Sitting of 3 June 1867

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — On Malt Tax, Colonel Duncombe added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — Resolutions [May 31] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Public Records (Ireland) [Salaries, &c.]; Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland); Pawnbroking.
Resolution reported—Metropolitan Police [Salary of Receiver].
Ordered—Real Estate Charges Act Amendment*; Pawnbroking*; Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment*; Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland).*
First Reading—Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* [181]; Pawnbroking* [182]; Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* [183]; Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment* [184].
Second Reading—Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt)* [187].
Committee—Representation of the People [79] [Clause 9] [R.P.]; (£1,700,000) Exchequer Bonds*; Consolidated Fund (£14,000,000)*; Metropolitan Police* [171]; Houses of Parliament (re-comm.)* [170]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* [145]; Public Health (Scotland)* [89]; Public Works Loans* [172]; Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt) (re-comm.)* [176]; Court of Chancery (Ireland)* [47].
Report—(£1,700,000) Exchequer Bonds*; Consolidated Fund (£14,000,000)*; Metropolitan Police* [171]; Houses of Parliament (re-comm.)* [170]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* [145 & 178]; Public Health (Scotland)* [89 & 179]; Public Works Loans* [172]; Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt) (re-comm.)* [176]; Court of Chancery (Ireland)* [47 & 180].
Withdraw—Brown's Charity* [142].

THE SHIP "NORTH."—QUESTION.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the case of the ship North has yet been received by the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether he will communicate such Report to the House?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in reply, stated that the Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the case of the ship North had not yet been received by the Board of Trade. He expected, however, that it would be received very shortly, and he should lose no time in placing it upon the table of the House.

THE RITUAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the appointment of names which are avowedly identified with the encouragement of Ritualistic practices upon the Commission to inquire into the conduct of Church Services would tend to discredit the moral force of its decisions in the mind of the public, it would not be desirable, in order to secure the greatest possible confidence in the constitution of that Commission, to communicate the names intended to compose it to Parliament previous to their final appointment?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it appeared to him that it would not conduce to the benefit of the public in any way that the names of the Commissioners appointed to advise Her Majesty should be laid on the table of the House for discussion; and therefore it was not intended in this case to produce them.

ARMY—RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
COLONEL HAMLYN FANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, with reference to the Camps of Aldershot, Colchester, &c., it is his intention to carry into effect that part of the Recruiting Commission which recommends—
"That when the drill season is over the troops should be dispersed throughout the country that they may be seen by and mix with the masses of their countrymen and act as recruiting centres during the winter?"
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: In reply to the Question, Sir, I have to say that I am now waiting for the receipt of the Returns as to the nature of the barrack accommodation in various parts of the country, and I shall therefore feel obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will be kind enough to repeat his Question on a future day. But I will take this opportunity to reply to several inquiries as to the time when the Army Estimates would be brought forward.
1490
I hope to be able to bring forward the regular Army Estimates on Thursday next. I beg also to give notice that I shall move Votes 13 and 14 first, on account of their very great importance.

NAVY—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF NAVAL CADETS.—QUESTION.
MR. BASSsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be true, as has been asserted in the Hants Telegraph, that Corporal Punishment for Naval Cadets has been revived on board the training ship Britannia; and, if so, whether it has been sanctioned by the Admiralty, and under the authority of what statute?
MR. CORRYreplied, that he wished to remark, in the first instance, that the corporal punishment referred to by the hon. Member was not of the kind authorized by the Mutiny Act, but simply flogging with a birch rod—a punishment with which most hon. Members who had been to a public school were tolerably familiar. That punishment was inflicted under the authority of a Board Minute passed on the 16th of November, 1858. In that year four cadets on board the Illustrious, which was then the school ship, were guilty of gross misconduct, which would have subjected them, or, at all events, the ringleaders, to dismissal from the service; but it was suggested that the milder punishment of birching should be substituted. Accordingly, the following Minute was made, and it still continued in force:—
"Their Lordships are of opinion that young gentlemen in the Illustrious must be regarded as in training for their future profession, analogous in many respects to the period passed by other young gentlemen at a public school, and only preparatory to taking their position as officers in seagoing ships, and that they therefore will hereafter intrust the Captain of the Illustrious with the power of inflicting corporal punishment with a birch rod in such cases as he may think deserving of it, such punishment being inflicted in the schoolroom in presence of the other cadets, and at least two officers of the ship, and every case of such punishment, with the offence which led to it, to be reported to their Lordships."
There had not been a single instance in which it was proved that the power thus given had been abused.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he wished to ask what was the age of the cadets?
MR. CORRYsaid, the boys were qualified for admission between twelve and fourteen years of age and they remained

1491
on board the Britannia eleven months, Consequently, some of them might be fourteen years and eleven months old, and a few still older, because if a boy failed to pass the examination he might go up to be examined a second time.

IRELAND—CURRAGH OF KILDARE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD OTHO FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government intend to take any steps with reference to bringing in a Bill for the better management of the Curragh of Kildare; and, also, if he will lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Commission which was appointed to inquire into that subject last year?
  LORD NAAS, in reply, said, the Government intended to introduce a Bill for the better management of the Curragh of Kildare if it were found that there was a prospect of carrying it this Session. If the Bill were introduced, the Report of the Commission appointed last year to inquire into the subject would be laid upon the table of the House.

PORTUGAL—TREATY OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, If the negotiation of a Treaty of Commerce with the Portuguese Government is still pending; and if he has received any further Communication from that Government since the 26th of March, when he replied to a similar Question; if he has any objection to lay upon the table the Correspondence upon the subject, and the conditions insisted upon by the Portuguese Government, which, according to the statement of the noble Lord, would amount to the total abolition of the alcoholic test as applied to wines; and, whether he is aware that a Treaty of Commerce has recently been concluded between the Portuguese and French Governments, admitting French goods on more favourable terms than heretofore, and thus to the competitive disadvantage of the British manufacturer?
  LORD STANLEY: In answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that negotiations intended to lead to a Treaty of Commerce have taken place between the English and Portuguese Governments. When I answered a similar
  1492
  Question which the hon. Member put to me on the subject about six weeks ago, I expressed regret that the negotiations had been, as in fact they then were, broken off. But since that time the Portuguese Government have expressed a desire to renew them, and Her Majesty's Government, of course, placed no obstacle in the way. Propositions have been received from the Portuguese Government, and are now under the consideration of the Board of Trade. With regard to the second part of the Question, as to the production of the Correspondence, I have to state that when, at the request of an hon. Gentleman, I undertook to lay it upon the table, I did so on the assumption that the negotiations were at an end. Since that time, however, the Portuguese Government have addressed to me a very earnest request that, as negotiations were now renewed, the production of the Correspondence might be deferred, and as that is the usual course followed under such circumstances, I have undertaken to comply with that request. With regard to the third part of the Question, as to whether I am aware that a Treaty of Commerce has recently been concluded between the Portuguese and French Governments, admitting French goods on more favourable terms than heretofore, to the competitive disadvantage of the British manufacturer, I have to state that I am aware that that is the case; but inasmuch as that has been done in return for certain special concessions granted by the Government of France, the existing treaties between England and Portugal do not give us any right to protest or complain on that account.

REGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a decision recently given in the Southwark County Court of Surrey, in the case of Baxter v. Freeman, in which the Plaintiff having claimed payment for the insertion of advertisements in twenty-three different newspapers, was non-suited by the Judge, after consultation with the Board of Inland Revenue, on the ground that only two of the whole number of newspapers had complied with the Registration and Security Laws; and, whether the Attorney General has advised the Board of Inland Revenue

  1493
  that the Plaintiff in the above case had no right of action?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that his attention had not been called to the case until the hon. Member had placed his Question on the Paper. On inquiry at the Inland Revenue Office he found that no communication had been made between the Judge of the County Court and the Board of Inland Revenue; but it appeared that the solicitor to the defendant in the action searched in the Office for information as to the papers being registered, and made inquiries for himself as to how many papers had been registered, and how many had not. No other communication of any kind had taken place between the parties to that action and the Board of Inland Revenue. It is not in a general way usual to say whether the Attorney General had been consulted by a Department; but of course it followed from what he had already stated that no advice was given by him in the present instance.

ARMY—THE SNIDER AMMUNITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any reply has been received from Colonel Boxer to General Hay's remarks on the Snider ammunition; and, if so, whether that Reply is satisfactory, and whether it will be presented to the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that a reply had been received from Colonel Boxer to General Hay's remarks on the Snider ammunition, and that that reply was regarded by the War Office as quite satisfactory; but, nevertheless, in order to remove any objection on the part of General Hay a change had been made in the ammunition of the Snider guns, and he believed that General Hay thought that change a satisfactory one. He could not consent to lay General Hay's reply upon the table.

POSTAL—INDIA AND CHINA MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any overtures have been made to the French Post Office, with a view to render the French Mail Service to India and China more available for the purposes of this Country, under the new system of postal communication, as recommended by the Committee of last Session?
  MR. HUNTreplied that forms of tender had been sent out, and it was hoped that the Société Impériale might be induced to make an offer.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, his Question was whether any communications had been made to the French Government on the subject?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the course which had been adopted was the only one which could be taken under the circumstances.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA—MR. JUSTICE BOOTHBY.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been able to advise Her Majesty on the subject of the Petitions addressed to Her in June 1866 by both Houses of the Legislature of South Australia praying Her to remove Mr. Justice Boothby from his office of Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia; whether the Secretary of State has been advised that the Statute of the fourth of George the Fourth, under which the Judges of the Australian Supreme Courts can be removed from office at the will of the Crown is still in force, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitutional Acts of those Colonies purporting to make those Judges removable only on an Address from both Houses of the Colonial Legislature; and, if so, whether he will introduce a Bill to give effect to the intention of the Constitutional Acts; and, whether he will lay upon the table Papers on these subjects?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that with respect to petitions from both Houses of the Legislature of South Australia addressed to Her Majesty in June, 1866, praying for the removal of Mr. Justice Boothby from the office of Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Her Majesty had been advised to refer them to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and they had been so referred. It was obviously right to make that reference, because despatches accompanied the petitions, and statements were made which required judicial investigation. There was a petition for the removal of the same Judge in 1862, and it was found on investigation that one of the allegations it contained was unfounded. The Statute of 4 Geo. IV., under which the Judges of the Australian Supreme Courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land could be

1495
removed from office at the will of the Crown, did not apply to South Australia; but the Act for South Australia enabled Her Majesty to remove Judges upon the petition of both Houses of the Legislature; and it was under that Act that the present proceedings were taken. The papers contained ex parte statements, and while the matter was sub judice it would be better not to publish them. The Act of Geo. III., called Burke's Act, remains unrepealed, empowering the Queen to dismiss a Colonial Judge. He was not aware whether there was any Correspondence on the state of the law, but he would make inquiry. No Bill seems desirable for giving effect to the Constitutional Acts. The Imperial Acts, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 54 and 55, the Act of 9 Geo. IV. c. 83, so far as it is repugnant to the Constitutional Acts, is declared to be repealed. Practically the Judges hold during good behaviour, but are removable by the Crown on addresses from both Colonial Houses of Parliament.

