed or attended by calamitous consequences. But the right hon. Gentleman might, from that special example, have derived a very useful lesson in regard to this question which is now before the House. That meeting was at the beginning, and would have been to its conclusion, as peaceable as any public meeting ever held in this country—if it had not been, unlawfully—as I believe—interfered with by the magistrates and yeomanry, who were brought out for the purpose of dispersing it. The meeting was assembled for the purpose of petitioning Parliament to repeal the Corn Laws, and to pass a Bill for the reform of the House of Commons. The objects were clearly wise and salutary, and they were objects which have since been accomplished by Parliament. I believe there is hardly a single person in the Southern Division of Lancashire who does not now believe that that meeting was a lawful meeting, held

  399
  for a lawful purpose, and that the calamitous circumstances which attended it were imported into it by the authorities doing that which, according to the principles of our Constitution, they had no right to do. But the right hon. Gentleman says that since that meeting there have been meetings held under cover in Manchester. He refers to the meetings held in the Free Trade Hall. But the right hon. Gentleman must know that the meetings held in the Free Trade Hall did not produce any great effect on his mind or on the minds of his followers. It was meetings where the people assembled in numbers that would fill the Free Trade Hall twenty times over that created in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and of his party the feeling that has brought us, I hope, to a happy termination of our labours during this Session. Let the House consider what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman says these great meetings are safety valves for the arrangement and conduct of affairs in a free country. Nothing can be more statesmanlike than that expression — nothing more true. But what has happened? With all these great meetings we cannot point for many years past to any occasion upon which the people attending these meetings made any serious disorder, or created any circumstances which made legislation on the subject necessary. During the last Session—I called attention to them at the time, and the circumstances are still fresh in our minds—great meetings took place at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and London. Nothing greater in the shape of public meetings can be expected to take place on any occasion, at any time, in any part of the country. Yet, in all these meetings, the conduct of the people was such as to make it evident that there was no danger of a disturbance of the public peace. With the exception of one meeting at Hyde Park, there was no disturbance or turmoil of any kind. I may say of that meeting what I said of the meeting in Manchester in 1819 that if the Executive Government had treated the people with moderation—if they had adhered to the strict letter and spirit of the law—that meeting would have been just as tranquil as any of the other meetings to which I have referred. I need not call the attention of the House to the results of these meetings. There is a certain stolidity in the House which requires occasionally a little shoving forward. There
  400
  are, we know, clocks and watches which do not quite keep time. You have occasionally to put the figure-hand forward and move the regulator a little; if you do not do that, by-and-by, according to your clock, day would be turned into night. Now, these meetings have been productive of very great benefit to the people, to Parliament, and to the country. The man who denies the occasional necessity for such meetings must, I am sure, differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman who is the Leader of the party opposite. I understand that the proposal is that Primrose Hill should be used for these meetings. The right hon. Gentleman says that is a place which is not very distant and is quite convenient. Now, if you want to suppress these meetings on account of any tumult or collision of any kind, it is quite clear that this tumult or collision is just as likely to happen at Primrose Hill as at any other spot; but there is this difference, the larger the piece of ground is where the meetings are held, the less possible is it for any small number of ill-disposed persons to bring about any tumult or disorder. There can therefore be no doubt that a meeting in Hyde Park, which is so many times larger than the ground at Primrose Hill, would afford a better security for peace. I myself think that the danger is nil in both places, but if I suppose there is any at all, it will, as I have shown, be less in Hyde Park than on Primrose Hill. This, however, must be obvious, that for the purposes of a meeting—for the purposes of a demonstration seeking to stir the minds of a great population in the direction of a settlement of a great question — the effect produced in Hyde Park must necessarily be greater than the effect of a meeting at Primrose Hill, because the demonstration will be witnessed by a much larger number of the influential population of the metropolis. Those who are desirous of carrying the public along with them will be more likely to be informed of what the public will is by a meeting held in Hyde Park than by one held in a more remote place. And what is the reason why these meetings cannot be held in Hyde Park? Some persons are afraid of the consequences, but I venture to express the opinion, after the experience of this year, that these fears which have been so generally entertained will to a great extent disappear. Newspapers, writing in a very sensational manner, frighten all the old men and the

  401
  old women in the West End of London, by telling them of the terrible things that would happen if meetings were held in Hyde Park. I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion, that we shall soon see persons who live in good houses in the West End entertain less apprehension regarding great demonstrations in Hyde Park than they have unwisely entertained during the past year. The meetings you propose to prevent are very rare. How long is it since there were any great meetings in the metropolis before those of last year? You will not deny that the subject-matter of discussion for the public, and which caused these meetings, was a great subject for the people. We have spent six months in discussing it here, and have now brought it to what I and many others hope and believe will, to a considerable extent, be a happy termination. And how long, let me ask, will it be before it will be again necessary for another such demonstration? I hope it will be very long. I hope Parliament may act more easily in the direction of the public will and interest, and that it may not be necessary in our lifetime to hold great meetings of this kind. But if these great meetings have not been attended with any evil results, is it worth while, or statesmanlike, or sagacious, to introduce such a measure at this moment—having in view what took place last year—and to close the door against the people at the very time when you have generously and liberally conceded what they asked from you? I believe, moreover, that the Bill will fail in times of excitement. Your 40 s. fine, your £10 fine, your police magistrate, all this will go down in a period of great excitement among a great population. The effect of your passing this Bill now—when you are sending to the House what may possibly be a more liberally elected Parliament—will be that this Parliament will leave behind it a grievance which, in my opinion, will rather stimulate the minds of 100,000 people in the metropolis, and will make them long rather to go to the Park in order to show their resentment against such a measure. I suppose it will not be possible, even after this Bill has passed, if unfortunately it should pass, to prevent 100,000 people going into Hyde Park. It is not necessary that the Park should be advertised as a place of meeting. It need only be understood that the people are to assemble at that place. There are many gates and entrances by which the people can make their way into the enclosure,
  402
  and being in, they may make what is called a demonstration, which some may think a violation of the principle of this Bill. But even if the measure passes, there is a probability that it will not affect the peculiar class of meetings sought to be put down. It may be effectual for dealing with some of the smaller class of meetings—preachings, and so forth—which have been held in the parks on Sundays, though these are meetings which might fairly be left to the police. I do not object to the parks being kept with great care for the free enjoyment of the people, but I hold that there is no enjoyment, there is no duty, there is no assemblage more becoming a free people to take part in, than such meetings as have been held on questions like that of last year, and these meetings I do not believe you will be able to put down in times of excitement. I think the House will feel that unless there be a very strong, urgent, and unanswerable necessity, it is not our duty, or our interest, to make more stringent laws with regard to the holding of public meetings. There is no country in Europe in which public meetings are held in greater numbers with greater tranquility or with greater advantage than in this country. All the experience of the past proves to us incontestably that we may trust our countrymen with regard to this matter. They do not assemble for purposes of discussing trifling things. They have not discussed the questions which came before them in an unbecoming manner, and the general result has been, in my opinion, almost without exception, highly beneficial, and such as we can look back to with satisfaction and even with pride. Trust the people then in future as you have in the past. Make no new laws on the matter. Ought we to shut the gates of the Park in order that the nerves of certain genteel classes may not be shaken by the genteel presence of the people? I would not bolt the doors of the Park, and say to the millions who are not of the genteel class that they shall not come into the Park because they are apt to disturb the nerves of those who are more genteel. My own impression is, that the result of the Reform measure which we are passing this Session will be greatly to cement all classes in one common and good feeling with each other. Therefore, I say, whatever necessity there may have been in past times, if ever there really was any, for legislative interference, it will be somewhat less in future. The question

  403
  before us has been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark. He says you are passing this measure at the very end of the Session, and he asks you not to deal with it now, but to leave it for more full consideration in the next Session of Parliament. It may be necessary that the Government or the police shall have more powers respecting disturbances or little meetings in the parks; but there can be no such necessity for obtaining those powers until next February that we should interfere in this matter. Perhaps the people of London might deem it desirable to meet in the Park and pass resolutions thanking Parliament for what it has done during the Session. It would not I suppose be thought injurious to Parliament or to the public interests that such a meeting should take place. I have not heard of any intention to hold a meeting of the kind, but if it should be contemplated I hope no one would prevent it. Our confidence in the people is always returned amply by their good conduct towards Parliament and the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Colleagues should allow this Bill, like others more useful, to drop, and go on for six months. If at the beginning of the next Session the Home Secretary shall still think it necessary he will introduce it with more likelihood of our coming to a wise decision. There will then be much less chance of producing a feeling of resistance amongst all classes of the people, than if he were to proceed now with a Bill to shut out from the free expression of their opinions those to whom during this Session some Members of the House have been obliged reluctantly to bow.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that by making an exception in the case of the parks, to the general right of public meeting enjoyed by the people elsewhere, deference was really paid to that right. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, he should deprecate an attempt to invest the Home Secretary or any functionary with power of discretionary interference between the people and the right of public assembly. He, therefore, approved the absolute prohibition contained in the Bill. The Bill did not refer to Manchester, or Birmingham, or Glasgow, but simply to the parks of the metropolis. The language of the hon. Member for Birmingham on that, as on many other occasions, had been consistent in representing that it was desirable for the country that
  404
  Parliament should be coerced by the power of numbers. But, for his own part, he desired to guard with equal vigilance both the right of the people to meet and of the Parliament to deliberate in freedom. He therefore regretted that the Government had not adopted the precedent set, in this respect, by the United States, where demonstrations such as won the admiration of the hon. Member for Birmingham were prohibited from taking place within the Federal district of Columbia and within reach of the Legislative. The hon. Member for Birmingham was constantly expressing his approval of these demonstrations, and virtually suggesting the revival of them by his assertions of the influence he supposed them to exercise over the deliberations of the House. He felt with the American people that the Legislature of a country ought not to be overborne by local mobs, and he hoped that the next House of Commons, however it might be constituted, would resist every attempt at dictation on the part of a London mob. The freedom of France had been sacrificed to the coercion of the Paris mob, and the coercion of a London mob might prove fatal to the liberties of England. He was a strong supporter of order, but he would not guarantee that the people of the Midland counties would quietly permit the Legislature to be dominated by London mobs. He believed that if the hon. Member for Birmingham were to consult his own constituents, he would find that was the feeling which they entertained upon the subject.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that an official gentleman from America had, within the last few days, informed him that he had recently seen a meeting of 30,000 persons at Washington.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 88: Majority 45.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.

  DOMINICA LOAN BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hunt, Bill to authorize an alteration in the mode of Re-payment of a Loan made by the West India Relief Commissioners to the Island of Dominica, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT and Mr. ADDERLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 291.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Canongate Annuity Tax (Edinburgh)* (264); Justices of the Peace Disqualification Removal* (265); Weights and Measures (Dublin)* (266); Dublin Metropolitan Police* (267).
Second Reading—Industrial and Provident Societies* (253).
Committee—Representation of the People (227).
Third Reading — Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* (221); Naval Knights of Windsor* (252); Vice President of the Board of Trade (99), and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—(No. 227.)—(The Earl of Derby.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am sure both sides of the House will hear with great regret that the Prime Minister is unable, from the present state of his health, to come down to the House, and in his absence, therefore, I am obliged to move that your Lordships go into Committee on, the Bill.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve into a Committee on the said Bill.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I now rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I am quite aware, from the question addressed to me by the noble Earl on Friday, and also from some observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury on Tuesday, what line the Government are likely to take on the subject of this Motion. They will say it is a vague proposition, and that it points to no definite plan. If I had adopted a

  257
  definite plan I am afraid I should have been obnoxious to the censure of a noble and learned Lord, who told us the other night that the party to which I belong claimed for themselves a monopoly of dealing with the question of Reform. I can assure your Lordships that I have no wish to interfere unnecessarily with the course that the Government have pursued. I am actuated by one motive, and by one motive only, that of contributing as far as I can to — that which I believe to be of the greatest importance to the public interest — an early and satisfactory settlement of this great question of Reform. It seemed to be assumed the other night that objections were taken by the Leaders of the Liberal party to the settlement of this question by noble Lords opposite. That, my Lords, is not my opinion; for I believe they are better able to deal with it and to pass it to a satisfactory conclusion than the late Government was. We have seen this Session that their influence with the great Conservative party has induced that party to support a measure which they will hardly deny that, under other circumstances, they would have steadily opposed. But further than this, some experience in public matters has led me to think that forming a detailed plan upon so large a question as the present is far easier for the Government than for any individual Member, or even the party in Opposition. An individual Member of your Lordships' House, or of the other House, may bring forward, and may even succeed in carrying, an isolated Motion, or may obtain the opinion of the House, and lay down some principle of action. But when it is necessary to form a detailed plan the Government is in possession of information, or, at any rate, has the command of information, which no individual Member of either House can have, and without which it is perfectly impossible to form a detailed plan upon a large scale. Having said this I need hardly disclaim any intention of making this Motion in any way whatever as a party Motion. I confess that I am a party man, and that I attach great value to party. I believe that the organized action of party in support of the principles by which that party is bound together is not only the mainspring but the safeguard of Parliamentary Government. And if I had thought it desirable to make a party Motion, I should not have hesitated to do so, and to avow it. But I am not sure that the Motion which I now make is as good
  258
  as a mere party Motion; and, at any rate, and however that may be, I conceive that the importance of settling this question is far above any party purpose, and I should be ashamed of myself if I allowed any party consideration to interfere with what I believe to be for the real interest of the country. That is the reason why I have not brought forward, as I was invited to do, a detailed plan. I was anxious to bring forward no plan which could even appear as a rival plan to that of the Government. That might have been called a party movement. The noble Earl talked the other day of being influenced by a determination not to be outbid by his opponents; but we were determined not to propose a plan in rivalry with that of the Government with the appearance of outbidding them to be again out bidden in our turn. Such was not our view of our duty under the present circumstances. My object, and that of the noble Lords among whom I have the honour of sitting, is to point out that the scheme of the Government in respect to re-distribution is inadequate and unsatisfactory. That is not our opinion only, it is the opinion generally entertained—the opinion of every man one meets in the streets; and only this morning I received from a steady Conservative Member the expression of his dissatisfaction with the scheme as proposed by the Government, which he said gave satisfaction to none but to the very small boroughs. I am anxious to point out the defects of the scheme of the Government; and, without pledging myself to any detailed plan, I wish to suggest in what manner those defects may best be remedied, and to impress on your Lordships the importance of settling this question in the present Session. In one sense only can I admit that this is a party Motion — that on the part of noble Lords near me I tender our support and co-operation if the Government will undertake to amend their scheme. My noble Friend the noble Earl near me, in the debate on Tuesday, offered our support to the Government if they would amend their Bill, and if he had met with any response I should not have been standing here to propose this Motion. But we feel it of such importance that the question should be settled, that now, in a more formal and solemn manner, we offer our assistance, that we may not fail in anything we can do towards settling this question this year. Having disclaimed any party object, I hope I may receive the support of some of your