STATE OF MEXICO.—QUESTION.
MR. BUTLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information from Mexico with reference to the report that the Emperor Maximilian had been shot?
LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, I have no authentic information on the subject. Indeed, I know nothing more than what has appeared in the papers. I think it probable, considering the condition the country is in, that the despatches intended for the English Foreign Office have either been intercepted, or, from the danger of their being intercepted, it has been thought inexpedient to forward them.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which he had not been able to give him notice, respecting the appointment of the Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. The Notice on this subject had twice been dropped, and he had hoped that it would not be again brought forward; but he found that it was again on the Notice Paper, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exert his influence on the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy), not to press the
1496
subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was absent and not likely to attend the Committee, and the Committee itself, as nominated, might be considered as packed, for it contained a majority of Members who were anxious for the repeal of the Act. That Act was confined to England and Scotland, and it was only late the other night that it had been treated as an Irish question. ["Order!"] He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman might ask the Question, but was not entitled to enter into the consideration of the construction of the Committee.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would then ask, whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to induce the hon. Member for Meath not to proceed with his Motion?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no further influence with the hon. Member for Meath than I have with every Member of this House, and which is the result of the courtesy which I trust will always subsist between me and every Member, I was not at all aware that the question on which the hon. Member for Meath has moved for a Committee was a question which interested only a portion of Her Majesty's dominions. I thought that for other reasons it was for the public advantage that a Select Committee should be granted on the subject. With regard to the Members of the Committee, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire will, I hope, do me the justice to remember that when he called my attention to the names, without giving any opinion as to whether they were competent to conduct the inquiry in a manner satisfactory to the House, upon my hon. Friend expressing a strong opinion that a responsible Member of the Government ought to be on the Committee, I assented to the suggestion and requested a Colleague in the Cabinet (Mr. Walpole) to be a member; and not only that, but the hon. Member having intimated that only one responsible Minister should be appointed, I also requested my right hon. and learned Friend, the Judge Advocate, to sit upon it. Therefore I think the hon. Member for North Warwickshire cannot charge me with any indifference to his wishes or any want of interest in the formation of that Committee. I think it would be admitted by all impartial persons that the addition of those two Ministers to

1497
the Committee will give it that additional weight of character which the hon. Member seemed to desire. I think that any communication from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) that he cannot attend the Committee cannot be of a date very recent, for he will leave Balmoral to-morrow, and on returning to town he will no doubt resume his duties, and will be prepared to discharge that part of his duty which refers to this Committee. I should think it great presumption on my part if I possessed any influence, which I do not, with the hon. Member for Meath to ask him to withdraw what he believes to be for the public advantage, and which Her Majesty's Government have assented to. Therefore, I think, matters must take their course. I think that when a Committee is moved for and the appointment of it has been assented to by the Government, the House will receive the Motion with its accustomed courtesy. Of course, I do not question the propriety of any hon. Member who may consider it improperly appointed challenging every name; but I hope that if that course is taken it will be taken with no sinister purpose of defeating the object of the Committee, but in order that the fair criticism which Parliamentary custom permits may result in the appointment of a Committee which shall command the confidence of the House.

THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES—PERSECUTION OF JEWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has felt it is duty to make any remonstrances to the Government of the Danubian Principalities on the subject of the gross ill treatment to which the Jews in that country have been subjected; and whether the persecution of them has been stopped?
  LORD STANLEY: A report from many members of the Jewish community in this country having been received as to gross outrages and acts of persecution endured by their nation in the Principalities, and these communications being, as I have reason to believe, in the main well founded, I have thought it my duty to telegraph to the British Consul at Bucharest, instructing him—the matter being one not of policy, but of simple humanity—to make
  1498
  a representation in strong, but friendly terms, on the subject. This, I understand, he has done, and I hope the result may be beneficial to those in whose behalf we have interfered.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as it is well known that the Government and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy) have concurred with regard to the appointment of the Committee on this Act, inasmuch as it is known that the composition of the Committee is unsatisfactory, and as it is invidious to object to anybody—["Order"]—whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will have any objection to allow a Minister of the Crown to confer with the hon. Member for Meath with a view to the alteration of the constitution of the Committee so as to make it satisfactory to the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I trust, Sir, that the hon. Member for Meath and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh are too much men of the world to wish to have an unnecessary wrangle, and that they will therefore, as men of the world, take every possible means of preventing any consequence of that kind. Very few Committees are appointed without a conference between the principal promoters of them and the Government. It is our duty to take such steps as will lead to the appointment of a Committee which will give general satisfaction. In like manner, if the hon. Member for Meath and my hon. Friend will meet together I have no doubt that they will in friendly conversation—which I know is more friendly in the lobbies than it is in the House—come to some amicable arrangement. If they cannot do so, or if their mutual representatives cannot, of course the House must decide in an impartial manner who are the proper persons to serve on the Committee. But I recommend mutual concession and conciliation as the best means of arriving at a complete understanding upon this subject, and I still express a hope that in the manner usually adopted by Members of this House who are men of the world, we may have such a selection of names as may make it unnecessary to submit to the House the name of every Member of the Committee.
MR. MACEVOYbegged to say that he should be only too happy to accede to any reasonable proposition which the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) might Make; but as yet the hon. Member had made no suggestion, and he was therefore quite unable to say whether he could meet the views of the hon. Member.
COLONEL STUART KNOX: Will you put off the Committee from to-night?
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he must decline to do so. He had followed the usual course in placing on the Notice Paper the names of Members to serve on the Committee; but he was still quite willing to consider any proposition which might be made on the subject.

THE CRETAN INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORY: As I see the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I venture to put a question to him, although I have not given notice to him. I have seen in foreign and English journals a statement to the effect that the Great Powers, including England, had agreed to a joint note to Turkey on the subject of the desolating war in Crete, and I wish to ask him whether there is any truth in that statement?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, I have not joined in any such note.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MONCREIFF: I wish, Sir, to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Scotch Reform Bill. I take it for granted that it will not be proceeded with on Thursday, although it stands on the Orders for that day, and perhaps it will be as well if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what course he intends to pursue?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, from a statement I have previously made, that I do not intend to make any further progress with the Scotch Reform Bill, until we have concluded the Committee on the English Bill, and I intend to adhere to that determination.

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

  COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS MAY 31.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9 (Certain Boroughs to return one Member only).
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, as the House had accepted by a large majority one part of his proposal, he rose now to offer to its consideration the second part. He confessed his sorrow that, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, and to which he need not further advert, the cart should have been put before the horse, and that by the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick, to whom he should not further allude, the second part of his proposal should have been put as the first. The remainder of the proposal which he begged now to submit was—
  "That every borough which had a less population than 5,000 at the last census shall cease to return any Member to serve in Parliament."
  The question was one which, though small in itself, was of importance in its position and the effect it would have on the Bill. The effect would be that ten boroughs, part of them already mulcted, returning fifteen Members in the whole, but now, after the diminution made by the House, for the future to return only ten, should be disfranchised. When he mentioned the fact that those ten boroughs contained a population of only 39,704 persons, with 2,874 voters, it would hardly be believed that an anomaly like this—engrossing so great a part of the representation — should have been allowed to exist so long. These boroughs—and the fact brought to his mind great relief—had been condemned so long ago as 1854. They were by Schedule A of Lord John Russell's Bill to be disfranchised utterly, and they might thank their stars that they had been allowed so long to protract their existence. He did not propose to go into the questions on which the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) touched the other night—the re-distribution, the cumulative plan, the one vote. He believed that before their proceedings in Committee were finished they would have had enough of those abstruse matters. The case he

  1501
  should lay before the House was conclusive. The first borough he should mention was Arundel, which had 2,498 inhabitants, and 174 electors. What could anybody say in favour of such a borough? It was distant but twelve miles from Midhurst, ten from Chichester, and eighteen from Horsham, each returning a Member. Therefore he thought he might say that Sussex had an unfair number of representatives. The next was Ashburton, with 3,062 inhabitants, and 350 voters. That was so near to Dartmouth, which he proposed to dispose of next, and to Totnes, which had been disposed of already, that it required no argument to show that it should follow the fate of its companions. He acknowledged the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, having made up his mind that the two boroughs should be disfranchised, proposed to convey the franchise to the new borough of Torquay. Dartmouth, next on the list, contained 4,444 inhabitants, with 282 voters. The same observations would apply to it. The next was Evesham, which had already lost one of its Members, and he proposed to deal equal justice on the remaining one. It was eleven miles from Tewkesbury. It was within fourteen miles of Worcester, Cheltenham, and Gloucester, and within twenty-two of Droitwich, which was so well represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War. It was evident that it could very well be spared by Worcestershire and Gloucestershire. Next was Honiton, with 3,301 inhabitants and 267 voters. Monstrous that such a borough as this should so long have sent two Members. Frightful anomaly! Here he had the happiness of thinking that he should satisfy the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), who was not unwilling to be executed, provided the blow did not come from his "own familiar friends." Though he highly respected the hon. Gentleman, there were but few points on which their political opinions were in unison. Honiton was nineteen miles from Bridport, sixteen from Exeter, eight-teen from Taunton, and sixteen from Tiverton. Therefore there was no reason why such a population should continue to return even one Member. He now came to Lyme, which must be condemned for ever. The only surprise was how on earth they could ever have had a Member. It had 3,215 inhabitants, with 249 voters. It was eight miles from Bridport, twenty-nine from Exeter, and twenty-two from Tiverton.
  1502
  Therefore it should follow the fate of the rest. Marlborough was one of those on which the House had already passed judgment, by depriving it of one Member. He asked it now to do equal justice, and to pass judgment on the other. It had a population of 4,893, and 275 voters. No doubt its interests would not suffer from the proposed disfranchisement. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), which was only thirteen miles distant, had but few constituents, and he would not refuse to render it his powerful assistance. He now came to Northallerton, which had 4,755 inhabitants and 442 voters. No doubt the Member for that unhappy place would tell them that it had by this time increased to 5,000. But they must draw a line somewhere. As it had not 5,000 at the Census of 1861, it must go also. It was within ten miles of Richmond, the Member for which place would have so little to do that he could very well assist the others. He asked the House to pass judgment on it. Then there was Thetford, from which the House had already taken one Member, with 4,208 inhabitants and 224 voters. He could not conceive any reason why Thetford should any longer continue to exist. It was within thirteen miles of Bury—that excused him for having buried it—and within twenty-nine of Norwich. The last borough was Wells, from which also they had already taken one Member. He asked the House to take away the other. It had 274 voters, with a population of 4,648. It was within sixteen miles of Frome, eighteen of Bath, seventeen of Bristol, and twenty-one of Bridgwater. He was now happy to say he had finished his disagreeable task. He had the pleasure of conferring on the Chancellor of the Exchequer ten scats, besides the five already taken away by the first part of his proposal to which the House agreed on Friday. He now tendered the right hon. Gentleman ten more. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech of Friday with great pleasure, except as to the anomalies. He rejoiced to find that the right hon. Gentleman swept away the toys which seemed to have taken the fancy of the House. Cumulative voting, giving three Members, representation of minorities, and the like theories, however they might amuse philosophers, could never be brought into practical use. He recalled to himself the time when the right hon. Gentleman stood as Radical candidate for Marylebone, and he