  259
  Lordships, whose opinions I am inclined to think concur with my own on this subject, but who, if I had made the Motion in a hostile temper and spirit, would naturally and rightly have voted in opposition to it. Before, however, I touch upon the question of the re-distribution I wish, in order to clear the way, and to have no concealment from your Lordships, to say one word on the other part of the scheme—that relating to the franchise. The Government have proposed the largest measure in respect to the franchise that has ever been proposed to Parliament, and I have no doubt they have proposed it with a view of effecting a settlement. I believe it is large enough to effect that object. And, although there may be some details which may be capable of amendment with regard to the franchise, I can only say that with that part of the measure I, for one, am perfectly satisfied. I do not participate in those fears which have been expressed by some of your Lordships as to the effect of an extension of the franchise. I have perfect confidence in my fellow-countrymen. I have had some experience in dealing with all classes of society, in canvassing large and populous towns. Every one who has gone through contested elections knows well to what an extent a candidate is brought into contact, not only with electors, but with all classes of society. I have had the advantage of having gone through ten contested elections, and have been fifteen times returned to Parliament. I speak, therefore, with some experience, and I can bear my testimony to the almost universal reasonableness of the working classes with whom I have been brought into contact, and I can especially bear testimony to their vast improvement of late years. I never found them unreasonable even when I differed with them. I found no development of democratic spirit among them, and I have perfect confidence that they will not abuse the franchise with which they are about to be intrusted. With this part of the Bill I am perfectly contented and satisfied; I wish the other half of the Bill had been conceived in the same spirit. Before entering into the detail of the proposed plan of re-distribution, I wish to notice two of the objections which have been made to my proposal. One is that it is too late to amend the Government scheme; and the other is that the House of Commons will not be willing to receive a measure on the subject from your Lordships. I trust, my Lords, that you will not allow yourselves to be influenced by
  260
  these arguments. I believe that there have been occasions when your Lordships have threatened to refuse to entertain a Bill brought up so late in the Session as this has been. This, however, is certainly not a Bill which you can refuse to entertain, and I believe it has been brought up to your Lordships' House as early as the exertions of the other House rendered it possible. If this be the case, are we not to discuss the measure because it comes up so late? Are we to be reduced to the situation of merely registering the decisions of the other House in the case of measures brought up late in the Session? I cannot believe your Lordships will entertain so low an opinion of your Constitutional functions, or that you will grudge the time necessary for the fair and proper consideration of the measure. I feel it the more necessary that we should do so because the scheme of redistribution was hardly discussed in the other House. Indeed, I believe that such was the weariness of that House with regard to the Bill that the Schedules passed at a single sitting. It must likewise be remembered that some Members of the House of Commons are more nearly affected by a measure of re-distribution than is the case with your Lordships, and I am inclined to think, therefore, that the matter may be considered here in a fairer and more impartial spirit than it was in the other House. Nor do I believe that there is any ground for supposing that the House of Commons would not entertain Amendments proposed by your Lordships. We might, indeed, appear obstructive if we narrowed the measure of enfranchisement adopted by the other House, but we shall clearly be only performing our duty in assisting to frame a proper measure with regard to the seats; and, if it should happen that in any line of disfranchisement we touch a borough over which a Member of your Lordships' House exercises a predominant influence, depend upon it that our dealing with it would be regarded as a graceful sacrifice on the part of this House, even by those who might object to our interference in other matters. I am convinced that an enlarged scheme of re-distribution, emanating from your Lordships' House, would, if founded on just principles and fairly carried out, entitle this House to the gratitude of the other House and of the country. Nor do I believe that, if the Government would accede to the representation I am now making, and would reconsider and amend the defective parts of their plan, there would be any indisposition

  261
  either here or in the other House to devote such prompt and unremitting attention to the amended scheme as to allow of the measure being passed through both Houses without any great loss of time. I have thus explained the sense in which I am anxious that this Motion should be considered—not as a hostile or party Motion, but as expressing the opinion generally held that the measure in its present shape is insufficient, and as pressing on the Government the propriety of reconsidering the whole plan with a view to framing such a scheme as, in the opinion of the public at large, may settle for some time this long-vexed and important question. I now proceed to point out what I regard as the prominent defects of the scheme of re-distribution, and I will take first, as it stands in the Bill, the proposal for disfranchisement. The Bill of the Government takes away one Member from all boroughs with less than 10,000 population; but it leaves untouched many of those smaller boroughs which are the great blot of our representative system. From a Return which has been laid on the table giving the existing boroughs in the order of population, your Lordships will find that there are ten boroughs, each with less than 5,000 inhabitants. They contain altogether a population of 38,900, and have 3,190 electors. Of these ten, moreover, six are so decaying that they have now less population than they had in 1831. Now, let me contrast these ten boroughs with the great hives of wealth and industry. The town of Liverpool alone has 440,000 inhabitants, or more than ten times as many as the whole of these ten boroughs. The city of Bristol — for I do not wish to refer merely to Northern places — has a population of 154,000, or four times as large as the whole of these boroughs. Let me refer to those boroughs which have of late years largely increased both in wealth and population. Why, the increase of Wolverhampton within the last thirty years is twice as large as the whole population of these ten boroughs. The largest borough with one Member—Birkenhead—has also increased during the last thirty years to as large an extent as the whole population of these boroughs. Excluding the metropolitan boroughs, which I do not allude to, because they are so beyond all calculation, three of the boroughs which this Bill proposes to enfranchise have a population as large as the whole of these ten boroughs. Now, I ask the most Conservative Peer whether
  262
  the maintenance of these small boroughs on their present footing is defensible. I have taken the ten boroughs with the smallest population, only as an illustration of my views; other persons might prefer a different test, the number of houses or the number of electors. Take any test you like, that of population, of houses, or that of electors, you will find that there are a number of small boroughs at the bottom of the list which cannot be maintained in their present position, and which are a source of weakness and object of attack. It must be remembered that the disproportion between them and the larger boroughs is increasing every year. I have taken the population of 1861, but a Return laid before the other House gives the computed population of 1866, and you will find that the small boroughs are smaller still, and the large boroughs infinitely larger. Moreover, the enfranchising provisions of this Bill will increase the electors in the large towns out of all proportion to the increase which will take place in the small towns, so that the anomaly will become more patent than ever. I come now to the plan for enfranchisement, and I will first take the proposal as to counties. The Government proposes to give six Members to nine counties and four Members to four divisions of counties. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) told us that the principle on which the Government proceeded was to give six Members to counties, with a population of 300,000. Six Members are to be assigned to Derbyshire, with 296,000 inhabitants, and six to Cheshire, with 306,000. Cornwall, however, with 306,000 inhabitants, is left out, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, with 842,000 inhabitants, is to have only six Members. Now, do not imagine that we in the West Riding grudge counties smaller than our own the representation which it is proposed to give them; but we do think that when you distribute Members in this way, and increase the county representation, there ought to be some proportion between population and representation. I should be sorry to see the country cut up into electoral divisions with equal population and an equal number of Members; but, while a more than adequate representation is bestowed upon smaller counties, an adequate representation surely ought to be bestowed on the larger ones. Under this Bill Derbyshire will have one Member to under 50,000 population, the West Riding one Member to 140,000, and South Lancashire

  263
  one to 150,000. In many of the smaller counties there is one to every 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants. I do not pretend to say that these Northern counties ought to have Members proportionate to their population, according to the scale of the smaller counties; all that I say is that a greater approximation ought to be made to what is fair. There cannot but be discontent with a plan so inadequate and unequal. Nor is the proposal for enfranchising the new boroughs any better. In their first scheme the Government proposed to enfranchise twelve boroughs; in the next two were struck out and three inserted — namely, Keighley, Luton, and Stockton—making thirteen in all. Then came the proposal made in the House of Commons for giving three Members to six of the largest boroughs. The Motion was resisted and defeated by the Government, but before long they changed their minds—very properly, as I think—in deference to what they found to be a general opinion of the House. I entirely approve what they did so far as it went, and if they had taken the four Members from some small boroughs the Government would have done perfectly right. But, instead of taking away the Members from some of those petty, decaying places, they withdrew the Members which they had promised to four flourishing towns, which a week before were in their opinion entitled to representation. And not only did they do that, but they did not leave out the smallest of the proposed boroughs. Why they left out one borough while they retained another I cannot see. The Government is no doubt in the possession of better information than we can be, and it may be that they are right; but look at the figures, and you will find that, primâ facie, the case is entirely against them. Before I refer to the particular places, I wish to say that I do not in the slightest degree grudge a Member to any one of the places which has received it. The Government have retained on the list Darlington and Stockport, the population of each being between 16,000 and 17,000. But then there are St. Helens with 41,000 inhabitants, Keighley with 34,000, Barnsley with 30,000, and Luton with 22,000, and these they have struck out of the list. I have here taken the population within the proposed Government boundaries. I am perfectly ready to admit with respect to one of those boroughs (Barnsley) that the boundaries proposed by the Government Bill comprised an area of twenty square
  264
  miles, which was perfectly preposterous. But if you take the area in the same boroughs which, strictly speaking, may contain the nucleus of representation, you will find that precisely the same difference exists as I have stated with regard to the large areas. The township of Darlington contains 15,000, and the municipal borough of Stockton 13,000 inhabitants. There is no distinct and smaller area for St. Helens—it forms a part of different townships; but I understand that what would be a continuous town area would contain about 35,000 inhabitants. But in other cases there is a restricted area. The township of Darlington contains 15,000 inhabitants, the township of Barnsley 17,800, Stockton has 13,000, Keighley 18,000 inhabitants. Therefore, neither as regards the larger area nor the restricted area is there as large a population in the boroughs which have been retained as in the four which have been left out. I have illustrated the case from places with which I happen to be acquainted, not because I have any particular leaning to those places, but because what I have stated I know to be accurate. There are also, as I find from a Return which has been laid before the other House of Parliament—I am not quite sure that it has been laid upon the table of your Lordships' House—some other boroughs which have a population larger, or as large as those to which the franchise has been given. I find that Glossop has 19,000 inhabitants, Leamington 17,000, Doncaster 16,000, and there are others with populations nearly as large. I am aware that one cannot depend altogether on these Returns, and that is the reason why I say that the Government ought to undertake the question. I know, for instance, one town in Yorkshire, which appears in this Return, with a population of 7,000—the town of Rotherham—and I am confident that the population, within reasonable limits, is above 20,000. I think, then, I have shown, first, with respect to the small boroughs that they are insignificant and decaying; and secondly, that the scheme of redistribution proposed by the Government is unequal as respects both counties and boroughs. I say, therefore, that I do not think it can be expected that when these sources of discontent are created by the Bill satisfaction and content will be produced throughout the country. It cannot be expected that those towns which, even in the opinion of the Government, are entitled to representation will be content to

  265
  remain quiet and not agitate, or that those persons throughout the country who take an interest in Reform, and wish to see the question put upon a satisfactory footing, will be content that the question should rest as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Well, my Lords, I think I have satisfied your Lordships that there are just causes of dissatisfaction with the measure of the Government. If I were to propose anything in the shape of a rival plan, I might be exposing myself to the imputation of having acted in a party spirit. But I think your Lordships have a right to expect from any one standing in my position that he should suggest, at least in general terms, a remedy for the state of things with which he has found fault. My Lords, I am prepared to make such a suggestion; but I beg your Lordships to understand that I am most anxious not to commit any of your Lordships to my plan, still less to propose it in the light of a rival scheme. I will leave it to the Government on their own responsibility, and with the information they possess, to state how far they can go. Now I say, in the first place, that I think we ought to deal with some of these small boroughs. I do not say whether the test should be a population of 6,000, 8,000, 10,000, 12,000 or any other figure. I do not say that population alone should be taken as the test. I leave it to the Government to determine what test they think best to act upon, but I say that the smaller boroughs must be dealt with. In 1852 the Bill of the Government proceeded on the principle of retaining every existing borough as the nucleus of representation, and adding other towns in order to strengthen them. My Lords, in some cases I think that might be done very well; but in many cases it would be found absolutely impossible, and there is this further argument against it, that you could not, by pursuing this method, obtain Members to be given to large constituencies. I think there are strong arguments against any increase in the number of Members of the House of Commons. Of course, I do not pretend to say that there is any particular charm in the number 658. But depend upon it it is far more easy to adhere to the existing number than to lay down any limit at which you can stop if you once depart from that limit. As boroughs increase in population to 15,000, or 20,000, or 25,000, what answer can you make when they say "Give us now a Member?" I do not see where you can stop if you once begin to increase
  266
  the numbers of the House of Commons, and I think that anyone who has had any experience of the working of that House will pronounce such an increase to be inconvenient and uncalled for. I am aware it is said that you must increase the number of Members for the purpose of giving additional representation to Scotland. Now, I am not opposed to that additional representation. Two successive Governments have proposed such an addition, and Scotland is fairly entitled to it. But it is absurd to draw between the two countries a distinction which would make them jealous of each other. There are some differences of law and custom between the two countries, but their feelings and interests are identical, and if the large counties or large towns in Scotland are entitled to additional representation, I have not the least objection to give it to that country by taking it from some petty English borough. I am strongly opposed, however, to an increase in the total number of representatives. There are, then, but two ways in which these small boroughs can be dealt with. One is the same course as that taken in the Bill of 1854—that of disfranchising altogether certain small boroughs. The second is that proposed in the Bill of 1866, which was also proposed by Mr. Laing in the other House, and which a noble Friend of mine has given notice he will bring under your Lordships' notice now—I mean the system of grouping. The Government has expressed a strong opinion against total disfranchisement. I do not wish to say anything which will bind myself or any of your Lordships to either of these proposals. There are arguments in favour of each course; I leave it to the Government to decide in accordance with what they hold to be their duty or their principles which they will adopt. All I can say is, that in one way or the other these small boroughs ought to be dealt with, and the Members taken from them should be given to large and populous districts. The measure of disfranchisement must depend on what you think the just claims for additional Members of the large counties and towns — Parliamentary boroughs now existing or boroughs to be enfranchised. When you have made up your minds to what extent these claims ought to be met, you will have the measure of your disfranchisement. If you cannot obtain a sufficient number of Members in this way, you may obtain more Members by extending your

  267
  partial disfranchisement to boroughs with a population of more than 10,000. My noble Friend proposes to extend the limit to boroughs with a population of 12,000. But you must first decide upon the enfranchisement which is necessary, and then, and not till then, you will know to what extent to carry your disfranchisement. What places, then, are there which have the best claim to increased representation? I, myself, have no doubt, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, that the large counties of England are at this moment under-represented, and have the best claim for additional representation. The Bill proposes that a third Member shall be given to every borough with a population above 200,000, and I entirely concur in the propriety of that proposal. But there are five divisions of counties with a population above that number. Why are they to be put in a worse position than these large boroughs? There is no conceivable reason why they should not be placed upon the same footing. I suggest, therefore, to the Government, that a third Member should be given to counties with a population over 200,000—namely, the two divisions of South Lancashire and the three divisions of the West Riding. Mr. Laing proposed further to give a third Member to two other boroughs with a population of between 150,000 and 200,000, and he was supported by a very large minority of the House of Commons. The Government refused to extend the limit so low; but I confess I can see no reason why these two boroughs should not receive a third Member too, and in that case it would only be just and fair that a similar increase of representation should be given to counties containing a similar number of inhabitants. There are seven counties or divisions of counties with a population of over 150,000, and I think it only right that each of these should receive a third Member. No doubt they are chiefly counties in the North of England, because the wealth and population have increased in the North out of all proportion to the rest of the country. Surely, however, representation ought to follow wealth and population. Three counties in the South of England—Middlesex, East Kent, and West Cornwall — come within the same category. Speaking without partiality, I think that such constituencies as I have referred to form the best constituencies, because they are constituencies of a mixed character. It may be true that in the House of Commons a
  268
  fair decision may be arrived at by the balance of the conflicting opinions of Members who represent antagonistic interests; but it is infinitely better, in my opinion, that each Member should, as far as possible, be returned by a mixed constituency, for he brings to the discussion of questions a mind much more impartial and dispassionate than he otherwise would be likely to bring, because he represents differeut classes and different interests, different wants and opinions. I have presented a Petition from Marylebone asking for additional representation. With regard to the claims of the metropolitan boroughs, I may fairly say that I do not consider the representation of the metropolis exactly on the same footing as that of the large constituencies in different parts of the country. You have here one immense town, you divide it into districts, and you assign two Members to various portions of it. At the same time, the Bill acknowledges the claims of these large metropolitan constituencies by the division of the Tower Hamlets, and the creation of Chelsea and Kensington into a new borough; and therefore the claims of the larger of the other metropolitan boroughs may be well worth considering. But with regard to the four or six towns which the Government thought entitled to representation, I do not see how you can expect them to sit quietly down without an effort to obtain it. Other towns, according to their own showing, have claims to representation equal or superior to some of those which the Government have enfranchised; and if the Government are disposed to reconsider their scheme, I think it will be well worth their while to examine more closely the different claims of these towns—and no doubt they will do so fairly and equitably. My Lords, I have now performed the task which I have undertaken. I have stated in what respect the scheme of the Government is, in my opinion, defective, and I have pointed out generally in what way I think those defects might be remedied. As to the particular boroughs, or the exact number of boroughs, to be enfranchised or disfranchised, it is the function and the duty of the Government to settle that point, and with it I wish in no degree to interfere. I am against any further subdivision of counties, and I am in favour of giving a third representative to the large constituencies. A good deal has been said of late of the representation of minorities, and the noble and learned

  269
  Lord opposite has given notice of a Motion to effect that object. It is no party question; it has been advocated by what I may call the philosophical Members of the Liberal party; it has been advocated, also, by strong Conservatives. I do not in the slightest degree wish to mix up that question with my own Motion. Those who are in favour of the proposal may be inclined to support my Motion, as affording more scope for the introduction of that principle. All I wish to say upon that subject is, whether the Motion of the noble and learned Lord be carried or not, I think the giving of a third Member is favourable to the representation of minorities under any circumstances. Every one knows there is in this country a strong feeling in favour of a fair compromise; and, quite irrespective of the adoption of any distinct Motion for the purpose, I believe the giving of third Members is favourable to the representation of minorities. I have very little more to add, except to press upon your Lordships most earnestly how desirable it is that an early settlement of this question should be come to, and, if possible, that it should be one which is likely to be satisfactory and lasting. I have before alluded to the difficulty there will be in point of time; but I must say I cannot express to your Lordships too strongly the importance I attach to the passing of a measure for England in the course of the present Session. I would address an observation to those who are afraid of going too far; I would have them take warning by what happened last Session. We know upon the authority of one of the leaders of the Conservative party that they then thought that the proper figure of the borough franchise was £8; they objected to £7. This year they have passed that and every other figure; and now it is not £8, £7, £6, or £5, but absolute household suffrage, without any figure at all. Last year the opponents of Reform declared that there was no feeling in favour of Reform in the country; they taunted Reformers with apathy; they provoked an agitation, and have yielded to it. Depend upon it there is a pressing necessity for the early settlement of this question. A noble Lord behind me told us the other night that we had outgrown our Institutions. If so, your Lordships may be assured that it would be wisdom to adapt our Constitution as soon as possible to our altered circumstances. It is true Conservatism to be wise in time. I have stated
  270
  that I am not afraid of the changes to be produced by this Bill; but I am afraid of the agitation which may arise if there be any delay in the settlement of the question. The First Lord of the Treasury reminded us the other night of the agitation which accompanied and carried the Reform Bill of 1832. I think the noble Lord somewhat exaggerated what took place then, and he did not give credit to the authors of that Bill for the deliberation and consideration with which its form was determined. I saw something of the agitation and turmoil which then prevailed, and I saw more than enough to make me glad when the measure was passed into law. I do not profess for a moment to compare that time with this; but I remember enough to be sure that a chronic state of agitation is the worst condition a country can be in. Let me also remind your Lordships of the arguments that were used last year when the Government, of which I was not a Member, introduced a Franchise Bill without a re-distribution scheme attached to it. It was argued, and perhaps justly, that if you lowered the franchise as far as £7, you were incurring great risk of democratic changes, for you were creating a lever with which in a future Session of Parliament a Radical scheme of re-distribution would be enforced. What are we doing now? You have increased the strength of the lever—you have weakened the foundation of the object to which that lever may be applied. You cannot withhold the lever which you have created, and all you can do now is to strengthen the object so as to prevent the overthrow of that on which the lever may be exerted. I can only hope your Lordships will do so, that you will build the foundation of the structure on the confidence and affection of those in whose hands you place the lever, and that they may see it to be their interest, not to destroy, but to maintain and uphold our institutions. I have to thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to me. I have endeavoured to say nothing which could savour of party; I have endeavoured to say nothing which could indispose any of your Lordships to support the recommendation I make, or the Government to accept it. I believe that the Government are the best qualified to promote the passing of any measure, and the fittest parties to do it; and if we look for the passing of this Bill in an amended shape this Session, we must look to the influence and authority of the Government

  271
  for its success. If, in compliance with the opinion, which I hope may be expressed by a considerable number of your Lordships, the Government are induced to reconsider and amend their scheme, it will be no discredit to them to do so. It will be no party triumph to us, for it in is no party sense that this Motion is made. I believe, and my noble Friends near me believe, that it is of vital importance to the interests of this country that no time should be left open for agitation, but that this long pending and difficult question of Reform should be closed, and that the representation of the people of England should be placed as soon as possible upon a basis which will form a permanent settlement.
  Moved to resolve, "That for the Purpose of effecting a Settlement of the Question of the Redistribution of Seats the proposed Scheme is inadequate, and that it is expedient to provide the Means of giving more Representatives to large and important Constituencies than are given by this Bill."
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I find myself at the eleventh hour of this great controversy obliged to take the place of one of those eminent and distinguished Leaders who are rightly reckoned by us the pride of Parliament: and, my Lords, I feel that, although I may take his place, I cannot replace him. Under these circumstances, I hope to meet with all the ndulgence which your Lordships are wont to extend, not only to me personally, but to all who are placed in a difficult position. Your Lordships will understand me when I say I never was so anxious as I am at this moment to stand well with this House. If I did not feel rather discouraged by the circumstances under which I am obliged to address your Lordships, I should at once go fully into the subject which the noble Lord (Viscount Halifax) has brought before you, and answer to the best of my ability the arguments he has adduced. But, before I do this, I feel myself obliged, from motives of personal honour, to make a few remarks upon what has been said with reference to the course pursued by the Government on the debate which has already taken place upon this Bill. During that debate upon the second reading we were much taunted with inconsistency—indeed, stronger words even than inconsistency were employed. We were charged with having utterly abandoned our principles, and with being—in fact, I will quote the expression, which I must say is a most offensive one—"organized
  272
  hypocrites." My Lords, we were attacked by two noble Earls, one young in years, but who will soon be old in honour. Both showed great ability—as they always have done—but they did not show equal fairness in charging the Government with great inconsistency. My answer to them, as far as they are concerned, is that they are young in politics, and too young to have been inconsistent; when they are as old as I am they will probably find their opinions, their ideas, and their views in all matters connected with politics, and even on all other subjects, will not fit them any better than the clothes they wore at twenty-five. The noble Duke, also, who now sits on the opposite Benches (the Duke of Argyll), also made an attack upon us. I regret very much the expressions he made use of, because I cannot but think he sacrificed facts to the temptation of forming a sonorous sentence. In the second sentence of his speech, the noble Duke spoke of all the Members of the Government as "steeped to the very lips in prophecies of those most dangerous consequences that would arise from the power of numbers;" and he spoke of us as public men discredited, and discredited most of all, for the time, by our very successes. As the noble Duke spoke of all the Members of the Government and all the Members of the Cabinet, I challenge the noble Duke to state on what occasion and in what place he ever heard me say one word on the question of Parliamentary Reform, or where he ever read a single sentence to that effect of mine in writing. Not only have I never expressed any opinion on the subject, but the only occasion from which the noble Duke could possibly judge of my opinion with respect to Parliamentary Reform was in 1859, and that rests solely on the circumstance that I was then a member of Lord Derby's Government, and that Government brought in a measure of Parliamentary Reform. That certainly would not go to show that I am an anti-Reformer. What is the history, not only of myself, but of thousands of others in this country, with respect to their sentiments on the question of Parliamentary Reform? Let us go back a few years. Some of your Lordships are too young to recollect the events of 1832. I had then the advantage of the personal friendship of that illustrious statesman Lord Grey, and I shall never forget the kindness and openness with which he spoke to me, then a young man, in reference to the subjects

  273
  which agitated the public opinion of that day. I was also acquainted with others who took a great part in passing the measure of 1832, among whom were Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Poulett Thomson, and Lord Durham. I was too young at that time to have entertained any opinions of value, but I could judge from the language used what were the intentions by which the promoters of that Bill were actuated. Their first and most generous intention was, undoubtedly, to enlarge the constituencies by extending the suffrages and Parliamentary privileges of the people; but there was also another intention, and that was, no doubt—for often did I hear it stated—to prevent the Tory party as long as possible from coming into office. In both these objects they succeeded. They succeeded in enfranchising a large portion of the population, and in placing a preponderating power in the hands of the middle classes: they also succeeded in preventing, for many years, the formation of a Tory Government. We, the Conservatives, anticipated the consequences of the Bill, and we accepted them. Everything went on quietly enough, and the authors of that great measure were silent and apparently satisfied with the results they had attained by that Bill until the second object of their labour was subsequently frustrated by the great innovator of all things — Time. They found, as time wore on that the Tory party, which, after having retained power for so long, had become very unpopular in 1832, were gradually being more favourably regarded by the people. A storm rose upon the subject of Free Trade, and the Tory party came into office, and remained in office, for five years. When, therefore, the second object of the Reformers of 1832 became frustrated, then for the first time the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell), who of all men had shown so much ability in connection with the measure of 1832, manifested dissatisfaction with his own handiwork, and commenced blowing the trumpet of discontent, and telling us, not only that the Bill was a failure, but that a new measure had become necessary. But this discovery was not made until a Tory Government had come into office. Then commenced an agitation which resulted in one Reform Bill after another; and the country, finding that it was a perpetual see-saw between Reform Bills and Governments, became weary of the procrastination which was the inevitable consequence of party conflicts.
  274
  When we proposed in our Bill, in 1859, reducing the franchise in counties to the amount of the borough franchise we were met by the adverse party in the House of Commons by very much the same sort of opposition—I am not speaking of language, for nothing could be more fair or courteous than the language of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax)—as we have to encounter to-night in what the noble Viscount terms his innocent proposal. Years passed away; and then came the Bill of 1866. The debate of last year showed that the question of the franchise had become a simple sliding scale. At one time £8 was proposed, at another £7, at another £6, so that it became evident, not only to myself, but to thousands of others, that there was no resting-place to be found but in household suffrage, because between £8 and £7, between £7 and £6, there can not be any real and important difference—there can be no reason for maintaining one figure more than another. That is the explanation of what the noble Duke opposite is pleased to regard as my conversion. I now turn for a moment to my noble Friend, lately one of our Colleagues (the Earl of Carnarvon), who accused me of being one of those who, entertaining a secret opinion in favour of household suffrage, could only be regarded as belonging to a party of "organized hypocrites."
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The noble Earl has clearly put into my mouth words which I never used.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: If I have misinterpreted what my noble Friend said I beg his pardon, but I certainly understood him to say that if household suffrage had been for some time the secret opinion of the Conservative party and the Conservative Government, we had been living in organized hypocrisy. [The Earl of CARNARVON: Hear, hear!] But what is the difference between the two statements? Let me, however, remind my noble Friend that his evidence is anything but correct on this subject. I am quite sure he is so truthful, and has so good a memory, that he will bear me out when I remind him that, long before this question was discussed in the Cabinet, even, I believe, before we were a Government, when he did me the honour of paying me a visit in the country, we had a long conversation upon this very important subject. I then told him in distinct terms that, in my opinion, there was no resting-place short of household

  275
  suffrage, and that I believed the adoption of that suffrage afforded the only hope of passing a Reform Bill. My noble Friend will also, I dare say, recollect the long and probably wearisome letter which I wrote him to the same effect. I am entering into these details because I am anxious to vindicate the conduct of the servants of the Crown. I addressed that letter to my noble Friend long before we were Colleagues, and in it I informed him that in a Conservative sense I would rather go to household suffrage than stop at any intermediate figure that has been proposed. My reason for advocating that course is because if republican opinions are entertained at all in this country—and I am sure they are entertained by very few—they are mostly held by that class who would be admitted to the franchise between the line of £7 and household suffrage. The members of that class, as a rule, are not friends of the Church, for a great number of them are, in the nature of their opinions, Dissenters; but those below them I believe to be pre-eminently loyal. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in his admirable speech the other evening, speaking of the poorer classes, said that in many cases the members of this class were so ignorant that they were not acquainted with the name of the incumbent of the parish. I can only say that I believe the statement of the noble Earl is exaggerated; but, however that may be, there is not one who is unacquainted with the name of his Sovereign. This class, moreover, even in times when the Sovereign has not been popular, has never despised the Throne. Now, I have always thought that there are but two principles from which we can choose in dealing with the question of Parliamentary Reform. One of those principles is that of universality, the other of restriction. We have in this country decided in favour of the latter; but how far that principle of restriction is to be carried is simply a matter of detail, of which men must judge for themselves according to the circumstances of the time. Now, my Lords, a great deal has been said in this House in the way of prophecy—in fact, we have so taken to the habit of prophesying that I am almost afraid we shall soon be consulted by the public as to future events, and be regarded more in the light of an oracular than a deliberative assembly. At all events, we have had in the late debates more of prophecy than argument. For my own part I place very
  276
  little faith in the prophecy of any sort but one, and in that I have great faith—I mean that in which the prophet has it in his own power to carry his predictions into execution. In that light I think I must look upon the prophecies of many noble Lords, and among such prophets I think I may fairly number the noble Lord who has just sat down (Viscount Halifax). He looks upon this Bill as one that has no permanence. But what, my Lords, is permanent in this world but change? To say, then, that this Bill will not be permanent is, I think, a mere platitude. I cannot help thinking that, when the noble Lord attempts to frighten us with the ephemeral character of our scheme for the re-distribution of seats, he will be one of the first to give effect hereafter to his prophecy. Under these circumstances, we can, no doubt, safely be told that our measure will not be permanent. But let us look at the position in which we are placed, and let us then consider the recommendation of the noble Viscount with a view to determine whether it deserves our approval. My Lords, I ask your Lordships on both sides not to look on this measure as a perfect one, because I confess myself that it is imperfect, as we might have expected it to be from the circumstances under which it was passed in the House of Commons. It could not have been made a perfect Bill because the House of Commons had determined that it should be a Bill of compromise; and if it had not been made a Bill of compromise it never could have reached your Lordships — it never could have been carried at all. It is because former Reform Bills had not been made Bills of compromise, it was because they were put forward and discussed as party measures, that we have waited for Reform so long. If the Bill of last year had been made one of compromise—if the House of Commons had been taken into partnership by the able man then conducting the business of the Government in that House—I verily believe the measure would have passed. But of that distinguished man it may be said he was impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer. He shook hands with no one; he compromised with no one; he put a pistol to the head of the House of Commons, and told them they must pass the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—and even that they must pass it within a certain date. My Lords, I would ask whether Englishmen were likely to pass a Bill placed before