  1503
  hoped, from the way in which he had carried this Bill through the House, that he was coming back to his former love—that, though he had been in bad company so long, he had not been contaminated in his political views. He regarded the right hon. Gentleman as the apostle of liberty, and hoped that he was about to return to his former Friends. But when the right hon. Gentleman said we must still retain a few anomalies, he could not follow him in his skilful argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was followed on Friday last by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), who demolished his arguments upon the anomalies. He viewed with satisfaction the return of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to Liberal opinions, and having most unwillingly on certain occasions declined to follow that right hon. Gentleman in his retrograde course, he rejoiced that, after his speech of Friday last, he could once more declare himself his humble follower. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the principle of the Bill was this—to do only what was necessary and what would satisfy. Who did the right hon. Gentleman think were satisfied by his re-distribution of seats? Had he satisfied those hon. Members behind him, who had abused him more than the Liberal Members had? Had the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself? He had given the House a Bill that was far more Liberal than he (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) had ever expected to see, and was he satisfied to mar the whole effect of his Bill by a re-distribution which was weak and futile beyond description? Did the right hon. Gentleman think he had done enough? Had he considered whether he should satisfy Kensington and Chelsea, whom he did not attempt to enfranchise, with their population of 133,000? Did he think he should satisfy Acrington with its population of 39,000, Doncaster with 18,000, Harrowgate, which was included in the Bill of 1859, and which was looking with jealousy on Knaresborough, which was close by and was represented; or Gosport, with its 22,000 inhabitants, which was looking at its neighbour, Portsmouth, represented by two Members? Had he considered that Gosport was the third largest town in the county of Hants, and still unrepresented, while Winchester with 14,000, Christchurch with 9,000. Newport with 8,000, Petersfield with 6,000. Andover with 5,500, or Lymington with
  1504
  5,100, all in the same county, returned Members? Had he satisfied Salford, which had a population of 102,000 and only one Member? Or Birkenhead with a population of 51,000 and only one Member? Or Paddington with a population of 70,000, and 6,000 voters, but no Member? Had he satisfied Birmingham with a population of 296,000, and which ought to be divided on the same principle as Glasgow? Had he satisfied Bristol with a population of 154,000, Finsbury with a population of 387,000, Lambeth with 294,000, Leeds with 207,000, Liverpool with 443,000, Manchester with 357,000, Marylebone with 436,000—more than Middlesex, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to divide—Sheffield with 185,000, and Southwark with 193,000—nearly equal to East Surrey, which he proposed to divide? He implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recollect that the re-distribution of seats was the most important part of the Bill. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after having given a measure so liberal in other respects, would accede to this proposal. He did not wish to fetter the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman—to whom he should be able hereafter to give some few hints—but he would urge him not to lose this glorious opportunity of accepting his Motion, and thereby of passing a measure which would satisfy the people at large, and would put an entire end to agitation, which, however advantageous to those who lived by it, was the curse and bane of the country.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words,
  "And every Borough which had a less population than five thousand at the said Census shall cease to return any Member to serve in Parliament."—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDsaid, he hoped the Committee would pause before they adopted the proposal of his facetious Friend, a large number of whose statements were incorrect, while others were highly exaggerated. [Mr. Serjeant GASELEE: No, no!] The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his re-distribution scheme was based on the principle of not disfranchising any one centre of representation. This proposal would disfranchise ten. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that there

  1505
  would be a difficulty in appropriating the forty-five seals now at their command. This proposal would make the number larger still. He (Mr. Goldsmid) admitted that the small boroughs should have their share in the representation reduced. He announced last Session the willingness of his constituents to make the sacrifice required of them. He himself had then given notice of the very proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman now claimed as his own—the proposal to take away the second seat from all boroughs with a population of less than 10,000. He could not, however, allow that it was desirable to get rid altogether of these small boroughs. The effect would be to accumulate a large number of Members on a few large towns, and to approximate to electoral districts. The variety of our representation would thus disappear. The hon. and learned Serjeant, with the narrow views in which he indulged, had spoken of him as if he represented only Honiton. They were all Members for the whole country, having duties to discharge towards all their fellow-countrymen. One of the advantages of small boroughs was that their Members had more time to devote to the general interests of the country than the representatives of large places, who had a great deal of correspondence on their hands. If the representation were confined to the great towns the House would become merely an assembly of delegates. Both the late and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had on former occasions shown the utility of small boroughs. They had returned a long line of distinguished men. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) first entered the House through that channel. Were this proposal adopted, it would probably be followed a few years hence by a proposal to disfranchise all places with less than 20,000 inhabitants. And thus, as he had already said, the adoption of that course would bring about the system of electoral districts to be found in America which was held by most men of experience to be highly undesirable for us. A Motion like this ought not to emanate from a private Member, having no responsibility — one, too, who had had but little Parliamentary experience or weight, and who did not appear to have any sufficient notion how these seats should be appropriated. The hon. and learned Serjeant, notwithstanding his disclaimer, had been guilty of great inaccuracies; for instance, he had said that Paddington was not represented, whereas
  1506
  it formed a portion of Marylebone. Again with regard to Chelsea and Kensington, they would, with the extension of the county franchise, form an important part of the constituency of Middlesex. The Committee would, he hoped, not be influenced by a speech so full of mis-statements, but would reject the Motion.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he should move that the proposal of the hon. and learned Serjeant should be so amended as to be applicable only to boroughs at present returning one Member, The five towns of less than 5,000 population, which had at present two Members, and which, by the decision of Friday, had made so large, and he believed so cheerful a contribution to the common good, should be spared a further sacrifice. Against the other five boroughs the hon. and learned Serjeant had made out his case. He looked on their fate as inevitable. It was better to redress such an anomaly now than to leave the subject for future Agitation. The boroughs, the cause of which he advocated, were not — with the exception of Honiton—decaying towns. Their population had increased since 1831, and a slight extension of their boundaries would bring them within that valuable class of boroughs with a population of between 5,000 and 10,000, of which there were at present twenty-four, each returning one Member to that House. As a sample of the boroughs of between 5,000 and 10,000 population, he would refer to Calne, Droitwich, Frome, Helston, Horsham, Launceston, Liskeard, Midhurst, Wallingford, Haverford west, and Radnor. These had all been connected with the names of Members of more or less distinction. If the pica for mercy to these small boroughs were heard, more than fifty seats would still be placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there would then be sixty-two boroughs between 5,000 and 10,000 returning one Member. The existence of these, if they continued to elect good men to represent them, might always be defended on grounds of public utility. He had no personal prejudices on behalf of small constituencies. He was indebted for his seat to the favour of one of the largest towns, returning only one Member to that House. He had had to fight his way into Parliament; and in his opinion it would not be a bad thing for the Conservative party when more of them had to do the same. He moved as an Amendment upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member to insert after the

  1507
  word "borough" the words "at present returning one Member and."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "Borough," the words "at present returning one Member and." — (Mr. Schreiber.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that as he had the honour to represent the county from which three of these boroughs were taken, he wished to say a few words in their behalf. No doubt there were anomalies in the Constitution of this country, and if Parliament were about to re-cast the representative system, no one would be in favour of constituting a large number of small boroughs. They had, however, existed from time immemorial, and not altogether without service to the State. The borough of Arundel had this to recommend it, that it was the only English borough which returned a Roman Catholic to Parliament. There was no one who would wish to deprive that large and numerous body of a Member who urged their views and interests so ably as was done by the noble Lord (Lord Edward Howard) who now represented Arundel. The borough of Ashburton might claim one great distinction, for it was the borough that first returned to Parliament the late Lord Lyndhurst. If all the Members were taken from the agricultural boroughs there would be a Parliament of men representing their own opinions, commercial views, and constituencies. They would deprive the agricultural portion of the community of those representatives who had a fair claim to watch over their interests in Parliament. With regard to the enfranchisement of Torquay, he had to thank his hon. Friend (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) for the wise and lucid speech he had made, and for the perfect knowledge of the subject he had displayed. His hon. Friend had, however, made one small error. He described Torquay as a place of residence for those afflicted with pulmonary complaints. Though his hon. Friend thought that these ought to be represented, he said the real electors would be the tradesmen of the town. It was an extraordinary fact that perhaps there were more resident owners in Torquay and the neighbouring parishes than in any other place which had so rapidly risen to notoriety and importance. The electors were a thoroughly independent class. He knew no constituency more likely to send a good
  1508
  Member to Parliament than the borough of Torquay. He had presented a petition in support of the Government plan, signed by 931 persons. A great majority of the inhabitants of the future borough were prepared to receive its enfranchisement with gratitude; but if Torquay were to be clogged with Ashburton and Dartmouth they would not desire to be enfranchised. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) believing that it would be far from working in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) and to reject the qualification which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Schreiber). He was not surprised that the hon. Baronet had come forward on behalf of the county he so worthily represented, and had objected to the proposal now before the House. But if the hon. Baronet had studied the statistics of the question he would probably be aware that he represented a county which had one Member for every 22,000 of the population. The county with which he (Mr. Cardwell) was connected (Lancashire) had something like one for every 100,000. If the hon. Baronet had read Hallam, he might recollect that that great Constitutional authority described the boroughs in his part of the country as wretched villages, which corruption hardly saves from famine. If the House were going to pass a Reform Bill deserving of the name, they ought not to be deterred by the suggestion of the hon. Baronet from wiping out the reproach of Mr. Hallam. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. J. Goldsmid) had intimated that the abolition of these small boroughs would lead by a necessary consequence to the establishment of electoral districts. That was a matter of opinion. It was most desirable to make a permanent settlement of the question of Reform. If they wanted to have an agitation for electoral districts after the passing of the Bill, the best way to secure it would be to leave on the statute book the boroughs affected by the present Motion. If, on the contrary, they wanted to avoid a demand for electoral districts, and to effect a satisfactory settlement, they could not do better than vote for the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. The boroughs between 10,000 and 20,000 had been referred to, and they had been

  1509
  warned lest the rising tide of Reform should level them. It appeared to him that that argument told the other way. They should not be content with a smaller Dumber of seats for the purpose of re-distribution than the Amendment would give them. If they did not obtain them in the mode which his hon. and learned Friend proposed, they would be obliged to cast about in order to obtain them in some other manner; and it behoved the Members for the boroughs just above 10,000 to consider whether, if this Motion were rejected, some future Motion might not be levelled against them. The hon. Gentleman also I said that the Members for large towns were at present overworked, and that they had not sufficient time to attend to public business. He suggested that they should therefore retain the Members for the smaller boroughs. But if that were so it would be more reasonable that they should endeavour to obtain more seats for re-distribution in order that they might give additional representatives to those large constituencies whose Members were at present overworked. The hon. Gentleman who moved that extraordinary Amendment to the Amendment said he thought it was right that some of those boroughs should be entirely disfranchised. But he wished that those small boroughs which at present returned two Members should be allowed to retain one of the number. It should be remembered, however, that they were engaged in a great re-settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform. Could the hon. Member state any reason why Northallerton, with its population of 4,755, should be wholly disfranchised, while Honiton, with its population of 3,301, should be allowed to continue to return one Member? The hon. Gentleman said that the population of those boroughs, although a small, was not a declining, but an increasing population. [Mr. SCHREIBER: With the exception of Honiton.] He would read a number of figures, which would, he thought, show that that statement of the hon. Gentleman was unfounded. In 1861 Honiton contained a population of 3,301; in 1851 it contained 3,427; in 1831 it contained 3,509. In 1861 the borough of Evesham contained a population of 4,680; in 1851 it contained 4,605; in 1831 a population of 3,991. Wells contained in 1861 a population of 4,648; in 1851 it contained 4,736; in 1831 it contained 4,603. Marlborough contained in 1861 a population of 4,893; in 1851 it contained 5,135;
  1510
  in 1831 it contained 4,186. Those figures showed that in the main these were declining and not increasing boroughs. He next came to what were the real merits of the question. He hoped they should succeed in their appeal to the Government not to resist the present proposal. He had many reasons for entertaining that hope. In the first place, he remembered that when the Bill of 1859 was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (Lord Stanley) admitted that in argument the existence of those boroughs was indefensible; but he said he took a practical view of the question, and he asked what would be the prospect of the success of the measure if it contained a proposal for disfranchising a large number of boroughs? He (Mr. Caldwell) thought that, after the division of Friday night, that practical view of the cafe had no longer any application, and a great weight was thrown into the opposite scale. There was good reason to believe that the House instead of wishing to adopt a hesitating and faltering proposal, was in earnest in desiring to make a satisfactory settlement of the question, and would support the Government in effecting such a settlement. They had on former occasions heard his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer argue in favour of small boroughs; but the argument of his right hon. Friend was in favour of nomination boroughs, which had no longer any existence. He could not forget also that the other evening he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer allude to Sudbury and St. Albans as notorious impostures in our representative system. The right hon. Gentleman had also told them that there were two kinds of Reformers, and that the right kind were those who would adapt the Act of 1832 to the circumstances of 1867. The House had just taken an important and decisive step in adapting the Act of 1832 to the circumstances of 1867. The Act of 1832 said that no borough whose population was less than 2,000 should return a Member to Parliament; and that no borough whose population was less than 4,000 should return more than one Member. On Friday night they had, by a large and decisive majority, raised that limit of 4,000 to 10,000. They were now asked to follow that analogy, and to raise