  277
  them under such circumstances and under such management, even if they had liked its provisions more than they did? The same fate would have overtaken our Bill if we had pressed it in a similar temper. But the experience of the past had taught us that such a course would be useless, and had shown us that if our Bill was to be passed it must be a Bill of compromise. Remember that the measure has been five months—five most laborious months—in the House of Commons; that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken the direction of the gigantic work, and has succeeded — after discussions in which all parties expressed their opinions and made their propositions—in sending up to your Lordships' House the most comprehensive Reform Bill that has yet been proposed since the passing of the Act of 1832. Well, my Lords, would you, at the eleventh hour, tamper with the work of so many months, and so many laborious nights—a work, I may call it, of so much diplomatic skill—a work of men who had to consider their own political interests and the interests of the particular House to which they belong? The House of Commons having discussed and divided upon every possible point of the measure over and over again, would it, I ask, be discreet or becoming in your Lordships, at this period of the Session, to interfere in the manner proposed by the noble Viscount with a question so intimately connected with that House? The noble Viscount proposes in a very straightforward way to disfranchise all boroughs with a population under 5,000, and I believe he said there were ten of them.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I said there were ten of these boroughs, but I would not disfranchise them or any other constituencies.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Then I am at a loss to understand what it is the noble Viscount proposes.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I said that as the Government expressed their opinion that no borough ought to be disfranchised, I would not propose any disfranchisement, but that I would leave it to them to determine whether they should obtain the additional seats by grouping or any other means they might think it expedient to adopt.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: This is therefore, in point of fact, an abstract proposition. It is one of those propositions
  278
  of which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) said the other evening that he never would support them. I hope the noble Duke will not vote for the one now under discussion. We really do not know what the noble Viscount wants us to do. Before those boroughs can be grouped they must be disfranchised, as I understand the word. And suppose you resolve in the first instance to disfranchise these ten, there is another proposition coming from the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey), by which all boroughs with a population of between 10,000 and 12,000 should return only one Member. Now, there are twelve of these boroughs, so that, if both propositions be adopted, your Lordships would advise the House of Commons to disfranchise twenty-two boroughs. But in neither proposition do I find any statement as to how the seats thus gained are to be disposed of. The noble Viscount in his speech proposed that the Government should take them in hand and do the best they could with them. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his confidence in the Government; but I do not think it is our business to fill up blanks which he would create. I altogether object to that. I think that any determination on the part of the House of Lords to alter a Bill which occupied the attention of the House of Commons during five months, and which has decided the question of re-distribution, to the extent of abolishing twenty-two borough seats, would be a monstrous proposition for your Lordships to originate at any time; but to send down such a proposition to the House of Commons on the 6th or 7th of August seems to me the most inconceivable scheme that ever was heard of. Suppose those twenty-two prizes to be thrown overboard, on what coast are they to be stranded? Is it on the coast of Ireland, or on that of Scotland, or in England? My Lords, the proposition before you is one for a new Reform Bill. If you adopt the noble Viscount's Resolution, and take with it the Amendment of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches, the proposal you will make will be nothing less than that of a new Reform Bill. After six months' deliberation, the House of Commons have framed and have sent up to your Lordships what they believe to be a satisfactory settlement of this great question, and the noble Viscount and the noble Earl ask you to send down another Reform Bill when the House of Commons are wearied and, I might say, almost dispersed.

  279
  You could not expect them to undertake the discussion of a new measure; and the result of adopting these propositions would be that we should again be thrown into a chaos of uncertainty respecting Reform. I think the noble Viscount can hardly have attended to what took place in the House of Commons when he complains that the largest towns are not adequately represented according to population; but we never have taken population as the test of enfranchisement. [Viscount HALIFAX: I deprecated the adoption of that principle.] The noble Viscount says he deprecates the principle; but the question is one of degree or one of discretion. If you do not take population you must use your discretion as to enfranchisement and disfranchisement; but if you take population as your rule, London ought to have sixty Members. Clearly that would be absurd—so absurd that it never has been advocated. But what is it that the House of Commons has done in this matter? They have acted "for the best," to use a common phrase. A compromise took place. The Government at first refused to accept Mr. Laing's proposition, that three Members should be given to each of six great towns; but we afterwards agreed that the representative power of four of these towns should be so extended; and the House of Commons sanctioned that arrangement. It was clearly a compromise. Subsequently, however, an attempt was made to carry the principle further; and with what result? The proposition that two other large towns, Sheffield and Bristol, should have the privilege extended to them was defeated by large majorities. I think the proposition to give Sheffield an additional Member was defeated by 130, and that to give Bristol another representative by 96. Why, then, does the noble Viscount want to interfere with decisions so arrived at, and arrived so recently as within the last three weeks? A very strong argument against the proposition of the noble Viscount is, that the Bill received a third reading in the House of Commons without a division. Mr. Gladstone had opposed the Bill from the first, and if he had thought it possible to induce the House to reverse its decision his eloquence and his arguments would have been used with that object. Mr. Gladstone did not oppose the third reading. Can there be a stronger proof that he felt as a Statesman, and perhaps as a man of honour, that no such attempt
  280
  should be made, the House of Commons having already recorded its opinion in favour of the Bill being passed as it stands? Well, the Bill passed unanimously on its third reading. If no other argument were forthcoming to induce your Lordships to vote against the Motion of the noble Viscount, that consideration surely would be sufficient. The last argument I shall employ against the Amendment of the noble Viscount is by no means the weakest that can be used—it is the argument of common sense. I ask any noble Lord in this House whether he thinks that, if the Government were to send down to the House of Commons a Bill altered to the extent which the noble Viscount and the noble Earl on the cross-Bench desire—that is to say, meddling by disfranchisement, grouping, or in whatever manner you please, with twenty-two boroughs which now return Members to that House—in the present state of the House of Commons such a proposition would be favourably entertained? Does he believe such a course would assist in giving, in the present Session, to the people of this country the Reform in Parliament of which they are desirous? Does he think it possible that Her Majesty's Government, having incurred all the pains, anxiety, and trouble of passing this Bill through the House of Commons, can possibly consent by this insidious process to have it overturned and lost at the very last moment? In the name of Her Majesty's Government I cannot consent to a course which must have the effect of depriving the people of this country of Reform when it is almost within their reach. I therefore entreat your Lordships to vote against the Motion of the noble Viscount. I by no means ask your Lordships to refrain from passing such Amendments as in their nature you may consider desirable; but I do entreat you not to meddle at this period of the Session with a part of the Reform Bill so wide and so important as the disfranchisement or enfranchisement of boroughs—a question, moreover, which has been so lately settled in the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, who rose at the same time with Earl de Grey, said: My Lords, I will not stand between the House and the noble Earl for more than a very few minutes. My noble Friend (the Lord Privy Seal) who has just sat down has done me the honour of alluding to me personally, and, having so alluded to me, my noble Friend has been guilty of some

  281
  irregularities. The practice of your Lordships' House is somewhat more lax than that of the House of Commons, or else I venture to think that the allusions which have been made to a previous debate would hardly have passed unchallenged. More than that, my noble Friend has been good enough to allude to private conversations which I had the pleasure of having with him under his very hospitable roof in Hampshire. My noble Friend has also referred to private letters, and has referred to the opinions he then expressed to me. I have no doubt my noble Friend has stated the facts accurately, though I cannot precisely call them to my recollection. I can only say that I must decline entirely to enter upon that ground. I am perfectly satisfied myself with the result of the debate of a few nights since. I think it would be very undesirable to recur to subjects which were then fully discussed; and I shall certainly not refer to incidents of private and confidential intercourse. My noble Friend, however, used a further argument, to which I most unquestionably demur. My noble Friend spoke of this question of re-distribution as being the special property of the House of Commons. Now, I am quite willing to assign to the House of Commons all that can fairly and legitimately be brought within their sphere; but I say it is monstrous to assert that the re-distribution of seats is not quite as much the property of the House of Peers as it is of the House of Commons. Why, how can it be contended for a moment that if it be the right of the House of Peers to discuss the question of electoral Reform the question of the redistribution of seats can be divorced from that of Reform, of which it is so essential a part? And when my noble Friend tells you that we are now at the close of July, and that you have no right to delay the passing of the Bill by discussing the question of the re-distribution of seats, or to send back the Bill to the House of Commons in an altered shape on the 6th of August—
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I beg my noble Friend's pardon. What I said was that your Lordships had the right to consider the question; but I doubted whether it would be discreet for the House to raise a question of such extensive disfranchisement.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I submit that whether it be discreet to raise the question or not must
  282
  depend on whether the question when submitted is in a proper and statesmanlike form. We cannot abandon our duties—we cannot overlook those rights of which we are the guardians—simply because the measure comes to us at a later period of the Session than is advisable, or because our action may involve inconvenience to ourselves or to the House of Commons. With regard to the question of to-night, I think I can state my view very briefly indeed. There are two principles upon which re-distribution may be founded. It may be based upon the principle of a self-acting machinery, adjusting and accommodating itself to the growth of the country from time to time, meeting the case of one town which may increase, and of another town which may decline in population and wealth. Take the case of Middlesborough. That is one of those large towns to which representation is to be granted under the Bill, but which has arisen entirely within the last few years. I believe the existence of Middlesborough rests on the iron and coal traffic; and when the iron is worked out near Middlesborough, it is possible that a large portion of the population in the neighbourhood may disappear just as rapidly as they came together. The first principle consists in adjusting the re-distribution so as to meet the circumstances of a particular town. Another principle is so to frame your re-distribution of seats as to meet temporary exigencies, and to tide over a particular difficulty. I think it is perfectly clear that the re-distribution scheme of this Bill belongs to the second of these two classes. The view which I take, and the view, of course, which will be taken by all those on this side of the House, is simply this — whether the redistribution of seats contains in itself a fair promise of permanence. That is the one question we have to ask ourselves. If, on the one hand, it is likely to be permanent, then it is a good and useful and Conservative measure; if, on the other hand, it is likely to fail very soon, then I say it is true policy and true Conservatism to endeavour to amend it. I observe, in the first instance, this re-distribution scheme is utterly incommensurate with the extent of the admission to the franchise which you have given under this Bill. It is a scheme which would have been perfectly proportionate to the Bill introduced—say, by Her Majesty's late Government. I think they gave something like forty-nine seats; this Bill gives forty-five. That,

  283
  however, which would have been perfectly proportioned to a £7 rental franchise is wholly disproportioned to a household rating franchise. In the next place observe that the principle of the Bill, as we now have it—if it be really a principle—is this, that representation is founded upon numbers. My noble Friend admitted as much. You have given Members to counties in proportion to their numbers, and you have allocated Members to boroughs in proportion to their numbers. You have given a third Member to large towns, virtually upon no other ground than that of numbers. I say, then, this is a large and great principle; a new principle, and a principle, above all, that has a tendency to develop itself. Whenever you come to re-construct your electoral system, that principle of numbers will inevitably come in. I say, therefore, it is a dangerous principle to introduce. In the next place, observe that, even under this Bill, the county representation is very far from adequate. Recollect that, under the altered circumstances created by this Bill, the county representation is the one steadying influence on which you can now depend. By the introduction of household suffrage all the conditions are altered; it is to the counties you must look for the ballast to enable you to carry such a heavy press of canvass. You have scarcely increased the present proportion between the counties and the boroughs. In the counties you have now a representation, I think, of some 162 Members; they will have, under this Bill, 183. The representation relatively of the boroughs will be diminished to that extent; but the proportion of the counties will stand after all as 33½ to 66½ in the boroughs; and therefore I maintain that the proportion of county influence is still very inadequate. Lastly, bear in mind—and this is very important—that of these boroughs the larger part is practically under sentence. They are sentenced, first of all, because it is impossible you can long maintain the contrast between these small boroughs and vast, growing, wealthy, populous towns. What chance have boroughs like Arundel, Ashburton, and Dartmouth, with populations of from 1,000 to 4,000, against places like St. Helens, with a population, according to the noble Lord, of 41,000? In the House of Commons, again, you have stimulated the appetite for representation on behalf of the large towns. You have made offers to them and you have withdrawn those offers.
  284
  You have tendered representation to Keighley, Doncaster, and Luton, and then withheld it. What will be the consequence. Depend upon it those towns will not rest satisfied with the present arrangements. And not only have you this contrast between small boroughs and great—which I believe it will be impossible long to maintain—but you will have the constituencies of these small boroughs, already not very pure in many cases, becoming a great deal more impure, becoming very nests of venality and corruption as time goes on. What chance have you, from all these different considerations, of the real permanency of the system you are now laying down? The inevitable effect will be that you will have renewed agitation. And remember this—that that agitation will be renewed under very different circumstances from any that could be raised at the present moment. It will be an agitation renewed under the conditions of a new constituency and a new Parliament in the first flush of their existence. And what will be the result of that? Is it possible if you leave the Bill in its present position, with the principle of numbers engrained in it—is it possible that you can have any other result except a most wide, a sweeping, and a democratic re-distribution of seats? Is it possible that you can see through the vista any other prospect than that? Well, my Lords, for these reasons, I feel most deeply impressed with the importance of re-distributing the seats, late as is the period of the Session, on a wider and more liberal basis. Still, the course now proposed to us is one very full of difficulty. I see, clearly enough, the importance of a better re-distribution of seats than is provided in this Bill, and I feel that it holds out the only hope of permanence that we have. I accept most heartily the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Halifax) that he has brought forward this Resolution in no party sense, and with no desire to embarrass the Government. I am aware that those who heard his speech must have been satisfied that such was his inner conviction. But, at the same time, when I come to look at his Resolution I see so many difficulties in this vague, abstract proposition that I cannot bring myself to vote for it. It seems to me that all the arguments used the other night against the Motion of my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) tell with double force against the proposition of the noble Viscount opposite. While, therefore,

  285
  I must reluctantly abstain from voting for the noble Lord's Resolution, I certainly do not preclude myself from supporting—on the contrary, I desire to say that I, for one, shall most heartily support—the proposal which my noble Friend on the cross-Benches is about to make; and for this reason, that it is a definite and specific proposal, which we shall be able to treat in all its details, and to consider it, I hope, in a spirit free from prejudice or party feeling. I will only say, with reference to that proposal of my noble Friend on the cross-Benches, that when my noble Friend (the Lord Privy Seal) speaks of it as being a Motion of disfranchisement he is under some error. It is not a Motion for disfranchisement; but it is a Motion to carry the line of partial disfranchisement somewhat higher than is proposed by the Government, and, as far as I can see, it involves no real alteration in principle upon the Bill as it has come up to your Lordships.
  EARL DE GREYsaid, he thought their Lordships must have been startled by the marked contrast between the speech of his noble Friend who moved the Resolution and that of the noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal). His noble Friend (Viscount Halifax), in terms, the sincerity of which no one could doubt, had assured their Lordships that he made his Motion from no party motives and with no party purposes; but when the noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal) rose to reply on the part of the Government, he occupied twenty-five minutes in making a party answer to speeches delivered a week ago—and certainly he might have been prepared with a better answer than he has given after such an interval—and he only devoted fifteen minutes to the real question now before the House. That question was one of sufficient magnitude and importance—not to the interest of any party, but to the interest of the country at large—to engage their Lordships' close attention. What had been the noble Earl's chief argument against that Motion? Why, that they were now at the end of July; that the Bill had been considered five months in the House of Commons; and that therefore it would not be discreet or "becoming"—for that was the word used—in the House of Lords to alter the scheme of re-distribution passed by the other House. Now, that declaration was singulary inconsistent with what they had heard a few nights ago from the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury
  286
  whose absence they all regretted that night; for the latter noble Earl took his noble Friend (Earl Granville) somewhat to task for having made use of an expression which gave the impression that the noble Earl at the head of the Government did not intend that that House should deal freely with the provisions of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he noble Earl was himself now doing that which he had rebuked him for doing—referring to a past debate.
  EARL DE GREYsaid, he thought he had a perfect right, after what had taken place, to refer to the declaration made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government as to the mode in which the Bill was to be dealt with in Committee, in order to show that the argument of the noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal) was inconsistent with that declaration. Therefore in spite of the opinion expressed by the noble Earl, that it was too late in the Session to revise the scheme of re-distribution, he trusted their Lordships would not be deterred from dealing with the measure as they deemed best for the interest of the country. As to the House of Commons, which the noble Earl said was almost dispersed, he did not believe it would refuse calmly and deliberately to consider any mode in which their Lordships thought fit to alter the Bill. The noble Earl said the other House had been occupied for five months upon that measure; but only a very small portion of that time had been devoted to the question of re-distribution, which was the only part of the measure which those on his side of the House proposed to alter. They accepted the franchise portion of the Bill—which had so greatly engaged the time and attention of the other House—as it came up to them. But the noble Earl said that that scheme of re-distribution was the result of a compromise or compact. Now, he had never heard of the compromise or compact to which the noble Earl alluded. He knew not with whom it had been made, but he did know that the people of England had been no parties to it; and he said that that portion of the Bill, as it stood, was not satisfactory to the country. The noble Earl talked of his noble Friend endeavouring to raise up an agitation in the country, but he said it was because they deprecated agitation that the Resolution now before their Lordships had been moved; it was because they were firmly convinced that the settlement

  287
  of the question of re-distribution now proposed was no settlement at all, and would inevitably lead to an agitation throughout the country, that they desired to see it amended. That part of the Bill was deemed unsatisfactory, not by Liberals alone, but by Members of both parties; and only the other day, at the first election which had taken place since the measure passed the other House, the Conservative candidate at Birmingham told the electors that if returned to Parliament it would be one of his first objects to get that scheme of re-distribution altered. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) treated this question of re-distribution as though it were insignificant. That did not agree with the language held by the Conservative party last year, who, mistaking the intentions of the late Government in thinking that they did not mean to deal with the re-distribution of seats before they went to a new Parliament under their Franchise Bill, insisted on the vast importance of the subject of re-distribution; and it would be found recorded in the debates of last Session that there were frequent statements from the then Opposition side in the other House to the effect that the measure proposed by the late Government with respect to re-distribution did not go far enough, and that it was objectionable because incomplete. An opinion prevailed on both sides that this part of the present Bill would not be satisfactory to the country. But the noble Earl asked how it happened that the Bill was read a third time unanimously in the House of Commons and that it was not opposed by Mr. Gladstone. The fact was, that attaching, as the Liberal party did, great importance to the extension of the suffrage, they were not prepared, although they regarded the Bill as unsatisfactory in other respects, to take upon themselves the responsibility of rejecting it on the third reading. The House of Commons, no doubt, looked to their Lordships—they felt that there was another House of Parliament, and they did not think it impossible that the Bill might be amended as regarded the distribution scheme in their Lordships' House. It was his sincere wish—and he believed he might speak for the noble Lords near him—to act in the spirit of his noble Friend the late President of the Council, to co-operate with the Government, and afford them every aid and assistance. If their object had been to get up political agitation and make political capital out of this question their course
  288
  would have been, instead of proposing this Resolution, to bring forward some rival scheme which the Government could not adopt, and then to have got up an agitation in its favour. It was because they had a sincere desire that the present Government should settle the question that they offered their most cordial assistance if they would only deal with it satisfactorily, and in a comprehensive manner. He thought they might have been met by the Government in a different spirit. The noble Earl the late Colonial Secretary (the Earl of Carnarvon) said, that although he would not support the Resolution on account of its vague character, he would support the Resolution of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey). He (Earl de Grey) was afraid that if the Resolution of his noble Friend were rejected there would be no doubt as to the fate of that of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches. They were both equally obnoxious to the noble Earl opposite, who taking his stand on the measure as it was—which he said was a compromise—thought it would afford a permanent settlement of the question. The noble Earl must be the only man in the country who held this opinion. He (Earl de Grey) supported the Resolution; but not because he was hostile to the representation of the moderate-sized boroughs. He should greatly regret to see the large towns and counties only represented, and still more should he regret the establishment of equal electoral districts. Boroughs of moderate size were of great importance, and improved the character of the House of Commons by introducing the important element of variety. And as the tendency of a measure of this description was to place our institutions on a democratic basis, and there was thus a danger of bringing everything to a dead level, it became the more reasonable and important to maintain the representation of the moderate-sized boroughs. It was because he desired to retain these boroughs that he felt bound to object to the scheme of the Government. That scheme unsettled everything and settled nothing. It placed this part of the Bill on a basis wholly inadequate to that which related to the franchise, and it left the question of distribution to be dealt with either in another Session or another Parliament. He thought that the question ought to be settled now. It had been one of the great arguments of the Conservative party in favour of this Bill that they wanted a

  289
  settlement, and that they went further than many of them liked because they wished for a settlement. If that were their principle he asked them to follow it out, and settle the question of distribution as well as the question of the franchise. Otherwise they ran the risk of having this question taken up in a new Parliament, elected under the new franchise by men who were new to the settlement of political questions, and who might be likely rashly to propose a more sweeping measure than he should like to see carried. It was, therefore, a Conservative course in the true sense of the word that they should place this part of the Bill in a position adequate to the other portion, and that both should possess an equally permanent character. While he thought that the Resolution of his noble Friend would, if it were carried, tend to meet the fair and just claims of large constituencies and rising towns, it would, he believed, work in a Conservative manner, by rendering possible the maintenance, in a fair degree, of the representation of moderate-sized boroughs. Upon these grounds he should cordially vote for the Resolution.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that all the Conservative portions of the Bill had been swept away, and their Lordships could only look to correct its evils to that part which related to the distribution of seats. He should prefer to see that question dealt with by the House of Lords rather than leave it to be dealt with by the Government. He should not like to see the question re-opened by the new Parliament, and, therefore, he regretted that he could not vote for the Government on this question; but, as the noble Viscount had not told them that the result of his Motion would not be the disfranchisement of small boroughs, and as he could not vote for any Resolution which was likely to bring about such a result, he should have to leave the House when the Question was put from the Woolsack, unless he had an assurance to that effect from the noble Mover. When he reflected of what infinite value small boroughs were to the country, and how generally they were Conservative in the true sense of the word, he could not vote for any Resolution which would disfranchise them.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he looked on the re-distribution scheme as incommensurate with that portion of the Bill which dealt with the franchise, and as having no prospect of permanency, and on
  290
  that account he intended to vote for the Resolution. It could not be supposed that the small boroughs, many of which were decaying and really represented nothing, could be long maintained side by side with, the large constituencies which would exist in the counties and large towns. He thought, too, that sufficient consideration was not shown by the Bill to the importance of counties. The counties would not enjoy, under this Bill, so large a share of the representation as that to which their wealth and population entitled them; and though he did not view electoral districts with such alarm as some of their Lordships did, he was convinced that if the Government persisted in the present plan a new Parliament would adopt a scheme of re-distribution approximating to electoral districts. With regard to Stockton and Darlington he believed that they were more likely to return useful representatives than Middlesborough, which had no claim except numbers, being solely devoted to one particular interest. He admitted that small boroughs played an important part in our representative system by enabling persons representing various interests to enter Paliament; but it was only by grouping or disfranchising some of those boroughs that a permanent settlement of the question of distribution could be effected.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYsaid, that while accepting the declaration of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) that his Motion was not proposed from party motives, he thought that an abstract Resolution necessarily bore the appearance of a party Motion, and was equivalent to a Vote of Want of Confidence. While, however, giving his vote on this question with the Government, he reserved to to himself the liberty of giving a candid consideration to the proposal of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey). He protested strongly against the doctrine of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) that because the House of Commons had taken six months in settling this Bill their Lordships were precluded from giving it a full consideration, on the ground that the other House would construe it as an insult. The House of Commons did not regard themselves as precluded from discussing Bills sent down to them by their Lordships, and this House had an equal right to discuss measures sent up to them from the Commons.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have been perfectly astonished at the spirit in

  291
  which this Motion has been met by the Government. My noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) has merely taken the first opportunity of urging the Government to re-consider what they propose with regard to the re-distribution of seats. The opinion, not only of those sitting on these Benches, but of the public is, that the re-distribution scheme contained in this Bill cannot be permanent. It is not a settlement such as was proposed last year; and our conviction is that, in the course of a very few years, it will lead to an agitation for further changes which it may be impossible to limit within any possible bounds—we cannot say that it may not extend to dangerous limits. The Government have now an opportunity of preventing that agitation. It seems, however, judging by the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury), that the Government resolve to incur that danger and that in their opinion this scheme will be a settlement—or, at all events, that it having been adopted as a compromise by the House of Commons, we ought not to meddle with it. The noble Earl told us there were certain parts of the Bill which we might alter, and certain parts which we might not. He might at least have informed us, when telling us that we could not alter the scheme of re-distribution, what portions of the Bill it is open to us to amend; but this he neglected to do. My noble Friend disclaimed party motives, but, instead of answering my noble Friend's argument, the noble Earl made a thoroughly party speech, and adapted facts to his own party views. I am sorry he so completely misunderstood or misrepresented what happened in former years. He stated that, without any reason whatever, except, as he supposed, party interest, I revived the question of Parliamentary Reform and endeavoured to disturb the settlement of 1832. Now, as I have frequently explained, I had no wish to disturb that settlement; but a Motion was repeatedly made in the other House on the subject of the occupation franchise in the counties, and when that Motion was brought forward in 1850 or 1851, I said I did not wish to disturb the existing arrangement, which had many advantages, but that if it was determined to disturb the settlement of 1832, there were other questions which must be dealt with, and that there were, in this country thousands of artizans who by their skill and industry had shown themselves perfectly fit to receive the franchise.
  292
  I was defeated and resigned office upon that defeat; but when the noble Earl now at the head of the Government was unable to form a Government, I returned to office, promising to undertake to amend the Reform Act, both as to the County and the Borough Franchise. As the question had been raised we thought it would be necessary to consider it; but it was not we who raised it but the House of Commons. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) has stated to-night that he is convinced that there is no safety except in household suffrage. He has told us that the men between £5 and £10 are not loyal, and that you will find loyalty only by going to household suffrage. Now, my opinion is that it is a calumny to say that the persons inhabiting houses of £6 or £7 are not loyal to the Throne. I think the distrust of these men quite unfounded—they are as loyal as the class that will be admitted by household suffrage. But when the noble Earl speaks as he has done of this great body of householders who will now be enfranchised, he may permit me to remind him of what happened in Ireland when the landlords made 40 s. freeholders by thousands upon thousands, and brought them up to vote as they dictated at the poll. A time came when Mr. O'Connell roused those tenants—poor and miserable and dependent as they were—by a great national feeling, and the power of the landlords was swept away. Now, my belief is that the noble Earl and his Colleagues are entirely mistaken in thinking that the householders, whom he is creating, will always remain subservient and dependent. Some great national feeling will at some time move them, and their dependence on their Conservative landlords will be swept away, as it was in Ireland. The noble Earl may find that while securing a Sessional triumph for the Conservative party, he has been permanently ruining the Conservative cause. Returning to the re-distribution scheme, I think it far inferior to the scheme of the Bills of 1854, 1861, and 1866. I would remind the noble Earl that in the Bill of 1854 no less than sixty-two seats were disposed of, of which I think forty-two were given to the counties and twenty to the boroughs. I believe that something like that would be a wise course to pursue at present. If the Government refuse to pursue it they must accept the entire responsibility of all the agitation for a new distribution which may follow.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, he had heard with the utmost regret the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) who had addressed the House on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He could not help expressing his opinion that the course which Her Majesty's Government proposed to take would be satisfactory, neither to the House nor the country. He hoped, however, the division might go on the Amendment of his noble Friend, that the Government would be convinced of the unspeakable importance of reconsidering this question of re-distribution without delay. The same opinion had been expressed by noble Lords of great weight and experience on the other side of the House as well as on that; the opinion of the House had therefore been unmistakeably expressed, and it would be well if the Government would accede to the proposed Resolution. He believed that they stood that moment in a most critical position. He could not conceal from their Lordships that he contemplated—he could not say with despondency, but with anxiety—the great changes which had been made in the suffrage. These changes were so great that they required all the moderating influences possible, to prevent them from overbearing that balance of the Constitution which had produced such beneficial results, and had united, in a degree unknown to any other country, the benefits of liberty and order. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that they should surround that Bill with such elements of stability as might take away all prospect of immediate agitation. For himself he knew how sincere the assertion was which had been made on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that there was no design to make this a party question. Nothing would give him greater pain than to see a course adopted with regard to distribution similar to that which had been pursued with respect to the suffrage—parties bidding one over another to devise, not a scheme which was best suited to the durable interests of the country, but one which would produce the greatest amount of popularity. Was there any one who knew what was said out of doors, or had heard the debates in Parliament, who could doubt that the distribution scheme of the Government was a mere pasteboard scheme? While, on the one hand, they gave to great popular bodies a new and immense power, and any new power always involved some new danger—on the other they proposed a scheme of
  294
  distribution which could not be defended in argument, and which was the most obvious and ready justification of popular discontent and agitation. Could their Lordships think themselves justified in separating without attempting to provide a remedy for such a state of things? They would be doing a thing the most revolutionary in its consequences, they would be betraying the great principles of which they were the guardians, if they allowed a Bill of this kind to pass with so fatal a flaw, with so manifest and dangerous an error, that ten men cold not be found in the country who would say that they did not view it with the greatest apprehension. He hoped their Lordships had remarked that the noble Earl who had addressed the House (the Earl of Carnarvon) was quite as hostile to the scheme of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) as to that of his noble Friend. The deep interest which he felt in the question would be his excuse for having detained their Lordships at that moment. He could only say in conclusion that he should view any measure which Her Majesty's Government might approve or adopt with a sincere anxiety to see in it a satisfactory settlement of the question. His chief object in rising, however, was to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would give due weight to the arguments that had been adduced, and would reconsider their decision, or that, if not immediately, they would shortly be able to announce their willingness to do so.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) in speaking against the Resolution had, in fact, left their Lordships no alternative but to vote in its favour. The noble Earl said that the Government would resist any attempt to alter the scheme of re-distribution—that it had been settled by the other House, and that it was no business of their Lordships to touch it. Yet last year the Conservatives in the other House thought the re-distribution scheme of such importance that they refused to consider the portion of the Bill relating to the franchise alone and without having the re-distribution scheme before them. Were their Lordships then to be told that they must not touch a part of the Bill which by their own account was of equal importance with that relating to the franchise? No doubt there might be some inconvenience in so doing, but the matter was one which lay within the discretion of their Lordships.