  1511
  the limit of 2,000 to 5,000. The whole population of those ten boroughs—men, women, and children—did not amount to 40,000. The number of householders who would be capable of being placed on the register under this Bill in Liverpool alone would be 65,000. Could they, then, believe that it would be consistent with common sense to refuse to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend? The result at which they had already arrived was mainly due to the earnest desire entertained by Members in every quarter of the House that their settlement of the question should have a prospect of permanence. It was only by adopting some such proposal as that then under their consideration that they could hope to accomplish that object.
  MR. J. HARDYsaid, that the population of his borough (Dartmouth) had increased to 4,600; and if he also reckoned the population over the water with the Britannia training ship, the number would considerably exceed 5,000; so that the place ought not to be included in the Amendment. He thought that enough had already been conceded, and called upon hon. Members to pause and consider where they were going. If they did not, they might find themselves in a position from which they might not be able to retrace their steps. They had already a sufficient number of seats at their disposal, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government and the House generally would not assent to further disfranchisement. The representatives of large towns often shrank from serving on Committees—an important part of the duties devolving on the Members of that House. The result arrived at the other night in respect to the partial disfranchisement of all boroughs with a population under 10,000 was enough to satisfy every reasonable mind. The Committee could hardly treat seriously the flippant Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The great principle of the Bill was to have been—no disfranchisement. If it was to be altered in accordance with every suggestion coming from everyone who wished to acquire notoriety, what was to become of that principle? He hoped the Government would do justice to the boroughs, and would offer a decided opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. NEVILLE - GRENVILLEsaid, that the only city in that disfranchising list was the city of Wells, which was the county town of the county which he represented.
  1512
  He hoped that they would await the Report of the Boundary Commissioners before so gross an act of injustice was perpetrated as the disfranchisement of that city. The borough of Wells contained a population of only 4,648, but there was excluded from it the whole of one of the parishes; and if that were not so it would contain a population of upwards of 7,000. Let them look at what had taken place in the case of Aylesbury. The town of Aylesbury contained only about 4,000 inhabitants; but the boundaries had been so greatly extended, that the borough of Aylesbury contained a population of 27,000 inhabitants. He did not want the boundaries of Wells to be so greatly enlarged. But he did not think they ought to disfranchise it without a Report from the Boundary Commissioners. In his opinion, the borough population of Wells ought to be something like 15,000.
  CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, that the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) was characterized by what had been so fatal to the Reform Bill of last year—namely, the want of a practical knowledge of facts. If a plan of re-distribution was to be taken in piecemeal from the proposals of private Members he did not see how the Government were to carry the Bill through. In reply to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) he wished to draw a comparison, not between one borough and another borough, but between the two counties in which the boroughs which they represented were respectively situate. While Oxfordshire was over-represented, Somersetshire was one of the worst represented counties in the South of England, the number of boroughs being taken into consideration. If they were to adopt the principle of representing counties they could not altogether omit that circumstance from their consideration. If Wells were to be disfranchised the Government would have to put some other Somersetshire borough in its place, and the old represented borough would form the natural head of a new group. If the Government were about to make new Parliamentary boroughs they might consider the question whether they should give a representative to any borough with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants; but that was a different thing from disfranchising Parliamentary boroughs on such a principle as the one laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the comparison be had made was between the counties of Devon and Lancaster, and not between Somersetshire and Oxfordshire.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, they were getting into a mess about this Reform Bill, and he was not surprised at it. When, at the commencement of the Session, Her Majesty's Ministers introduced a democratic franchise for boroughs it was obvious that in the end they must come to a demand, if not for a large re-distribution of seats, at least for a large curtailment in the number of the towns which sent Members to Parliament. Any one who had not seen that previously to Friday must have been made sensible of it by the decision come to on that occasion. He had voted in the minority on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), because he dissented from a good many of the arguments which that hon. Gentleman used, and because he entirely disapproved of his re-distribution scheme. To-night he would vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth, because he thought it followed logically from the decision arrived at by the House on Friday, and because he hoped that if it were carried the Government would depart from their present scheme and bring forward one re-constituted in a different mould. In his judgment this remodelling of the House of Commons was by far the most important part of Reform. It had never been discussed. It had hardly been alluded to in the beginning of the Session. If a good Bill for re-modelling the House had been agreed upon, they would have heard a great deal less of this democratic measure for bringing the franchise in boroughs down to householders who were just above receiving parochial aid. The upper and middle classes were not enfranchised. This Bill did not enfranchise them. It enfranchised the lower classes. He had always been a Helot living outside the pale of the Constitution. He had never heretofore enjoyed the happy privilege of a vote in any constituency in the British Empire, and this Bill did not enfranchise him. The seats the Amendment would place at the disposal of the House ought to be disposed of in a different manner from that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth. If we had a Cabinet with an assured majority at their back—if we had a Cabinet not living on sufferance, but with a policy of their own, they would take a broad and
  1514
  deliberate view of this question. A great many places ought to be disfranchised, and Members ought to be given to large towns not now represented, as was proposed to a certain extent in the present Bill. The Ministry ought then to suppress the remaining seals, and diminish the numbers of that House to a considerable extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that his great difficulty would be in the re-distribution of seats. If the right hon. Gentleman were to take away a great many seats from small towns, the adoption of the suggestion he had just thrown out would save him from that difficulty. If he remembered the figures rightly, the hon. Member for Wick had proposed to give twenty-six unicorn Members to counties and six to boroughs. That would be a step in the wrong direction. The House ought rather to take away all the unicorn or triangular Members given to counties by the Reform Bill of 1832, and to reduce still further the number of Members in the House. He concurred in the proposal of the hon. and learned Serjeant to take away two Members from the City of London. That constituency had no pretensions from its purity or any other reason to return four Members to the House. One of the chief reasons adduced in favour of reforming the House of Commons was the necessity of improving it as a legislative machine. They were called upon to reform the House because it had, when elected for the most part by £10 householders, come to a standstill in legislation. But what had caused the paralysis of their legislative power? It arose from the immense number of talkers in the House. Since the Reform Bill of 1832 there had been an increase year by year of what might be called "talking potatoes" in the House. There were now 100 or 150 hon. Members who thought they could give information and advice to the Government when any subject, whatever might be its nature, came under discussion. The consequence was that a great impediment had arisen to the conduct of public business. A private Member had no chance of carrying a measure through the House. The remedy for this state of things was to make a large reduction in the number of Members. Such a course was recommended by various reasons. 658 Members were far too numerous a body for deliberative purposes. There was not sufficient room in the House to accommodate so large a number. The consequence was that when a sensational debate came on, or when a

  1515
  division on an important subject was called for, the scone below the Bar—the crowding, the hustling, and the noise was more like a prize fight or a bear-garden than the House of Commons. Many hon. Members might think this was a new proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) might think it "new-fangled," but it was not. In making this suggestion he was "treading on the lines of the Constitution," if anybody knew what that meant. A proposal to diminish the number of Members in that House was made by Lord Grey. A similar proposal formed part of the Reform Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in 1831. The original proposal was that forty-one Members should be taken from England, that five should be given to Scotland, and five to Ireland, and that the number of the Members in that House should be reduced by thirty-one. Instead of being received with derision, even in an unreformed and borough mongering House, that proposal received the support of 291 Members, and was only negatived by a majority of 8 in a House of 600 Members. Earl Grey persuaded His Majesty King William IV. to dissolve the Parliament, and the dissolution accordingly took place on this very question. A cry was raised for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." A vast majority were returned in favour of the proposition, which, however, was ultimately abandoned by the Ministry. He was astonished at the manner in which the proposal then made with so much favour was now received in the House of Commons.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he was most anxious to receive some information from the Government, as it would probably influence him as to the vote he should give. He was disappointed that after the vote of Friday afternoon Her Majesty's Government had not stated to the House the course they intended to pursue. That vote must be taken to establish broadly the fact that the House was determined to carry out a scheme of re-distribution considerably more extensive than that originally proposed by the Government. It might fairly be assumed that the House was disposed to sanction a scheme not less extensive than that proposed in the Government Bill of last year, or the proposal which he had endeavoured to explain to the House. For this purpose something like fifty seats would be required. Of these, twenty-four or twenty-five would be necessary
  1516
  to increase the representation of large cities and boroughs, and twenty-six to put the large English counties on the same footing. Seven seats were not more than was required to satisfy the just claims of Scotland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, with regard to Scotland, that had been the proposal made by two successive Governments. Therefore, fifty-six or fifty-seven seats would be required to carry out the enfranchising part of the scheme. The House had forty-five seats at its disposal, under the vote which it came to on Friday. There remained, therefore, a balance of twelve or thirteen which would have to be made up. If the opinion of the House were adverse to any increase in the number of its Members the numbers could only be made up either by grouping or by the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the total disfranchisement of all boroughs below a certain line. He preferred the principle of grouping. He thought it a more Conservative line of procedure not to disfranchise totally any small borough against which delinquency had not been proved. At the same time, the argument drawn by the right hon. Member for the City of Oxford from the analogy of the Reform Bill of 1832 was irresistible. The right hon. Gentleman had contended that that Bill having raised the line to 10,000 and taken away the second Member in all boroughs below it, the House ought now to act in a corresponding manner in regard to the small boroughs. They must either disfranchise below 5,000, or adopt the principle of grouping to an extent that would give the number of Members required. He would be no party to a course the practical result of which would be to leave either the representation of Scotland or the increased representation of the English counties in the lurch. That would be the inevitable result if the House limited itself to forty-five seats, when fifty-six or fifty-seven were required for the purpose of enfranchisement. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would declare on the part of the Government that they thought the more Conservative principle would be that there should be no absolute disfranchisement, and that they would adopt the principle of grouping to the extent necessary for obtaining the requisite number of seats, he would vote in accordance with his original feeling on the subject. But if the Government would neither give the House any indication as to where the

  1517
  seats were to come from, nor state to the House whether its numbers were to be increased, nor adopt any measure by which the representation of the counties might be increased to what was due to population and importance, he should be obliged to vote for the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If this opportunity were neglected the House would, in all probability, be left in the lurch. He wished to make a few remarks respecting what had fallen on Friday from the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth. He should be extremely sorry if it were supposed that he had been guilty of wilful discourtesy towards the lion, and learned Member by stealing his thunder and taking out of his hands the Amendment of which he had given notice. When the hon. and learned Member wrote a letter to him on the subject he sought him out and endeavoured to explain what he thought must be obvious to every hon. Member—namely, that the hon. and learned Member's proposal being based on the complete disfranchisement of boroughs up to a certain line, was totally different from his own proposal, which was founded upon the principle of grouping. If he did not succeed in conveying that idea to the hon. and learned Member he was very sorry for it. The present discussion showed that the two proposals were essentially distinct.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that the hon. Member for Wick, although he had made an apology, seemed to be under some misapprehension with regard to the matter referred to. ["Order!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Whatever difficulties and differences may arise on this very difficult question of the re-distribution of seats, there is one point upon which both sides of the House may fairly be congratulated, and that is that this question which has always before excited the greatest party opposition, is now considered by the House without any reference to party feeling. I think that is a result we shall be well satisfied with. It is one which, in originally considering the question of Parliamentary Reform, we could only with the greatest difficulty have contemplated. I hope the Government may claim some share in contributing to a condition of affairs and a temper of mind so gratifying. The proposal which Her Majesty's Government brought before the House was a practical and a temperate one. It was brought forward with the view of meeting
  1518
  all claims of a character which could not be denied, and of making other arrangements, the justice of which no one could question. It was a proposal founded, so far as disfranchisement was concerned, which entailed great sacrifices upon our own political party. The majority of seats, by the proposal contained in the Government Bill, were seats taken from this side of the House, from Members of the party to which we belong. Therefore we came forward with a proposal which will at least free us from those imputations—some unfounded, some made with a certain degree of justice—which, on previous occasions, have been made to every Ministerial proposal, for a re-distribution of seats. That I am sure will be conceded. We were pressed very much to extend that proposal. We could not have done so without departing from the principles we had laid down—which we thought it wise to lay down—when I first addressed the House on this important subject. If we had departed from it—if we had advanced from our own line to the line which the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) successfully advocated on Friday—we should have been asking for sacrifices in the majority of instances from our political opponents. That is patent to the House. We felt where a measure was absolutely necessary, both sides of the House should make sacrifices to secure its being passed. But having proposed a plan maturely prepared and adequate to the public necessity, we felt that if we proceeded further than we proposed to do we should unnecessarily be attacking the interests of our opponents. This — in the present friendly temper of the House which we desired to cherish—was an influence not without its weight with us. I do not desire that this question should be for a moment mixed up with all those painful controversies which accompanied it in 1832. We have so far succeeded that we have come to the point of considering the question of the re-distribution of seats without making it a party question. The interests of both sides are so mixed up, and it has been treated with so much impartiality, that it will be difficult from this question to elicit anything like a party struggle. I believe there is a fair prospect of our coming to a conclusion which may be advantageous to the country. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House I seems to be afraid that I am about to make some proposal which would not do justice to the counties, in the interests of

  1519
  which he is a champion. He is rather surprised that I did not come down with a proposal which, in consequence of the vote of Friday, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to recommend with respect to the re-distribution of seats. That would have been a premature proceeding on our part. In the first place, the opinion of the Committee has not been exhausted on this important subject; secondly, we should not have been doing our duty if we came down to the House with any proposal which was not matured in its details. It would not do to come down to the Committee on a Bill like this and propose a certain number of Members for this place and a certain number for that, unless we had gone into mature details, and were at least able to put the Committee in a position in which they might deal with the matter. We had first of all to wait for the final decision of the Committee on this and other points. We had then to consider the consequences of the decisions of the Committee, and to mature our plan accordingly. With regard to the fear of the hon. Member for Wick, that on my part there would be great negligence of the interests of the counties, I can assure him there is no foundation for such a fear. I have placed before the House some details upon this matter which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) referred to a night or two ago. He reminded the House very appositely of an important result—namely, of the manner in which the House of Commons has worked for a considerable time with such an unjust division of representation between the boroughs and counties. It is unnecessary to go into details. The population of the counties is 11,500,000; that of the boroughs is 9,500,000. The counties return 162 Members; the boroughs return 334. These figures cannot be too often repeated. But I have pointed out to the House that this state of affairs which at the first blush would seem to render all satisfactory Parliamentary representation utterly impossible, was greatly mitigated and in a great degree remedied by the representation which the county populations obtained from a number of those small boroughs. There were, I said, eighty-four Members of boroughs who might be fairly described as representing the various lauded interests. But by the considerable addition proposed by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) to the plan of Her Majesty's Ministers,
  1520
  and by the proposal made to-night, if both should be successful you will be diminishing a large proportion of those boroughs which indirectly compensate the counties for their universally admitted inadequate representation as to population and property. Therefore in carrying any satisfactory scheme of re-distribution after the votes which have taken place, or which may take place if the House approve this Motion, the Committee must be prepared for that which the country earnestly wishes—to give a fair and adequate representation to the county populations. We are to be congratulated that now, when the time has arrived when we shall have to perform this office, we shall be called upon to do so under very favourable circumstances on both sides of the House. All those economical controversies, which for a great length of time embittered discussion in this country, have not only ceased, but are almost forgotten. In addition to that, we have this Session, and within a few weeks, almost days, established the county franchise upon a broad and popular basis. Under these circumstances, the Committee will come to the consideration of this question with every advantage. I trust that we shall arrive at an arrangement which will satisfy the hon. Member (Mr. Laing) that we have not forgotten our duty with regard to the county representation. We shall have to consider the distribution of forty-five seats in consequence of the Government proposal added to by the vote of Friday last. We have now to consider the present question. The new proposal is entirely different from that which formed the foundation of the proposal of the hon. Member for Wick. We stated, when we first introduced this Bill, that one of the principles which guided us in the redistribution of seats which we recommended was that there should be no voters disfranchised. I think that was a sound principle. At the time we introduced it, it was a popular one. I very much doubt whether any proposals larger than those we brought forward would have been tolerated by the House. I have no doubt that if the Committee will consider the present question with impartiality—and I do not doubt it will do so—we may agree to a distribution of seats which will be satisfactory to the country. Whether it was a wise course which was embodied in the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick I do not say; but with respect to the present Motion, it ranks in quite another character.

  1521
  If the Committee objects to boroughs of small population being represented in this House, it is competent to the Committee to consider whether there are not means of increasing the constituencies, or taking a course like that suggested by the hon. Member for Wick and adopting the principle to which I am partly favourable—that of grouping. I am of opinion that agreement to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth would not be satisfactory. It is a Motion opposed to the policy under which we solicited the consideration of the House to a distribution of seats. It is unwise that we should totally destroy any centre of representation. It may be well to advocate the scheme in the House, but it would be unwise to accept it. The division the other day upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick must satisfy everybody by the numbers, that it is the determination of Parliament to support the course of policy he recommended. It will not be in the power of the House of Commons to say to the Government, in reference to the result of that division, "You have made too large a distribution of seats. You have hurried to a conclusion not founded upon the absolute decision of the House." I am not, however, of opinion that the House desires entirely to disfranchise any place. I think the opinion of the House is in accordance with the policy first enunciated in this matter by the Government, and under these circumstances I shall oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I need only detain the Committee for two or three moments. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having completely removed from this debate, so far as depends upon him—and much depends upon him—every element of party consideration. We have before us a very plain and simple question. I only wish to define what that question is. The right hon. Gentleman says that he, on the part of the Government, does not think it desirable that there should be a total extinction of any centre of representation. The vote the Committee is called upon to give, should it accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, would not absolutely rule that question in a sense adverse to the views of the right hon. Gentleman. It would still be open to the right hon. Gentleman on the part of the Government, and it would still remain open to the Committee, after carrying the Motion of my
  1522
  hon. and learned Friend, to consider whether these boroughs, if deprived of the right of sole representation, should be admitted to share the privileges of borough representation in some other form. I believe I am strictly accurate in saying that the vote which my hon. and learned Friend now asks us to give does not absolutely decide the question of the extinction of any heretofore existing right of borough representation. What we are asked to support is a principle of which I so strongly feel the force that I am ready to accept it, though it may entail the extinction of some of these ancient centres of representation. It is this—that we should have in view the construction of a system bearing the promise of permanence. I am well convinced that we have no chance of securing permanence for the system we are engaged in constructing if we leave the right of distinct individual Parliamentary representation in the hands of communities so small that those whom they send to Parliament would represent no sensible portion of the public opinion of the country. What the present Parliament expects from its Members, and what the coming Parliament will still more expect from them, is and will be, that when they rise in their places to advise the House on questions of public interest they shall be able to describe to the House what view is taken upon those questions by the communities they represent. With regard to these very small towns, to quote their opinion with reference to the public questions of interest here decided would be entirely out of place. It is to this principle we look in order to give solidity to the basis of the representation. We do not think that this principle can be satisfied without some such measure as that of my hon. and learned Friend. I trust, therefore, that upon this and other grounds the Committee will be disposed to give a vote which I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel is no more than the natural, if not the necessary, supplement of the vote at which this House arrived on Friday.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there were not seats enough vacated in prospect by the decision of the Committee to provide the additional seats for Scotland. If he voted against the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) he should bring himself in conflict with the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), and all the Members for Scotland. There would not, if the Amendment were rejected,

  1523
  be seats enough vacant to provide the addition to the county representation which the late Government recommended by their Bill, and also the additional seats which the present Government, wisely and properly, intended to give to Scotland. Having voted in support of the Bill introduced by Lord John Russell and Sir James Graham in 1854 he would support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, in deference to what seemed to be the general wish of the House. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 269: Majority 52.
  CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, he rose to propose the enlargement of the boroughs retaining but one Member, so as to make up their population to not less than 10,000. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to make this an open question, as there was great danger in extending the suffrage if they did not at the same time extend the area of the boroughs. In many small boroughs, such as his own (Wells), where compound-rating was unknown, household suffrage pure and simple would obtain. Though he agreed that it was desirable that the old centres of representation should continue to exist, if the present narrow areas of those centres were retained they would only lay the ground for a future agitation. It would be argued that they afforded no real expression of public opinion. It would be declared monstrous that places like Salford should have only the same representative power as Honiton, Ashburton, or Dartmouth. The answer to that argument would, of course, be that without these small boroughs every variety of interest and opinion could not be represented. But that argument would have far more weight if they were so enlarged by the addition of neighbouring towns or otherwise, as to include a less inconsiderable population. He hoped, therefore, that his proposal would be received with favour by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, engaged, as he was, on a measure
  1524
  which they hoped would prove a settlement of the question for at least a generation. He wished by means of these boroughs to effect an equipoise between the two great parties who would continue to share the Government of the country. They would afford a channel by which every variety of interest and opinion would obtain representation. It might be said that if we once admitted the principle that representation depended on numbers, we should arrive at electoral districts. No one could be more opposed to that system than he was. His object was to preserve the existing local centres of representation, and so to enlarge them as to lessen the danger of agitation being directed against them. By this means we should get rid of the jealousy which would naturally be felt in neighbouring towns if their inhabitants saw these boroughs in possession of Parliamentary privileges from which they were themselves excluded. Five or six of these places were decreasing in population. In Knaresborough there had been a decrease of 600, in Honiton of 300, and there had also been a decrease in Ashburton, Arundel, and some other boroughs, so that unless the step which he proposed were taken, their declining population would be made an additional argument for their disfranchisement. His plan was to take the existing boroughs as the nucleus and centre of representation, and to enlarge them by the addition of neighbouring towns till the population reached 8,000 or 10,000. His schedule for this purpose would only extend to twelve or thirteen towns, so that his plan would not materially affect the counties. The electors of the counties were becoming the most important part. This was more especially the case since the reduction of the county franchise, which had gone far to assimilate the borough and the county suffrage. There were about 420,000 of the county electors who, by the provisions of the Bill, would be swamped by from 395,000 to 400,000 additional electors, chiefly from tradesmen and shopkeepers in the small towns—the class of which the borough electors were made up. These were not scattered and isolated individuals—they were collected together in the small towns and would doubtless act together, so that they would be more dangerous than the present class of electors. By his plan they would reduce the urban class of the county electors, they would increase the borough representation, and they