  295
  Any noble lord who was dissatisfied with the present re-distribution scheme must find great difficulty in voting against the Resolution. In his opinion the Bill placed too much power in the hands of the lower classes in the boroughs, and, for the safety of the country, they wanted increase of representation in the counties. He was sorry on the present occasion to have to vote against the present Government for, on this as on other occasions, his wish was to have supported the Government as far as possible. But, as they had been told that the Government would resist all Motions in this direction, he confessed that he thought that they had no alternative but to express their dissatisfaction with the present scheme of re-distribution, and their determination to have a full and fair consideration of the question.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken may have advanced arguments sufficient to satisfy himself why he should vote for this or some similar Motion, but I do not think he has adduced any good arguments in favour of supporting an abstract Resolution like that which we are now discussing. The Resolution which was negatived a few evening ago condemned the whole Bill. This Resolution condemns a part of the Bill, and declares that the scheme of re-distribution is unsatisfactory. Now, to noble Lords opposite who support the present Resolution, the re-distribution scheme in the Bill of 1866 was satisfactory enough. Yet the difference between that Bill and the Bill now before your Lordships, so far as the question of distribution, is only four seats out of forty-nine; so that four seats make the whole difference between what is right and what is utterly inadequate and wrong. Surely such a difference affords no sufficient reason for passing such a Resolution. Exception has been taken to the remark of the noble Earl who has spoken in the absence of Lord Derby this evening (the Earl of Malmesbury), with reference to the possibility of this House at this period of the Session dealing with the question of re-distribution. Now, I did not understand the noble Earl to say anything more than that, in his opinion, it was not discreet—that was the term he used—for this House to re-open so important a question as that of the re-distribution of seats. In that opinion I cannot but think that there is a good deal with which most of your Lordships will agree. In the position in which this question now stands it seems to me that it would be hardly
  296
  discreet for this House to re-open the re-distribution scheme on a vague Resolution not specifying any particular blot or pointing out any particular Amendment. That scheme has occupied a considerable portion of the five months during which the Bill has been discussed in the other House, and has probably received even as much attention as that important portion of the Bill relating to the franchise. This is apparent when you look at the reports of what took place in the other House of Parliament. The question was thought, and justly thought, to be one which at first required what was termed a tentative policy on the part of the Government. Of course it was necessary that in forming their opinions as to the probable success of so important a part of their Bill, the Government should look at what occurred in former years. Now there were precedents to indicate to them the probable result of different proposals. They had before them the angry debates which occurred in 1832, the result of all the several Reform Bills subsequently brought forward, and the conspicuous failure of last year. From these precedents the Government had to gather such indications as might guide them on the present occasion, and they were led strongly to the opinion that they ought not to propose such a distribution as was likely to place the representation in the hands of large masses of the people. It was with that view the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before the House of Commons a scheme which was scanty, perhaps, in its extent, but which was afterwards enlarged in that spirit of compromise which has marked the progress of this Bill. It is from actual decisions given by, and not from mere opinions expressed in, the House of Commons that the details of the scheme now under consideration have been settled. When we look at the discussions which have taken place there we shall see that the opinion of the other House has been very significantly shown. After the proposal of the Government had been brought forward, the limit of population, in the case of towns from which a second Member was taken, was raised to 10,000, and the House would not exceed that limit; Amendments to that effect were negatived. So was a proposal to add two large towns to those which had received a third Member. The suggestion that the system of grouping should be adopted was not approved. Moreover, when so small an advance was proposed as that the second Members should be taken away

  297
  from four of the next lowest towns on the list in point of population, the House of Commons, by a decided majority, negatived the proposal and declared, "Thus far shall you go and no further!" After these decisions, and this indication of the spirit of the other House, it seems to me that it would in truth be somewhat indiscreet for your Lordships to say, "We will do that which the other House said it would not do." It is of great importance that parties should work in accord in settling this question; it is of still greater importance that the two Houses of Parliament should as far as possible do so, and that we should not unnecessarily, and without some substantial object to gain, fly in the face of the other House. To adopt a Resolution which points out no Amendment would, I think, be open to the charge that we were merely expressing a vague opinion of our own, adverse to the measure which has been accepted by the other House and approved by the country, without any real purpose of effecting a substantial Amendment. My objection would not apply equally to a Resolution pointing to any particular Amendment; but I do think it would be much to be regretted if, upon a measure which has been adopted by the other House, and which is realty approved by a large majority of your Lordships, and upon this first real and practical stage, we were to adopt such a Resolution as this, which will neither make an Amendment in the Bill nor intimate to the Committee in what direction Amendment is desired. I thank your Lordships for having listened to me, and I trust the division will not show this House in opposition to the opinion of the other House of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: My Lords, the impending division imposes upon me the necessity of saying a few words in explanation of the vote I am about to give. My opinions upon Reform remain unchanged, and I cannot retract the opinions I expressed on a former occasion. I propose to vote in favour of the Resolution of the noble Viscount. I shall do so, first of all, because of the distinct declaration that the Motion is not made in any party spirit. My second reason for doing so is that I hope and entertain the conviction that the Government will take into consideration the important representations made on both sides of the House, and will not push their present intentions to the extent they have indicated. It would be of immense advantage if they
  298
  would propose a better scheme of re-distribution. If the matter be pushed to a division I hope there may be as many votes from this side of the House as will give importance to the views which have been expressed and induce the Government to take the matter into their serious consideration.
  The Earl of KIMBERLEY and Earl FORTESCUE rose together, and stood for some time amid the conflicting calls of many Peers. Those for Earl FORTESCUE seemed to preponderate, and the Earl of KIMBERLEY gave way.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I am always doubly unwilling to obtrude myself since precarious health and impaired eyesight have obliged me almost entirely to renounce the humble part I used to take in public business in and out of Parliament; but in this great crisis I must entreat your Lordships' indulgence for a few remarks in support of the Resolution so temperately moved. I deprecate the party criminations and recriminations, which have added little to the patriotic and statesmanlike character of the debates on this momentous question in either House of Parliament. I doubly regret the absence of the distinguished leader of the Conservative party, when the temperate and moderate speech of the Mover of the Resolution was answered in the manner it has been answered by the noble Earl opposite, who, as he said truly, occupies the Prime Minister's place without replacing him. These party criminations and recriminations remind me of nothing so much as of the internecine conflicts of the Jewish factions during the siege of Jerusalem; and the leaders of the democratic party and the great multitude behind them must have contemplated these party feuds with much the same exultation as Titus and the Roman soldiers did the mutual slaughter of the contending Jews, and their emulous efforts to destroy the inner defences intended for the additional security of the Holy City. I am rejoiced to hear an authoritative statement as to the identity of Lord Palmerston's private opinions with his public professions, and of his declared intention to have introduced a Reform Bill at the right time and place; but that great statesman would have brought in a measure very different from this, and he would have conducted it still more differently. He would not have admitted unknown proportions of unknown quantities to the franchise, nor would he

  299
  have left such anomalies in the distribution of seats, thereby transferring practically the whole power of the State, from the upper and middle classes to one class only, at one stroke—the wage class, and that not of the whole country, but of the towns. As to myself, I venture to quote a few words addressed by me, nearly ten years since, to a large constituency which I then represented to prove that my present views on this subject are not new. I then said—
  "I have long been in favour of Parliamentary Reform, less however for the sake of removing anomalies in the representative system, than of diminishing corruption and undue influence at elections; of extending the franchise to many hundreds of thousands well entitled to it; and above all of anticipating by timely improvements any clamorous demand for sweeping changes."
  Before, however, I was an ardent Parliamentary reformer, or had wished to disturb the settlement of 1832, I was a sanitary reformer, and what I have seen in the alleys and garrets and cellars of towns now fills me with apprehension at the step which has been irrevocably taken with respect to the enfranchisement of some of those who are to be admitted to the borough franchise under the Bill of the Government. I wish to know why, in the settlement of this question, the agricultural labourers are to be regarded as the mere residuum of the population? If your Lordships look at the educational statistics for 1865, you will find that agricultural Devonshire contrasted very favourably with manufacturing Lancashire. The number of persons of both sexes, and especially of the women, who made their mark instead of writing their name in the parish register, forms a much larger percentage of the total population in the latter than it did in the former county. Although 95 per cent of populous parishes receive grants from the Privy Council, and little more than 10 per cent of the rural parishes with small populations do so, yet the amount of public money received by Lancashire for educational purposes is not only actually but relatively immensely greater than by Devonshire. The number of criminals and prostitutes and drunkards, as shown by the official Tables which I hold in my hand, but will not trouble the House with, is proportionately enormously larger in the town than it is in the agricultural population. Besides in the calculation of their comparative wealth and taxation, it has been too generally forgotten that the payments to Schedule A of the property tax ought to be put down to the credit of
  300
  the counties, and not of the boroughs; which would turn the scale considerably in favour of the counties instead of the towns as it is often stated to be. Borough freeholders have a right to vote for counties, and one-fifth of the county constituencies are composed of electors voting for free-holds and copyholds within boroughs. If this fact were remembered in connection with the circumstance that the borough Members were to the county Members in the proportion of three to two, your Lordships would see how utterly disproportionate to the wealth, importance, and intelligence of the counties was the miserable allowance of representation accorded to them by the compact, or compromise, or arrangement, brought forward by the Government, which seems to me to contain no element of permanency, but to be fraught with promise of an immediate and most pernicious agitation. It is worthy of remark that, despite of the enormous sums recently spent on improved drainage and water supply there, the mortality of the manufacturing districts of Lancashire, Cheshire, and the West Riding has gone on increasing. There can be no doubt that the increased mortality is due to overcrowding; and there is as little doubt that overcrowding paves the way to demoralization. In my opinion a population ought to be civilized and Christianized before it can safely be enfranchised. Under these circumstances I do not concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) that it would be either indiscreet or unbecoming in your Lordships to make large Amendments in the Bill.
  LORD DENMAN: I wish to refer the House to the remarks of my late noble Relative, on 19th April 1831, with respect to a Resolution moved by General Gascoyne, and those remarks apply to every Resolution which impedes either the second reading of a Bill or its going into Committee. It was this, that—
  "By agreeing to the Amendment the House would fetter the hands of the Committee in the most inconvenient manner, the pledge might be found to hamper their proceedings, and was clearly unnecessary into the bargain. The whole House being the Committee, had full power to act upon this opinion [as to certain boroughs being disfranchised] if they entertained it, but suppose a certain reduction adopted the consideration how the whole number should be kept up might involve them in the greatest perplexities…… He conceived the friends of the measure could not adopt a course more unwise and imprudent than to give the slightest sanction to a proposition which should have the effect of embarrassing the operations of the Committee. … Yes, it would defeat

  301
  the measure and.… such was the object of the Motion."—[3 Hansard, iii. 1679.]
  I will not attempt to add to the value of this opinion by any remarks of mine, and in those memorable words at least, as to the probable effect of this Resolution, I fully concur.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 100: Majority 41.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Blantyre, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Normanby, M.

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

  Abingdon, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Albermarle, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Chichester, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Granville, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Grey, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Minto, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Russell, E.

  Petre, L.

  Spencer, E.

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

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Seaton, L,

  Eversley, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Chester, Bp.

  Taunton, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Belper, L.

  Westbury, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bradford, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Cardigan, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Manchester, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Eldon, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Erne, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Abercorn, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Harrington, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Home, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Lucan, E.

  302

  Malmesbury, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Powis, E.

  Denman, L.

  Romney, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Verulam, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Grantley, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Lovat, L.

  Lytton, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Monson, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Northwick, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Audley, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Berners, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Blayney, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Cairns, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Clarina, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Clinton, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Resolved, in the Negative.
  Then the original Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Occupation Franchise for Voters in Boroughs).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) to the distinction between the wording of this and a subsequent clause—the one referring to "rate for the relief of the poor," and the other to "poor rates." The latter consisted of much more than the former, as it included highway rates, church rates, police rates, and county rates. If it were intended to mean the same thing in each clause, he thought that the same expression should be used.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that rates were differently levied in various towns, and hence, no doubt, the variance in the form of expression.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that on asking his noble Friend the President of the Council, whether the payment was to be placed at the minimum to entitle

  303
  a householder to vote, he replied that it was not. If that were so, the clause should be amended by the substitution of the words "poor rates" for the words "rate for the relief of the poor."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the words, though differing, were identical in meaning. The matter was altogether one of detail.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was important to know what the Government intended by the clause as it stood, as it would make a great difference whether the qualification for the franchise was to be the payment of all rates, or of the rate for the relief of the poor only.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the intention was that everything included under the words "poor rates" should be paid by the householder. He had no objection to insert the word "poor" before "rates" in the third paragraph of the clause if that would get rid of the difficulty.
  LORD CAIRNSthought there might be danger in departing from a form of words which had received a definite and authorative interpretation; and the Reform Act of 1832 used identically the same form of words as the present Bill, including the very change of expression now complained of.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there appeared to be a difference of opinion between two noble and learned Lords on the same side, one opposing, and the other supporting, an alteration in the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the argument of his noble and learned Friend was a complete justification of the insertion of the words; but it was argued that an improvement would be effected by changing them.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that in the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 there were a great many populous extra-parochial places rated to the relief of the poor. The circumstances were no longer the same, and therefore the retention of the original form of was were no longer necessary.
  LORD WESTBURYsuggested the omission of the word "poor" and the insertion of the words "rate made for the relief of the poor" in line 3 of the 4th paragraph.
  EARL GREYpreferred the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) to that just proposed on the opposite side of the House.
  After further discussion, Amendment made by omitting the words, "all Rates (if
  304
  any) made for the Relief of the Poor," and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words "all Poor Rates (if any)."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Lodger Franchise in Boroughs).
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYmoved an Amendment providing that the occupation of the lodger should date from the 25th March, instead of from the end of July.
  Amendment moved, "to leave out ("last Day of July,") and insert ("Twenty-fifth Day of March,")—(The Earl of Romney.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that the result of adopting the Amendment would be to require a fifteen months' instead of a twelve months' occupation from the lodger. But if that was the object of the noble Earl it would be better, in his opinion, to make a direct proposal to that effect.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the Government did not mean to sanction such an alteration in the clause.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he had only suggested a most convenient mode of raising the question.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas anxious to know what were the views of the Government upon the subject.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that when the division took place their Lordships would see what was the course pursued by the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYprotested against this method of dealing with an important question. He hoped the House would press for some information as to the intentions of the Government. They were told that they must not fly in the face of the House of Commons; but he trusted that they would fly in the face of the Government, and not submit to such treatment as this. When they asked what were the intentions of the Government, they were told by the Lord Privy Seal that if they "waited they would see what they would see." He could remember no occasion on which, with reference to a measure of this importance, their Lordships had been treated in such a manner.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that the noble Earl was unnecessarily warm. A noble Lord having moved an. Amendment, his noble Friend, the noble Duke suggested that his wishes might be attained by the adoption of another form of words. He could not understand why that should provoke hostile comments.

  305
  The Government would stand by the Bill as it was.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that he and his noble Friends were justified in pressing noble Lords opposite until they got the definite and satisfactory answer which they had just received.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD CAIRNSmoved that after the words "such lodgings being part of one and the same Dwelling-house" there be added "or being One and the same set of Chambers or Rooms not separately rated." The Amendment would apply to cases where the whole House was divided into chambers or rooms of the same kind and which were not separately rated. It would accordingly admit as voters the occupants of a room in a Hall or College, which had no owner letting out lodgings in the usual sense of the term. His object was to place the question beyond doubt.
  An Amendment moved in line 29 after ("Dwelling-house") to insert ("or being One and the same set of Chambers or Rooms not separately rated."—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Government were ready to accept the Amendment.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, that students were not tenants in the sense in which ordinary lodgers were tenants of rooms or chambers. They were there for a different purpose, and the Amendment would create a different class of votes and introduce a new element in University towns.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that at the time the Act of 1832 was passed the Colleges were not rated; but they had since been rated under local Acts, and it would be most inconsistent with every principle of justice, when they were passing a Bill founded upon rating, to exclude residents in the University from the exercise of the franchise. A strong feeling had been expressed in the Senate of the University of Cambridge in favour of residents in the Colleges being registered as electors for the boroughs.
  LORD CRANWORTHwanted to know whether these persons were liable to serve municipal offices?
  EARL GREYsaid, it was true the Colleges were now rated, but this was done in the case of Cambridge, and he believed in that of Oxford also, under an arbitration, and after long discussion had taken
  306
  place. Some years ago a claim was made by the town of Cambridge for the payment of rates by the Colleges, to which they had not formerly been considered liable. This claim was resisted by the Colleges, and having been referred to arbitration, it was ultimately decided that they should pay rates, but only a reduced amount, in consideration of which their members were to be debarred from exercising any municipal privileges. This award of the arbitrator, he believed, had been confirmed by Parliament, and what was now proposed was directly contrary to its spirit. If a graduate was married and lived in the town, he would have a vote; but it would be wholly inconsistent with the arrangement which now existed to allow residents in Colleges to vote for the town. The Colleges had a distinct representation of their own, and had no claim to take part in the representation of the town. The clause might be so amended as to provide for chambers in London while excluding the Universities.
  LORD CAIRNSmaintained that municipal privileges or obligations had nothing to do with the question; it was because the occupants in question were not rated that the question had come before them. The other House had by a large majority decided that these persons ought to possess the franchise as lodgers, but they had inadvertently omitted to insert words fully carrying out their decision. Moreover at Cambridge something like half the members of Colleges occupied lodgings in the town, and would thus have votes for the town, and those living in the Colleges really paid in their rent the quota of the rate, though the Colleges paid it directly. He could not understand on what principle it was sought to exclude them, unless it was on that invariably acted on by noble Lords opposite of excluding from the franchise every one who might be supposed to be possessed of a more than ordinary share of intelligence and education.
  THE EARL OF ABINGDONhad to state that as High Steward of Oxford, he had received a deputation from the inhabitants both of Oxford and Cambridge, who strongly deprecated the interference of the Universities in their Parliamentary elections. They urged that the Universities had their own Members, and that, had their Members votes for the town, the independence of the inhabitants would be materially affected, and the public peace endangered.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that not only

  307
  were the townspeople of Oxford afraid of being overwhelmed by members of the University, but he had been requested by the Bishop of London, who was prevented by indisposition from attending, to present a petition from members of the University, signed by three Heads of Colleges, nine Professors, and twenty-five M.A.'s of different political opinions, objecting to undergraduates being allowed to vote for the city. They did so on grounds wholly apart from politics, believing that it would distract students from their studies, would revive those "town and gown" rows which so much pains had been taken to prevent, and would be very detrimental to academic discipline.
  LORD LYTTELTONsuggested that the Amendment should be agreed to, and that the question of the Universities should be raised by the Proviso of which the Bishop of London had given notice to introduce at the end of the clause, and which he presumed some noble Lord would propose.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it important that the Bishop of London should be present to explain the grounds on which he had framed the Proviso.
  LORD CAIRNShoped his Amendment would be adopted, in order to meet the case of buildings wholly let out as chambers, where the owner paid the whole rate. The question of Oxford and Cambridge might conveniently be discussed on the proposed Proviso at the end of the clause.
  EARL GREYvery much doubted whether this franchise was wanted by the Colleges themselves. He wished to know whether the principle of the arrangement which had been made between the Universities and the towns was or was not to be maintained. Considering the number of persons who lived in chambers, and that the Universities were sufficiently represented, he did not think it consistent with justice that the words should be introduced.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, it had always been an object of the Crown in granting charters, and also of the Legislature in its proceedings, to draw a line between the University and the town; and now they were asked to confound both, and allow persons who had come to the town, not as residents of the town, but members of the University, to interfere with the town elections. This was a very important matter, for they were now about to break down the boundary line between University and town, and introduce a mischievous and dangerous clement into the life of the
  308
  student. The student went to Oxford for the purpose of learning, not of voting.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the opinions of noble Lords had been fully expressed, and the division could not be taken at a more convenient moment. He understood the case to be this—it was proposed by the right rev. Prelate, not now present, by means of a Proviso, to exclude the members of the University, residing within the four walls of the Colleges, from voting for a representative of the town. Now, the fairness of that proposal appeared open to considerable doubt. Why should a man who was a member of the University be disqualified for voting at the town elections simply because he was also a member of a constituency which had not got a local character? If he were to live within the town, the question would not arise—he might acquire a vote and no one would complain. If he chose to live a few miles from Oxford he was equally entitled to vote for the town and the University. But because he lived within the four walls of the College it was said that he should be allowed to vote only for one of the two constituencies. Noble Lords on the other side had asked whether undergraduates, if of full age, were to have the privilege of voting for the town. But at Oxford the common practice was that undergraduates when of full age should live, not within the Colleges, but in rooms in the town. The number of undergraduates who would be affected by the proviso in Oxford at least would be infinitesimal. It appeared to him a hard and invidious thing to introduce words to disqualify persons who were of full age, and who morally and intellectually might be as well qualified to vote as any other elector.
  LORD CAIRNShoped the House would not be led astray on this matter. It had been urged that those members of the University who occupied rooms in the town were there for the purposes of learning, and had nothing to do with the town. But, suppose a great public work was to be carried on, and thousands of navigators who had never before heard of Oxford in their lives, came and took lodgings there, every one of them might claim to be put on the register; and yet they were there not for purposes of education but for purposes equally unconnected with the town of Oxford. Why should men who went there to labour be admitted to vote, and those who went there to improve their minds be excluded?
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 124; Not-Contents 76: Majority 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Lifford, V.

  Beaufort, D.

  Melville, V.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Manchester, D.

  Strathallan, V.

  Marlborough, D.

  Templetown, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Abercorn, M.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Abinger, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Audley, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Berners, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Boston, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Cairns, L. [Teller.]

  Carnarvon, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Erne, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Delamere, L.

  Denman, L.

  Haddington, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Digby, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Home, E.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Manvers, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Morton, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Romney, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Monson, L.

  Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

  Northwick, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Rollo, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  310

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Chesham, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cranworth, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Dacre, L.

  Westminster, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Airlie, E. [Teller.]

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Albemarle, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Dartrey, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Essex, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Granville, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Grey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Morley, E.

  Russell, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Petre, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

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

  Sydney, V.

  Stratheden, L.

  Chester, Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Belper, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Westbury, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  LORD CAIRNSmoved an Amendment to the effect that the limit of the lodger franchise should be fixed at £15 instead of £10. The Amendment, he thought, did not require much argument. This was an entirely new franchise; from the necessity of the case it must be based upon value; and his object was to secure a class of lodger voters who would be possessed of a certain degree of intelligence and capacity

  311
  for the exercise of the franchise. Now, it was only in large towns that this franchise was likely to be of much use. In small towns no lodgers in any numbers would be placed upon the register. In large towns, however, the lodgers would be very numerous, and at the limit of £10 many of them would not be likely to exercise the franchise with advantage to the State. It seemed to him that, by placing the sum at £15, they would secure a more independent class of voters. So far as he could ascertain, 5s. a week in London was the very smallest rent of a room in which any one could live with any self-respect. That would represent an annual rent of £13. Many persons thought the lodger franchise should be placed very much higher. His noble Friend behind him proposed to fix it at £20. That was, perhaps too high a figure; and, as a medium, he thought that £15 would be a very fair sum to insert.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("Ten") and insert ("Fifteen.")—(The Lord Cairns.)
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment, that the lodger franchise should be fixed at £20, and his reason was because this was the sum named in the Bill of 1859. In London the proposed limit of £10 was manifestly too low, and would bring in every description of persons. His desire was to elevate and not to debase the electoral franchise; but he was ready to withdraw his Amendment and accept the compromise of £15 proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that in the Bill of 1859 the Government proposed a lodger franchise of £20, but he was ready to join his noble and learned Friend in asking their Lordships to agree to the Amendment of £15.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that this was a most singular illustration of the adherence to compromise, the necessity for which was almost the only argument urged by the noble Earl against the proposal of the noble Viscount. In the debate upon the second reading he (Earl Granville) had ventured to express his humble approval of this lodger franchise as being in itself a Reform Bill for the metropolis, adding, that in the country, a £10 limit would partake very much of middle-class franchise. Lord Derby on that occasion expressed his entire agreement with him in this opinion; and now to hear the noble Earl (the Earl
  312
  of Malmesbury), without any argument at all, accepting this Amendment surprised him more than words could express. Lord Derby had ended a very eloquent peroration by declaring that this measure was calculated to settle the question of Reform for a long time; but if they took this opportunity of raising the lodger franchise beyond the amount fixed in the House of Commons the "settlement" was scattered to the winds.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his recollection was that Lord Derby, while approving of a lodger franchise, had not expressed approval of any particular sum at which it should be fixed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, they had been asked whether they were going to fly in the face of the House of Commons? Were not the Government doing so in making this alteration? The acceptance of this Amendment by the noble Earl, without one single reason for that course, must increase their Lordship's regret at the absence of Lord Derby.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he had nothing to do with the Bill, but felt very glad when a Motion was made to increase the franchise in any way. He was afraid of this lodger franchise; it was the most terrible part of the Bill, and he rejoiced that the Government had accepted a £15 instead of a £10 limit. In a town with which he was well acquainted the lodgers would be able to outvote the householders. He was not afraid of the householder, who was a man of property and likely to oppose its taxation; but who was the lodger? He was a person who was in no way consistent with the principle of this Bill, for he paid no rates. Was this the man to whom they were going to hand over the government of the country? If lodgers must be enfranchised, let care be taken that they were something like householders in regard to the possession of property and general responsibility; but do not let us hand power over to individuals whose notions with regard to property were not those which ought to influence the government of the country. He therefore seized with avidity upon the opportunity of striking £10 out of the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he honoured the noble Earl for his sincerity and for the frankness with which he avowed his reason for supporting the Amendment—he avowed, in the most straightforward manner, his opinion that the franchise had been fixed too low, and that therefore every

  313
  opportunity to restrict it should be resorted to. He could not, however, agree with his argument. How was it that the noble and learned Lord opposite a short time ago told them he prefered this Bill to the Bill of last year because it went lower? Now, when they came to discuss the clauses, he regarded the £10 lodger as dangerous. As to property the lodger might easily be as responsible a person as the 40 s. freeholder. The truth was the Government were afraid of the franchise they were about to create. They were placing it upon a democratic basis; but did their Lordships think that by the paltry expedient of raising the lodger franchise from £10 to £15 they could impose any obstacle to the advance of democracy? The attempt showed what their true opinions were; it showed that the Government had agreed to a clause in the other House, of the operation of which they were afraid.
  LORD CAIRNSexplained, that in what he said the other evening, he had expressed a preference for a graduated scale in respect of the lodger franchise, and the Amendment which he had moved was the embodiment of that opinion.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDexpressed his astonishment at the conduct of noble Lords opposite who had spoken of the democratic tendencies of the measure, and yet ridiculed as "paltry" an Amendment which would, to a certain extent, limit the democratic tendency of the Bill. If it were paltry, would the noble Lord who used that expression, support an Amendment for a £20 lodger franchise? If noble Lords opposite were really alarmed at the democratic tendencies of the Bill, he hoped they would support this and other Amendments, and thus show that they really felt what they said.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he admired the straightforwardness of his two noble Friends opposite (the Duke of Rutland and the Earl of Hardwicke) who dreaded the effects of the Bill, but he must deny that he and the noble Lords near him had expressed any alarm at household suffrage or at the lodger franchise. He did not complain that individual Members of the Conservative party broke out into rebellion against parts of the Bill; on the contrary, he was astonished they had not rebelled before. But in proportion as he admired the strength of their party ties, he wondered at the debility of their political convictions. Much as he valued party ties, strongly as he
  314
  believed they were essential to the good government of the country, and little as he appreciated the motives which influenced generally those who threw off the discipline of party, he believed that it had been maintained to an unreasonable extent by the present Government in regard to those who had always held sincere convictions adverse to the admission of the poorer classes into the constituencies. But as regards the conduct of the Government, the Opposition had a right to complain of the course pursued by the Government. Their Amendment for liberalizing the scheme of re-distribution was met by the objection that the Bill was a compact with the House of Commons, and must not be touched; but when a Tory Amendment, limiting the franchise which the other House had agreed to, was proposed, it was accepted on the part of the Government without a word of explanation; and a Member of the Government assented to the violation of that compact which was before regarded as sacred. He could tell the Government that this would be regarded by the House of Commons as a breach of faith, and was one of the most serious mistakes they had committed in the conduct of the Bill. He agreed with what had been said, that this was less important in itself than as regarded the spirit which it manifested. It might not be a matter of great importance; he believed that, except as regarded London, a lodger franchise was in the main a middle-class franchise, fixed at the line at which it was fixed by the late and agreed to by the present Government. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had read them a lecture the other night upon the value to be set upon "hard and fixed lines;" and he said it was much better to come to household suffrage, which he defended as more Conservative. Yet he supported a Bill in which there were two "hard lines"—the lodger and the county franchises, and such was the value the noble and learned Lord set upon "hard and fixed lines," that he broke through a distinct compact made by his party with the House of Commons in order to raise the lodger franchise in this House. He believed that would be taken by the Liberal party in the House of Commons as a distinct breach of faith. The lodger franchise was not originally included in this Bill, although it was proposed by the Conservative Government of 1859, and Mr. Disraeli considered himself the father of it; but it was forced upon the Government and accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  315
  and, as a matter of compromise, £10 rental was changed to £10 clear annual value, which was somewhat higher. The way in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) had given way without a word of explanation or defence would be regarded by the House of Commons and the country as an indication that a spirit of reaction on the part of the Government had already set in.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYexplained that he had not spoken of a compact between the House of Commons and the Government as respected the whole Bill, but had said it was carried in the House of Commons by a spirit of compromise which induced parties opposing, at last, to agree on its provisions. At the time he referred to the question of re-distribution, which was the only one before the House, and he said, not that that was a compact, but a compromise. He explained that statement by reminding the House that though the Government had at first refused to add a Member to each of six large towns, they had subsequently consented to make that addition in four cases, the House of Commons deciding, upon a Motion followed by a division, that the addition should not be made to the constituencies of Sheffield and Bristol. On another point, too, he had been misrepresented. He had expressly stated that their Lordships had the right to alter any Bill that was sent up from the House of Commons; but he also said that that right ought, nevertheless, to be governed by discretion, and it certainly did become their Lordships to act with discretion on a question so important as that of re-distribution, of which a settlement, the result of a compromise, had been made in the House of Commons. But between this and the lodger franchise there was no analogy. It might be very fair to urge the existence of such an analogy in a party spirit, in one of those contests in which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) would be perfect if he could only keep his temper a little better. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] He was glad to see the noble Duke smiling, because he thought that such a frame of mind was happier than the one in which he had just indulged. He was sorry that he did not possess as much self confidence as the noble Duke did; but not being the possessor of so desirable a quality he should have thought it presumptuous on his part if he had risen to supplement what he regarded as the unanswerable reasons urged by his noble and
  316
  learned Friend. As regarded the Amendment, he could only say that Lord Derby's Government in 1859 proposed a lodger franchise of £20, and the present Bill proposed £10. Now there was nothing inconsistent in proposing an intermediate sum between that fixed upon by the House of Commons and that proposed by the Government in 1859. In fact, unless such compromises were made they would be carrying on the Bill after the fashion in which the Bill of the late Government was carried on last year in the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was sure that none of their Lordships would accuse him of having any excessive or undue partiality for lowering the franchise. There were two classes of Amendments which might be proposed to this Bill. One class was composed of such Amendments as gave a fair promise of permanency, which might be incorporated in, and become an inseparable portion of, the Bill; and the other of such as were merely separable additions to it, which would probably not only be very soon swept away, but would, at the time of being swept away, carry with them other valuable portions of a Bill which, but for them, might have had a chance of enduring. Believing that the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend belonged to the latter class, he could not support it. He had never complained of a £10 rental qualification as such; in fact, he believed such a qualification to be good rather than otherwise—certainly good in comparison with household suffrage. What he complained of in connection with this lodger franchise was that no provision was made for the payment of the rent. He believed, therefore, that a door would be opened for very great abuse and fraud. Under this clause, in fact, he thought they were doing a very right thing in a very wrong manner. Moreover, as he had stated the other evening, he believed the £10 line to be very precarious, and that if that should give way nothing stood between that and manhood suffrage. The demand for this franchise proceeded from the large towns. Clerks and employés of large tradesmen, attorneys, and so on, would be equally enfranchised whether the limit was fixed at £15 or £20; but the real demand came from the artizan class in the large towns—the class which they desired to place on the same footing as the householders. If they struck out the clause and get rid of