  1525
  would get a representation for the small boroughs. There was one other point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. It was proposed to amend the distribution of seats in boroughs, but there was no such proposal of amendment for the counties. Every one knew that, as compared with the North, the South of England was greatly over-represented. But there were great differences between the counties themselves. Take, for instance, the two counties of Hertfordshire and Berkshire. They were about equal in population, 173,000 being the aggregate of either. Berkshire was represented by nine Members:— three for the county; two for Windsor; two for Reading; two for Abingdon and Wallingford, Hertfordshire had but five:—three for the county, and two for the town of Hertford. It was proposed to take one away from Hertford, which would leave this county with only four Members. Yet Hertfordshire was a rapidly increasing county, while Berkshire was decreasing in its population. His proposal was to group Ware along with Hertford. The united towns would contain a population of 11,000, and the population of which would be purely urban, while the county would have its five Members preserved to it. He was far from saying that Berkshire was amongst the most over-represented counties in point of population. The four most over-represented in England were Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, and Sussex. It was nothing more than a solemn mockery that they should return so many Members. Yet this anomaly was to remain. The northern division of Devonshire had a declining population. The southern division had a declining number of electors. Yet Devonshire, with a population of 500,000, was to be represented as before by twenty-two Members. They had disfranchised Totnes, and proposed to take away one Member from Honiton, yet they gave one Member to Torquay and two to the county, so that Devonshire was just where it was before. While Devonshire had twenty-two Members, Middlesex had eighteen. Somerset had a less population than Devon, but it was increasing rapidly, and was not represented in proportion to Devon. Since the Reform Bill of 1832 it had made enormous strides in population and rental, yet it was one of the least represented counties in the South. It had only eleven Members; Dorset had fourteen. They were not legislating for
  1526
  party, nor for the Parliament only, but for the people. The question which would be asked was—were they really in earnest in their schemes for the re-distribution of seats? The first argument would be against these small boroughs. They must have a principle and stick to it. Good as this Bill was, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look at the whole question in a statesmanlike manner. He should look not to the immediate future merely, but to the whole period during which he hoped his settlement of the Reform question would last. The Bill would never last without the adoption of this proposal. There was nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of it. If the principle were sanctioned, the right hon. Gentleman would place it in the hands of the Commissioners, who would carry it out with the utmost impartiality. If it were not accepted, the question would remain open for future agitation. The right hon. Gentleman had a great career before him. He should consider this question boldly and wisely, temperately and practically. He called upon him to deepen the channel, to widen the stream, and to purify its source, while strengthening its banks.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause to add—
  "And every borough enumerated in Schedule A of this Bill shall be so enlarged, either by the addition of neighbouring boroughs or towns, or by an extension of its present boundaries, as to include a population of not less than 10,000 persons."—(Captain Hayter.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the present proposal could not be regarded as a serious piece of legislation. It was nothing more than an abstract Resolution. The discussion of it could only delay unprofitably the progress of the Bill. It stated alternative proposals, but did not propose in any way to carry out one of them. It was not necessary to answer the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he had answered himself several times over. The only object of his proposal appeared to be to endeavour, as far as possible, to preserve that which was unjust and wrong in theory, without any merit whatever. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, by way of remedying an anomaly in our representation, proposed to perpetuate it in another and equally objectionable form. Having admitted that these insignificant places were in danger of being politically extinguished, he desired to prevent their fate

  1527
  by making them a shade less insignificant than they were at present. In confessing that his proposal was not the fruit of a partiality for electoral districts, the hon. Member had cut from beneath him the only ground on which he could have rested his case. It was not desirable to touch these small boroughs, except with the hand of destruction. As the last division showed that they would not be allowed to go further in that direction the best thing they could do was to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go on with the Bill. The present proposal to rehabilitate these boroughs by a slight infusion of fresh life was neither just, reasonable, nor practical.
  MR. YORKEsaid, that the more they progressed with the Bill the stronger became his conviction of the necessity of discussing the principle of it. He was strongly impressed with the importance of the present Amendment. When the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) condemned it as unpractical and untimely, it was only fair for the House to remember that no other opportunity had been afforded to the hon. and gallant Member of bringing it forward. So far as the re-distribution part of the Bill was concerned, its only principle stated was enfranchisement, not disfranchisement. There was nothing in this Amendment inconsistent, but much that was in real harmony with that principle. To hand these boroughs over in their present condition to the tender mercies of a reformed Parliament was to ensure their fate. Inasmuch as new centres of population and commerce had arisen since 1832, it had become expedient to lop small boroughs of their superfluous representation, in order to give Members to these places. The question was, whether the House was prepared to see the small borough representation extinguished. It was generally conceded that the small boroughs fulfilled an important function to the State. If they were to be swept away, was a substitute to be provided for them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the disproportion between the representation of the counties and the boroughs, and had spoken of that anomaly as being partially mitigated by the fact that many of those boroughs represented the landed interests. Was the House prepared largely to increase the county representation, if the small boroughs were extinguished? Such a course would not tend to secure that variety in the representation which was so
  1528
  desirable. That variety might be secured by the proposal of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), founded on Mr. Hare's plan of personal representation. But after the discouraging reception given to that proposal the other night—which he exceedingly regretted—there was little chance of the House adopting it. Again, direct representation might be given to the colonies. These were some of the alternative schemes by means of which they might obtain the advantages now derived from the small boroughs. But if the House would not adopt any of them, and if they wished to preserve the small borough system in any form, then the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Hayter) offered almost the only remaining mode of preserving it. By that proposal those boroughs might receive a status in the country in respect of population. Then there would be some guarantee that they might continue to enjoy their political life. It might be said the proposal was a step towards the principle of electoral districts. But the Bill itself was a partial concession to that principle and to the principle of numbers. Having gone so far, why not go a little further, and at any rate secure some degree of stability to those institutions which they were prepared to sanction and retain? He most favoured that part of the hon. Member's proposal which went to enlarge the boundaries of boroughs so as to include neighbouring districts. That was a better plan than the plan of grouping introduced last year. There were, no doubt, some advantages in grouping. It diminished local influence and tended to stop corruption. But the mode of grouping proposed last year was an absurdity. It seemed as if the places to be grouped had been shaken in a hat. He, himself, was one of the "groupees" of last year, and he would have had to travel five hours by railway, and on three different lines, before he could have made sure of his borough. The present proposal was a sort of corollary from the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing). If they were to take away one Member from all towns not having 10,000 inhabitants, they should then proceed to bring up nil the towns having one Member to that standard. Many hon. Gentlemen had given up almost everything that they had hitherto held sacred in order to effect a settlement of the question. But he was afraid that unless the principle of this proposal were

  1529
  adopted, they would, to a great extent, forfeit the advantages for the sake of which they had that Session made such sacrifices.
  MR. DIMSDALEsaid, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) that the question of re-distribution should be postponed till another year was an admirable one. After their lengthened discussions on the first part of the Bill, they might be hurried into a decision upon its second part which would not redound to the credit of Parliament. The second portion of the measure was the most important one, because they might profess to give the largest possible franchise, and yet convert it into a safe and even a reactionary measure by a careful manipulation of the distribution of seats. The hon. Member for Birmingham had always shown himself alive to this, and on several occasions had stimulated the activity of his audiences to ceaseless watchfulness on this score. The hon. Member had besought them, whenever a Reform Bill was introduced, "never for a single moment to take off their eves from the question of the re-distribution of seats." On another occasion the hon. Gentleman had declared that, unless the arrangements in that respect were satisfactory, the representatives system would continue to be as disgraceful and partial as it had been hitherto. The hon. Gentleman, in a speech made at Birmingham to his constituents, spoke of our system of representation "as a disgraceful fraud, which ought to be put an end to." The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly believe that that which he characterized as a "disgraceful" fraud was converted into a fair and honest representation of the people by the very small measure of redistribution included in the scheme of the Government. He regretted that in laying down the principle, according to which the re-distribution of seats should be regulated, the Government had adopted the arbitrary test of population merely. That principle was not adopted in the Reform Bill of 1832, and he should like it much better if the Government had adhered to the principle then laid down. Those towns which contributed most to the public revenue were towns which ought to be represented. The population of Hertford was 6,769, and the population of Tamworth was 10,192; but Hertford contributed a larger amount—2,382, as against 2,042—than Tamworth to the State, under the different schedules of the income tax. There were two
  1530
  ways of dealing with this matter. The principle of founding representation on population alone might be carried to its fullest extent. In that case either electoral districts would be established—a system not likely to be carried out—or the more gross inequalities of large towns compared with small towns and of counties compared with boroughs must be grappled with. There was a large number of unrepresented towns, not less than 121 in number, having a population exceeding 1,000,000 of persons. The Government Bill would enfranchise twelve of these towns, and leave 109 without representation. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells would enable the House to deal with those unrepresented towns by grouping them with existing boroughs. Take the case of Luton with a population of 16,000—that could only be properly dealt with by grouping. The inequalities between towns and counties was the most remarkable part of the present system. Both in respect to population and property the counties were considerably in excess of the boroughs. And how were they dealt with by the Government? Of all the measures of Reform which had been introduced of late years that of the present Government gave the smallest representation to the counties. With regard to the representation of counties compared with the representation of boroughs, he calculated that contrasting the disfranchisement of small boroughs with the additional representation given to the counties, that the result would be a loss of 12 seats to the agricultural interest under the present Bill. Were the House prepared to strike the small borough element entirely out of the electoral system? If the House did so, there would be only two classes of places represented in Parliament—large populous counties on the one side, and large towns on the other. At present it was very difficult for those who lived in the agricultural districts to contend against the influence of the great towns, and that difficulty would, to some extent, be met by a judicious system of grouping. If it was desirable to maintain the borough element, that could be done by adopting the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells. It would meet the case both of the unrepresented towns and the counties. With respect to the system of grouping, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said he thought it well deserving of the consideration of the House. He preferred the system

  1531
  of grouping to the extension of boundaries. Another question which was raised by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells was to add to the constituencies by increasing their area. If they were going to disfranchise a number of towns because the population was too small, it was only just that the matter should be postponed until after the Report of the Boundary Commission. As to the objection made to the system of grouping, on the ground that it was novel, it had no foundation in fact. It was a system which existed in Wales, in the Northern parts of Scotland, and some parts of England. So far from the expense of elections being greater under its operation, it contrasted favourably in that respect with the opposite system. Now that we were about to pass a scheme of Reform, we should endeavour to secure a fair representation of the whole community. It was not right that places like Ramsgate and Margate, which were thoroughly urban, should be allowed to pervert the character of the county representation. Under this Bill Luton would virtually return the Members for Bedfordshire, Leamington, those for the southern division of Warwickshire, Ware, Hitchin, and St. Albans, those for the county of Hertford. The system of grouping while it was calculated to operate advantageously in that point of view, would also have the effect of providing for the representation of minorities. Large minorities ought to be represented, and that object might be attained by augmenting the constituencies at present returning two Members. For those reasons he was prepared to give to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells his cordial support. His objection to the present scheme was that it would vest in the towns of England, not a mere predominance, but a monopoly of electoral power, and that it would make that power the patrimony of a class, when, by means of wiser legislation, it might be made the inheritance of a people. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells, and for every subsequent Amendment hereafter to be introduced which would tend to modify the inequalities, the anomalies, the injustice to classes which deformed and disfigured the Government scheme of re-distribution, more in many respects than any of its predecessors—a scheme which would tend in the towns of England not to the mere predominance, but the monopoly of electoral
  1532
  power, which would make that power the patrimony of a class, when by wise legislation it might be made the inheritance of a whole people. In a word, the Ministerial proposals will disturb and upset the present relations of political power, without holding out the faintest principle of a permanent and enduring settlement of the much vexed and long agitated question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the exact position in which we now stand. We are on the 9th clause. That clause, which relates to boroughs returning one Member only, has received in principle the entire assent of the Committee. Next comes Clause 10, which has reference to the appropriation of seats. I am anxious to explain the position in which the Government find themselves in connection with that clause and the vote of Friday last. By that vote a considerable number of seats was, with the general assent of the Committee, added to those which we propose to appropriate by the present measure. With the general consent and concurrence of the House it was suggested that the scheme for the redistribution of those seats should be in-trusted for preparation to the Government. It was not until to-night that the Government could be in possession of the definite Resolution of the Committee on the subject. It was one of importance, requiring great consideration. I wish to say, on the part of the Government, that one of the effects of the vote of Friday night, which increases the area from which to collect the seats for distribution, is that the previous scheme which they presented to the House must be subject to re-consideration. We shall have to consider how to distribute forty-five seats instead of thirty, as originally contemplated. That will require great consideration, and cannot be placed before the Committee until the new schedules have been properly prepared, so that it may be brought forward in a finished state befitting its importance. What, therefore, I propose is to pass the 9th clause. Then I should move to report Progress, and not ask the Committee to sit again until they have had an opportunity of considering the proposal of the Government. No further discussion can take place until we meet again after the impending holydays, when we shall come to a consideration of the subject with a full knowledge of the details. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's Amendments to the 9th clause, they

  1533
  have been placed before the Committee in that interesting manner and with that vivacity which at all times characterize his addresses, and which cause them to be listened to with pleasure. I should, however, say that I thought his speech adapted more for a great occasion than the details of the clause before the Committee. It was rather a project for a new Reform Bill, and for the re-distribution of seats on a larger scale and on an entirely new principle. The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, though most interesting to listen to, had little reference to the Amendments he has placed on the table. They refer to two points. First, that the area of small boroughs in Schedule A be extended so as to include a population of not less than 10,000 persons; and secondly, he suggests an alternative scheme, that they shall be so enlarged either by the addition of neighbouring towns or by the extension of their present boundaries. I think that the criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was just, when he said that we ought not to have in Committee an alternative proposal to adopt. The first proposal is, in fact, a grouping of unrepresented with represented towns. If I, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, had made such a proposal, it would have been met with indignant exclamations, that we were wishing to deprive the counties of the best part of their population, that we were draining the counties of the urban population. That, therefore, is impracticable. The effect of the alternative proposal would be to very much change the character of the county representation. It would be impossible to say without further information what impression it would have on the counties. It would be most unbusinesslike to agree to an indefinite derangement of boundaries of counties, and thereby upset all the calculations which have been prepared, and on which we were proceeding, with regard to population. I cannot say that I think the re-organization of our constituencies, which I do not despair of, will be much strengthened by making these small rural extensions around these small boroughs. A great deal has been said in favour of the existence of these small towns. They may play a very important and useful part in our Constitutional system, but I do not think that their importance or value will be increased by enlarging their boundaries so as to take in one or more parishes. The arrangement
  1534
  would lead to great disturbance, and not attain the end which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes. I cannot, therefore, sanction the Amendment, even if it were placed before us in a form that would allow of its being put from the Chair with any definite result. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say that he has not been supported in the debate, especially by the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and Hertford (Mr. Yorke and Mr. Dimsdale). The subject has been treated in every light, and the cumulative knowledge of several Sessions has been brought with great effect to bear upon it. I think I am not misinterpreting the opinion of the Committee when I state that they cannot sanction the Amendment. I cannot support it. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press it, in which case I will ask the Committee to report Progress.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have taken a more judicious course than to move the adjournment. He wished, however, to know, under the circumstances, whether in the meantime the new system of meeting at two o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays would be persevered in or not. He hoped that the Government, in re-considering their scheme of re-distribution, would not lose sight of the counties. As in the general scramble for the good things of the earth, those who asked for nothing would get nothing, he now put in a special claim for North Staffordshire, a county with which he was both personally and politically connected. After Wednesbury was cut off South Staffordshire, a division to which the Government proposed to give two additional Members, would only have 169,000 inhabitants, to North Staffordshire with 162,000, which was not to receive any addition. His Amendment to Schedule D was to divide North Staffordshire into two divisions, the western one comprising the manufacturing, and the eastern the agricultural portion.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at an earlier period of the evening, had said that counties had not their due share of the representation, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that it was from boroughs the seats were being taken. In the re-distribution of those seats they ought to think of those boroughs which had no representation. There were many rising towns which had no representation at all. Keighley, for instance, in the Census of

  1535
  1861, had a population of 40,000. It now contained 50,000 inhabitants, and returned no Member to Parliament. The Government, in carrying out their scheme, ought not to place the counties before such boroughs as that. He preferred making this suggestion beforehand to finding fault with their scheme after it was brought forward.
  COLONEL DYOTTsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment referred to the question of boundaries. Far from undervaluing that question, he (Colonel Dyott) thought it was the most important part of the question they now had to settle. He did not think it could be settled satisfactorily in the way proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The enlargement of the small boroughs so as to take in a wider area of country was the least likely way of bringing the question to a satisfactory settlement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained of an undue representation in the county of Devon. That was the very effect he would bring about by continuing the practice of enlarging the area of small boroughs. It was that more than anything else which had led to the undue representation of Devonshire. The case of Tavistock was an instance. Previous to the Reform Act of 1832, Tavistock had an area of only half a square mile. In 1832 it was enlarged to seventeen square miles or more. If that enlargement had not taken place the county of Devon would have had a less representation that it now possessed. The borough of Tamworth, in like manner, previous to 1832 had an area of three-tenths of a square mile in extent. For the sake of increasing the population so as to save the borough from being inserted in the schedule of the Reform Bill, the area was enlarged by the addition of various small villages and hamlets in the neighbourhood, so that the population within the Parliamentary boundary was now just over 10,000. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment dealt with all the towns contained in Schedule A of the present Bill. The city which he (Colonel Dyott) represented (Lichfield) was contained in that list. Lichfield was to be left with only one Member, while Tamworth was to have two. He would like to know on what principle that was to be done, except on the question of the number of population. The boundaries of the city of Lichfield had never been altered. If they had been dealt with in the same way as the boundaries of Tamworth, so as to take in
  1536
  all the hamlets and villages in the parish, Lichfield would now have been in the same position as Tamworth, or in a much better position, with regard to population. He did not wish to complain of Lichfield being allowed to have only one Member. He knew there were many other places of much larger population, even in the county of Stafford, which were not represented at all. But there should be some sort of justice in meting out the amount of representation to be given to one borough in comparison with another. He trusted the Boundary Commissioners in their labours would not only carry in their minds the propriety of enlarging small borough boundaries, where these at present were inadequate, but also of contracting others which had been artificially enlarged. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells had done the ancient city of Lichfield the honour of classing it among the twelve boroughs which, under one or other of the lists which he had framed, were to sink into the condition of pocket boroughs. Knowing nothing of the borough of Wells, he would not venture to dispute with the hon. and gallant Gentleman anything he might venture to assert regarding that constituency. But claiming to know something of the city of Lichfield, he maintained that among its constituency, small though it might be, there was independence sufficient to prevent it from ever sinking into the condition of a pocket borough held in the interest of either party.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells contained a very valuable principle, which he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not recede from. But the Motion in its present form was hardly a fit subject for legislative discussion. The figure of 10,000, moreover, was hardly suited to their present expanded views of representation. He therefore hoped he would not divide the Committee upon it, but that he would afterwards introduce clauses with the object of carrying out his views in connection with that portion of the Bill containing instructions to the Inclosure Commissioners to which they were immediately related.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated that Her Majesty's Government would take the whole I question of the re-distribution of seats into their consideration during the Whitsuntide recess, he thought this a favourable opportunity to urge upon the Government to

  1537
  give Scotland more than the seven Members at present proposed. The hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) scorned to think that the people of Scotland had no right to interfere in any question of this kind, but the learned Gentleman was mistaken. He should look a little more closely at the Articles of Union, and, above all, at the Minutes of the Commissioners who framed the Treaty of Union. He would then see what the conditions of that Union were, and what was in the Act of Parliament which carried them into effect. If he would take the trouble to look at those Minutes he would find such words as these:—"parts of the Kingdom now called England," and "parts now called Scotland." These phrases occurred constantly, indicating that the names of England and Scotland were never more to be heard of as separate parts after the passing of the Act of Parliament. Accordingly, Great Britain, and, at a later period, Great Britain and Ireland ever afterwards appeared, Scotland was an integral part of the United Kingdom. If three or four Members were to be taken from Devonshire and given to counties on this side of the Tweed, by what rule could they refuse to grant extra Members to counties on the oilier side of the Tweed? The people of Scotland had the same right to have some of the spare seats given to them as the counties of; Northumberland, Yorkshire, or any other part of England. Gentlemen forgot that Northumberland and Durham were once part of Scotland. The splendid cathedral of Durham was built by a Scotch king. These counties were afterwards acquired by England by conquest or treaty, and why were they to be put in a better position than the other parts of Scotland, which were not so acquired, but which voluntarily entered into the Union as an independent Kingdom, on terms ratified by Acts of Parliament passed by both countries? It was a principle of our Constitution that taxation and representation should go together. The people of Scotland complained that that principle was violated, and that in their case: taxation and representation did not go together. The people of Scotland paid one-seventh of the taxation as compared with the people of England, and they had nothing like one-seventh part of the representation. It was an act of common justice that the number of Members should be largely increased in Scotland. There were two Returns which showed that, whether
  1538
  taken by population or by taxation, Scotland was entitled to twenty-five additional Members. It was most unjust, when forty seats were to be set free for distribution in England, only seven seats were to be given to Scotland. But supposing the number of seven to be correct, the distribution of them was most objectionable. It gave the counties in Scotland far more Members than the boroughs; and it proposed to give one-thirtieth part of the entire representation of Scotland to the Universities. Anything more monstrous could not be proposed. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the Government would re-consider this question of the re-distribution of seals respecting Scotland, with a view to that country obtaining her fair and legitimate share of representation.
  MR. R. B. HARVEYsaid, he thought it well to retain small boroughs. Their representatives came unpledged and open to persuasion. Their constituencies were the link between county and ordinary borough constituencies. They formed the machinery for supplying the cities with the produce of the country, and joined the agricultural and commercial interests.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Wells would exercise a sound discretion in reference to the advancement of the principle he had in view if he acted upon the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and withdrew his Amendment. He understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to be that Her Majesty's Government, recognising the wish of the House as conveyed so unmistakably in the vote of Friday night, were prepared to accept as a basis the figures established by that vote. They consequently wished to re-consider the whole question of re-distribution, and to frame their schedules accordingly. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was much more likely to lead to a satisfactory result than any discussion upon Amendments of private Members. There would be quite time enough after the Whitsuntide recess, if the provisions to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not deemed satisfactory, for the Committee to deal with them in any way they might deem necessary. The question of grouping was one of such difficulty as to render it scarcely possible for an independent Member to deal with it. By what they knew of the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they could hardly suppose

  1539
  he would leave county Members in the lurch. It was manifest that if a system of due representation was to be obtained, the principle of grouping must be dealt with by the Government. He hoped the Committee would exercise a wise discretion and allow the Chairman to report Progress. It would then be desirable to utilise the morning sitting to-morrow by considering the question of the voting papers. What would, perhaps, be a better arrangement still would be for the Government to postpone those morning sittings until they were prepared to resume the consideration of this re-distribution question after the recess.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that having been somewhat personally alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Colonel Dyott) in connection with the boundary question, he ventured to say a few words. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave some good advice to the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Captain Hayter) when he told him that however well he know Wells, he did not know Lich-field as well as he did. He (Viscount Galway) would tell the hon. find gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dyott) that however well he knew Lichfield, he did not know Retford and the hundred of Bassetlaw as well as he did. The House had not heard much of Retford lately. Everyone knew before the Reform Bill that Retferd was so corrupt that it was said that if its Members had been taken away from it and given to Birmingham or any other populous place, there would probably have been no Reform Bill. Although it was said that if the borough of Retford should be opened it would fall into the hands of the landowners, since it had been thrown open and the hundred of Bassetlaw included in it, a purer constituency did not exist. He might feel proud at representing it, inasmuch as during the twenty years he had had that honour he had never been exposed to a contest for his seat. He thought the enlargement of the borough constituencies generally was the best principle for the Government to proceed upon for purifying the constituencies.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he trusted the Government would not propose any system of grouping such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), who had selected towns arbitrarily. The system of grouping should be applied, if at all, to all boroughs similarly circumstanced.
  CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed
  1540
  himself as not averse to grouping, he would postpone his Amendment until the schedules came on for discussion. He therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dyott), he would break up the representation of South Devon, by merging some small boroughs in the county, if they were unwilling to be grouped, and thus practically abolish them. He concurred in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) that grouping should be carried out on a uniform plan.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the withdrawal of an Amendment, the discussion of which had occupied the whole evening. The Committee was to hear of it again. At that rate, they would never get through the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member must not withdraw his Amendment on the supposition that the Government had acceded to its principle. He did not understand that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was at that moment absent, had at all pledged himself to adopt the course suggested. The Government must be left an entire discretion to deal with the question as they might think proper. The Committee was prepared to come to a decision on the question before it. It was satisfied of the inexpediency of attaching an abstract Resolution to a clause, and leaving it to be carried out in detail afterwards. It would be a course attended with difficulties, if not with impossibilities. He wished that the union between England and Scotland was more complete. But the claims of Scotland, which had been considered by the Government, hardly came into question in the clause under discussion. With respect to morning sittings, there was a very important Bill which had been before the House one or two years—namely, the Bankruptcy Bill. He hoped the House would consider it at a morning sitting to-morrow (Tuesday). It was not proposed to have a morning sitting on Friday.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would appeal to the Government to consider the claims of Cornwall. Counties with less population had three Members.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he would not propose the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, as the Government were about to introduce a new scheme. Comparing population and property in