  317
  the lodger franchise altogether, the thing would be intelligible enough; though, under all the circumstances of the case, he did not think it would be advisable. But if they adopted the Amendment moved by his noble and learned Friend, and fixed the limit at £15 or £20 they would strike off two-thirds or three-fourths of those whom the House of Commons proposed to enfranchise under this clause, and the proposal would then be regarded by the class for whose benefit it was intended as a simple mockery. Remembering all the circumstances connected with the case, and the action of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons, he certainly preferred abiding by the clause as it at present stood:—though, he might add, he heartily concurred in the proposal which was to be made by his noble Friend opposite.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he could not understand how noble Lords opposite, whose argument had been that they could find no stand-point in any figure—even in a figure so low as £8, or £6—could at the same time believe that a firm footing was to be found on so high a sum as £15. To strike out the clause altogether would be more consistent with the principles of the old Conservative party; but did they imagine that a £15 franchise would last for a single Session? If this Amendment were carried there would be an immediate agitation for the reduction to £10, while the advocates of manhood suffrage would, of course, attempt to get rid of any limit whatever.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, if this Bill had come up to your Lordships' House with the amount fixed at £15 instead of £10, I should have been much better pleased; but we must look at the circumstances under which it is proposed to substitute £15. As I understand, from what has passed, the circumstances are these. In 1859 a lodger franchise was proposed; hilt the present Bill, as originally introduced into the House of Commons, did not contain a lodger franchise. A £15 lodger franchise was proposed by a private Member; and the Leader of the Government in that acceded to a Motion for reducing it to £10. Believing it to be a part of the unwritten law of Parliament that what a Government support in one House they should support in the other, I cannot, whatever may be my own view in favour of £15 in preference to £10, support the Government in departing from that law.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: The
  318
  Government may be compelled to yield to pressure in one House, but I would ask whether on that account they are to be tied hand and foot in the other House? Are the Government to be precluded entirely from listening in this House to any proposition to amend what has been done in the House of Commons? I think there would be some force in the objection now made against the course taken by the Government if they of their own accord had proposed to raise the lodger qualification to £15; but as the proposition has not come from them, I cannot concur in the observation of the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I entirely agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) as to the independence of the House and their right to make Amendments; but what I object to is the attempt to tie us down by telling us that we cannot fly in the face of the House of Commons when we propose to make Amendments in the redistribution scheme; and then, as soon as a Conservative and reactionary Amendment is proposed, the representative of the Government should jump up, and without assigning any reason for departing from the compromise to which they had come in the other House, not yielding to pressure, but on the mere speech of the proposer, express an intention of accepting it.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) is as jealous of the independence of this House as any of your Lordships can possibly be; but his position is, that an agreement made by the Leader in one House ought to be adopted by the Leader in the other House. I have no hesitation in saying that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would improve the lodger franchise. I am convinced that the £10 lodger franchise will bring in many voters who are only just above the condition of paupers; but, whatever may be the view which I take of the lodger clause, the latter is now irrevocable, and if your Lordships make an alteration in it, so far from closing the question, you do but open it. If we wish to keep the franchise up to the present amount, we had better agree to the clause as it comes from the House of Commons; for if it should comes under discussion in that House, next Session, or in the first Session of the next Parliament, the amount will be reduced below £10—perhaps, to 2s. 6d. a week.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I wish to understand what the House hold to be

  319
  the position of the Government. When, in the early part of the evening, I refused on the part of the Government to accede to a proposition for opening the whole redistribution scheme, I was told that was extraordinary conduct on my part. Now, three hours after, I am told that the Government ought not to give way on anything which the Leader of the other House has agreed to.
  EARL GREY: I did not understand the noble Earls on the Opposition side to contend that the Government is bound to maintain the Bill exactly in its present shape, nor do I see any inconsistency between their condemnation of the course taken by the Government on this Amendment, and what they said earlier in the evening, when they objected, and I think justly objected, to the statement that this House had no right to exercise an independent judgment at all. The Government and the House must exercise their judgment on the various points as they arise, and I am very far from saying that in no case ought the Government to yield to the arguments urged in favour of Amendments that are proposed; but there are certain leading provisions of the Bill which, once adopted, it would be extremely difficult and most dangerous to depart from, especially when the provisions it is proposed to alter were introduced into the Bill in the other House with the concurrence and approval of the Ministers in that House. This appears to me to be one of those leading and important provisions of the Bill to which the Ministers were thus committed; and therefore I was surprised to hear Her Majesty's Government, without assigning any reason, state to this House that they were quite prepared to adopt the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. This is a course which they certainly ought not to have pursued. I agree with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that the only result of altering the £10 limit will be to carry the franchise lower. Without going into the question of the lodger franchise, I must say that after what has been done in the matter I cannot support the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD CAIRNS: I wish to say a few words before your Lordships divide on this question. The observations made by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) and by the three noble Earls on the opposite side raise a point that is deserving of consideration. Is this proposition laid
  320
  down—that any number of Amendments may be proposed by noble Lords opposite and by noble Lords on the cross-Benches, going even to the overthrow of the whole Bill, and be discussed fully and fairly, no one being allowed to suggest that, as this Bill comes from the other House of Parliament, it ought not to be summarily condemned; but that the moment an Amendment comes from this side of the House it ought to be summarily rejected, on the ground that there has been a compact or compromise in the other House; and that even where no compact or compromise can be suggested everything done in the other House is to be regarded as infallible, and your Lordships are not to agree to any Amendment? I am very anxious that this Bill should become law; I am very anxious that there should not be even the appearance of a collision between this and the other House of Parliament; and therefore I, for my part, should be perfectly willing, though I think Amendments are required, to accept the Bill as it comes to us, and have it passed into law. But we must either accept it in that way or consider it open to Amendment throughout. Her Majesty's Government must either deal with each Amendment on its merits, or apply the same rule of indiscriminate opposition to all Amendments, come from whatever quarter they may;—which latter course would no doubt facilitate very much the discussion of the Bill. Now, as to the compact which is suggested, I think it would be very difficult to find who were the parties to a compact or compromise in this case; but if I supposed that the amount of £10 was deliberately settled by the House of Commons after a full discussion of the different figures I should be extremely unwilling to open the question—especially as the Bill has to go down to that House again. The noble Duke is mistaken, I am informed, in supposing that the figure of £15 was ever proposed and the figure of £10 taken as more acceptable to the Government. I do not state the fact of my own knowledge; but I am assured that there was no discussion as between different figures—that the only proposition submitted to the House was one by an independent Member, proposing to fill up the blank in the clause with the words "Ten Pounds." I repeat that if it had been a matter of deliberate discussion and determination by the other House of Parliament, I should not have asked your Lordships to re-open this matter, which I quite agree with noble

  321
  Lords who have spoken is a small matter, whatever my individual opinion might be. But I believe that no such discussion or determination took place; and, therefore, I do think it desirable, if your Lordships should concur in the opinion that the figure of £15, as against the figure of £10, should be inserted in the Bill, and thereby submitted to the other House of Parliament, who will have an opportunity of considering the Amendments, and of saying whether they think it desirable or not to insist on the lower figure.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say so, he is not quite right as to the matter of fact. I believe the fact was that a £10 rental was proposed to the House of Commons. It was then suggested, as an Amendment, that either a £15 rental, or a £12 rating should be substituted.
  LORD CAIRNS: Rating!
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes, either a £12 rating or a £15 rental.
  LORD CAIRNS: There could be no rating in the case of a lodger.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: At all events, the plan which was ultimately carried by compromise between the two sides of the House, and assented to by the Government, was the amount of £10 clear yearly value.
  LORD DENMANhoped that the Government would not consent to this alteration, which, for the first time, disturbed the text of this Reform Bill.
  On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 121: Majority 32.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Essex, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Granville, E.

  Grey, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Camden, M.

  Kimberley, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Lichfield, E.

  Westminster, M.

  Lovelace, E.

  Minto, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Morley, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Powis, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Russell, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Zetland, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Halifax, V.

  322

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Sydney, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Chester, Bp.

  Londesborough, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Audley, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Belper, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Monson, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Northbrook, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Chesham, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Rollo, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Taunton, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Vernon, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Harris, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Haddington, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Home, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Mansfield, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Manvers, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Morton, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Abercorn, M.

  Romney, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Rosse, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Selkirk, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Cardigan, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Cawdor, E.

  Exmouth, V.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Coventry, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Melville, V.

  Denbigh, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Stratford de Redcliff, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Erne, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  323

  Abinger, L.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Berners, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Boston, L.

  Northwick, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Petre, L.

  Cairns, L. [Teller]

  Raglan, L.

  Churston, L.

  Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

  Clarina, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Congleton, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Southampton, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

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

  De Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Digby, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Egerton, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Grantley, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Wynford, L.

  Word "Ten" struck out accordingly.
  Then it was moved to insert the word "Fifteen."
  Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved an Amendment in Line 32, after ("July") to insert ("and shall not during the same Twelve Months have received or applied for Parochial Relief").
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there was a general clause in the old Reform Act disqualifying from being registered as voters for a city or a borough, all persons who had received parochial relief within the previous twelve months; and by the 37th clause of the present Bill it was enacted that that section of the Reform Act (the 36th) should apply to the case of a county as well as that of a city or borough; so that no such person should be registered as a voter for a county. It was also provided that the Reform Act and the present measure should be read as one Act. Thus, as the Bill stood, it perfectly attained the object which the noble Earl had in view, and did not require any alteration whatever in that respect.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, the provision in the Reform Act to which the noble and
  324
  learned Lord had just referred did not apply to the freeholder, but only to the occupier.
  EARL GREYsaid, it was necessary, not only to prevent persons who were in receipt of parochial relief from voting, but also from being put upon the register.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the 36th section of the Reform Act was directed specifically against the registration of such persons. That section of the Reform Act would be read along with that Bill, and thus become virtually a part of it; and it would also be extended to counties as well as cities and boroughs.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, once a man's name was on the register he would be entitled to a vote, even though he might have received parochial relief after the time of registration.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that if their Lordships desired to make the receipt of parochial relief between the time of registration and the time of an election a disqualification they would, in the first place, be introducing an entirely new principle, and, in the next place, the Amendment of the noble Earl would not answer the purpose, for it spoke only of the twelve months before registration
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Property Franchise in Counties).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYproposed an Amendment altering the copyhold property qualification from £5 to £10.
  Moved, To leave out ("Five") and insert ("Ten").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Government in the other House proposed £10 as the copyhold qualification, and were beaten, and therefore it was quite competent for them to accept the proposal of the noble Earl without being charged with inconsistency.
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL GRANVILLEput it to the Government, whether it was wise on the part of the House to make a number of restrictions in the franchise as settled by the House of Commons. It was rather a blot in the Bill that it went so low in the borough franchise and so high in the county franchise. Persons living outside the borough boundary would, as it was, feel great discontent at seeing their neighbours vote for so small a qualification, and it would be unwise to increase this difference

  325
  between the county and the borough franchise. Noble Lords opposite seemed to take every opportunity of restricting the franchise agreed to in the other House.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he should have liked to have seen a comprehensive Reform Bill. He thought it very desirable that the county franchise should be kept up to prevent property being swamped. He feared that the present Bill would be anything but a satisfactory settlement of the question, and he could not help confessing that he took a very gloomy view of the political situation.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that £5 leaseholders and copyholders were clearly richer than 40 s. freeholders, and ought, therefore, to be enfranchised, if it was desired that property should have influence.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYurged the injustice of allowing the agricultural interests to be swamped by small leaseholders and copyholders living in the large boroughs. He would move to omit the clause.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Harrowby).
  LORD LYVEDENdeprecated these wretched nibblings at the Bill. To put themselves in collision with the House of Commons on mere questions of a £5 or £10 copyhold franchise, and a £10 or £15 lodger franchise would serve no useful purpose, and would only discredit their Lordships in the eyes of the country. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Not-Contents 118: Majority 62.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Morley, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Sommers, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camden, M.

  Normanby, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E. [Teller.]

  Sydney, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Chester, Bp.

  Dartrey, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Belper, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Granville, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Lovelace, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Minto, E.

  Dacre, L.

  326

  Ebury, L.

  Petre, L.

  Foley, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Romilly, L.

  Harris, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Londesborough, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Monson, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Zetland, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  De Vesci, V.

  Exmouth, V.

  Manchester, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Marlborough, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Lifford, V.

  Rutland, D.

  Melville, V.

  Wellington, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Abercorn, M.

  Templetown, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Oxford, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Berners, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Blantyre, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Boston, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Cairns, L.

  Churston, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Erne, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Clinton, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Grey, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Harrowby, E. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Home, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Digby, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Morton, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Romney, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  327

  Hylton, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

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

  Northwick, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Rollo, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause 6 (Occupation Franchise in Counties) amended and agreed to.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE BILL—(No. 99.)—THIRD READING.
(The Duke of Richmond.)
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked for explanations with regard to the retirement of certain officers in connection with the Board.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that Papers had been presented to the House showing that a Committee, consisting of Mr. Hunt, Secretary to the Treasury, and the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had been appointed to inquire into the organization of the department with a view to see whether any improvement could be effected in it. The Committee, having gone into the whole matter, decided that it was advisable to abolish one of the permanent Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries; to appoint four Secretaries, for the four departments into which the Board was divided; that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary instead of the Vice President; and a permanent Secretary, who should have equal rank with the Parliamentary Secretary. It was impossible to speak in too high terms of the ability of the gentleman who held the office of legal Adviser, or to say how great was the regret with which everyone connected with the Board heard the announcement that that gentleman intended to retire. The Committees recommended that the office should be abolished. The legal Adviser had partly held the Assistant Secretary-ship of the Railway Department in connection
328
with the post of legal Adviser, and he was offered that post. He declined it, however, on the ground that the duties were more than he could undertake to discharge satisfactorily. The Committee were also of opinion that the post of Permanent Secretary, which was filled by Sir Emerson Tennent, ought to be abolished. Of course it would not be abolished as long as Sir Emerson Tennent chose to fulfil the duties of it, and he might have remained in the office as long as he lived had he so pleased; but he agreed to give it up in order that the new arrangements might be carried out, and to receive a retiring pension. He did not retire, however, upon full pension, though the recommendation made to the Treasury was, he believed, that in consideration of his services, both in the colonies and at home, he should receive full pension. He was informed, however, that Sir Emerson Tennent was to receive less than he was entitled to. Instead of £1,500 per annum, to which he was entitled, he was only to receive £1,200.
Motion agreeed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock A.M. 'till half past Ten o'clock.