  1541
  Scotland, the English counties, and Ireland, the latter country was greatly over-represented.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that not desiring to obstruct the Government, who deserved every support, he would not now propose the Amendment of which he had given notice, but would reserve his right to do so at a future stage of the Bill. His proposal with respect to the single vote had been much misunderstood.
  Amendments moved.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENrose to record his protest against the inefficient measure of re-distribution before the Committee. They were passing an extensive measure of enfranchisement and coupling it with a measure which would have scarcely any effect upon the constituencies. He had gone carefully into statistics, and he was satisfied the scheme did not contain the elements of permanence. Any measure of re-distribution which did not place at the disposal of the Government eighty or ninety seats would not be satisfactory to the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no reason, according to the forms of the House, why the hon. Gentleman should not now favour us with his views upon the question of distribution and re-distribution. Owing to the holy-days, and other causes, some little time must necessarily elapse before the Government can submit their proposals to the Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Bankruptcy Bill not coming on, the hon. Gentleman, as we are desirous of obtaining every information, will not lose this happy opportunity, and that we shall be allowed to profit by the statement of his opinions. The hon. Gentleman should be no mean authority, for he was a Member of the late Government. At the same time, I am somewhat astonished at the large view which he takes of this subject. He says that eighty or ninety seats should be put at the disposal of the Government. Now, without that due sense of responsibility which is so awkward an incumbrance to human nature, it would be just as easy to propose that 180 or 190 seats should be dealt with. Very plausible reasons might, no doubt, be urged in favour of such a proposal—at least, at this period of
  1542
  the evening. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will favour us with his views. I have no doubt the Committee will listen to them with the greatest consideration, and we shall avail ourselves to the utmost of any happy suggestions he may make.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENcould not resist the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose courtesy and kindness in the transaction of the business of the House would at any time encourage him to trespass upon his forbearance. He had been unwilling to trouble the Committee with any remarks further than those which were necessary to place upon record his opinion of the insufficiency of the proposed number of seats to be re-distributed, because, after the recent decisions of the Committee, those remarks could have no immediate practical result. The Committee having decided on Friday to take one Member from boroughs with a population below 10,000, and to-night having refused to disfranchise boroughs with a population below 5,000, the forms of the House prevented him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) from moving as an Amendment that larger measure of disfranchisement which he thought necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted him with having stated that it was necessary to place eighty or ninety-seats at the disposal of the Government for re-distribution, and said that he might as well have given 180 or 190. But he had not made the statement without having fully considered the subject, and he repeated the proposition. What were the two great reasons urged in favour of the necessity of a Reform Bill? First, the exclusion from the franchise of large numbers of persons who ought to possess it; and second, the unequal distribution of electoral power. Now, so far as the first reason was affected by the Bill, the House appeared to be about to agree to a measure so liberal and so extensive as to have been termed, even by advanced Reformers, "a revolution." If, then, with such a measure yon coupled a scheme of re-distribution, which would have little, if any, perceptible effect upon the constituencies, how could you possibly hope that the element of permanence would attach to your measure? It would be like yoking in the same carriage an elephant and a Shetland pony, and expecting them to travel well and evenly. The Government were about

  1543
  to bring the franchise of county and borough near together; there would be household rating suffrage in the boroughs, and £12 rating in the counties. The agitation which they had to apprehend was an agitation in favour of a uniform suffrage and electoral districts. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was no friend to agitation. He belonged to the same class as many hon. Gentlemen opposite—the class of country Gentlemen—who had the other night been designated by the hon. Member for Nottingham by an epithet which might be Parliamentary, but was certainly not polite. Well, agitation was not the trade of country Gentlemen. But if they desired to avoid it, they must deal with the question of re-distribution in a liberal and comprehensive spirit. It was absolutely essential that the most glaring anomalies of the present system should be removed. What was the most glaring anomaly of all? That small populations in certain localities had an electoral power equal to, or greater than, much larger populations elsewhere. Now how was this to be remedied? If the question was urged upon population alone there would be no solution short of equal electoral districts. But that would be only an imperfect solution. If you had such districts to-morrow, what would happen? That ever-varying circumstances of trade—the shifting of population—the development of the resources of one district, and perhaps the exhaustion of another; these and other causes would create a constant change, and in a very few years the symmetry of your system would be destroyed, and the advantages you might have gained would prove but temporary. But he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) maintained that not only population but interests had been and must be regarded in this question of re-distribution. Was Manchester represented only by her two Members? Let her interests, or the interests of any other large seat of industry be attacked, and champions would spring up all round. But population must not be ignored, and to have Manchester with the same amount of representation as a small borough was an anomaly which could not last. The claims of these large towns must be considered—but he had always contended that a population of 100,000 or 150,000, whose claims were held valid if gathered together within two or three square miles, were not to be disregarded as if they occupied an area of twenty or thirty square miles. He therefore entirely
  1544
  agreed that justice must be dealt out to the counties as well as to the boroughs. He had gone deeply into the question, and had prepared a scheme by which the distribution of some eighty seats would, in his opinion, have removed the greatest incongruities of the system—that Lancashire should return Members, each of whom represented some 90,000 of population—Kent, Members who represented each 41,000; Berks, Members in the proportion of 1 to 25,200; and Bucks, 1 to each 15,300 of population. These were anomalies which required correction. He would not have troubled the Committee but for the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must be responsible for his having done so, and he could only hope that before the Bill became law it might have engrafted upon it a more adequate scheme of re-distribution.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish to ask the Government whether it would not be convenient for the House to have this Bill re-printed by the time that the House will meet again after Whitsuntide. A good deal that is now in the Bill will have to be left out. Perhaps, also, the new schedules might be printed along with it, so that the House might come with greater ease to comprehend how the matter now stands.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So far as we have at present proceeded, the Bill has, I believe, already been re-printed. The hon. Gentleman has probably not seen it. I must remind him that it is not in the power of the House to order a Bill in progress to be re-printed. It depends entirely on the kindness of Mr. Speaker. It is only under extraordinary circumstances that the Speaker exercises his prerogative in that respect. With regard to another point—as to the course we intend to pursue—it is necessary that the plans of the Government should be in the hands of the House for some days before they are asked to decide upon them. Therefore, the course which I contemplate pursuing is this. I propose that we adjourn for the holydays on Friday, and that we meet again on the following Thursday. But I do not intend to open the Committee on this Bill except pro formâ on Thursday week. I would put the Committee first on the Paper for that day, in order that I may reserve to the Government the opportunity of making any statement or placing any Amendments on the table, so that the Committee may be in a position to decide upon them on the Monday following. I

  1545
  propose to take Supply on Thursday week; but, practically, we shall not go into any consideration of the Reform Bill until this day fortnight. Hon. Members having been previously put in possession of the proposals of the Government, will be able, I trust, to go at once into the merits of the question, re-invigorated by our recess. I count with great confidence on both sides of the House assisting me in conducting business on this subject with the necessary spirit. To-morrow I hope the House will agree to a morning sitting on the Bankruptcy Bill, which is a matter of great importance. I understand that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House are anxious to proceed with it. I would not this week trouble the House to have a morning sitting on next Friday. But on Thursday week we shall go into the Army Estimates, and if we adjourn on Friday and meet again on Thursday, I would have my notices placed on the Paper that the House may have an opportunity of facilitating the progress of business on Monday week.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would place on the table the Government proposals dealing with the seats which would become available in consequence of the adoption of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wick. It was quite true that the Bill, so far as it had arrived last week, had been re-printed; but bethought it would be desirable to have it re-printed to the point at which the Committee would leave off that evening.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that he would suggest that the whole Bill should be re-printed and delivered to Members, who would thus be relieved from the perplexity occasioned by the constant delivery of series of fragmentary papers. He would suggest, moreover, the employment of a larger type, as was done in the House of Lords, or of red ink, by way of distinguishing the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought it desirable that the Government should place upon the table of the House the interpretation clause which had been promised especially with respect to the words "dwelling house."
  MR. DENMANsaid, that the same observation would apply to the words "demanding payment of rates."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in one case the clause had actually
  1546
  been on the Paper for a day or two, and in the other the clause was ready, and should be placed upon the table immediately.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would confer with the Speaker as to the reprinting of the Bill. He must, however, correct an erroneous opinion into which the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) appeared to have fallen. What he had said was that the proposal of the Government should be in the hands of hon. Members in ample time before they were called upon to decide upon them. If placed on the table on the Thursday on which they re-assembled, and a decision asked on the following Monday, that would probably be satisfactory.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYsaid, he wished to know if the House would meet on Friday at four o'clock?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he wanted to know when the Irish Reform Bill would be brought in.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was intended to bring it in as soon after the holydays as convenient.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state when.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would not be on Thursday, and probably not on the Monday following. After that he hoped to be able to appoint it for some day convenient to the hon. Member.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished; to know if the House would be furnished with the names of the Boundary Commissioners by Thursday week?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that the names will be furnished in due time, and that answer I must repeat.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would be glad to learn if the Irish Reform Bill would be brought forward before the English Reform Bill was read a third time?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The event to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is one to which I look forward with some degree of satisfaction. But it is my intention to bring the Irish Reform Bill forward even at the risk of deferring that pleasure.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought

  1547
  it was but reasonable for the information of the House that his request as regarded the Boundary Commissioners should be acceded to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I never said that the hon. Gentleman did anything unreasonable in asking this question. I only gave him what I thought a reasonable answer. I must impress upon the Committee that if there be anything important in the business it is the formation of this Commission. It is absolutely necessary that it should command the entire confidence of the House of Commons. We have to choose five gentlemen who, from their high character and from their accomplishments, will command universal respect, and whose position in life will enable them to give the necessary time to the duties they will be called on to perform. There are many other considerations, too, upon which it is not necessary to enter. The task of such a selection as ought to be made is not easy of accomplishment. To choose hastily four or five persons, very respectable people, but whose names might be opened to objections, would be very easy. We wish to propose to the Committee names which will be entirely satisfactory. All I can say is that the names shall be offered to the Committee in due time—that is to say, long before the Commissioners can enter upon their duties, and when the House of Commons shall be able to consider our recommendations and to deal practically with them.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he wished to put a question relative to the Turnpike Trusts Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it could not be put at that time.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 13th June.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions [May 31] reported.
MR. HUNTsaid, he moved to strike out the proviso appended at the instance of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) to the Vote for the new building to be erected at the back of Burlington House
1548
for the London University—namely, that no part of the money should be expended in carrying out either of the plans which had been exhibited in the Library. The hon. Member had agreed to the Motion.
Proviso struck out; Report agreed to.

SUPPLY.

  LINEN AND OTHER MANUFACTURES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Linen, Hempen, and other manufactures in Ireland.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. LANYON and Mr. GETTY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 183.]

  REAL ESTATE CHARGES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOCKE KING, Bill to explain and extend the operation of an Act passed in the seventeenth and eighteenth years of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and thirteen, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Administration of deceased persons," ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING, Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, and Mr. HEADLAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

  PAWNBROKING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law for regulating the Hours of receiving and delivering goods and chattels as pawns in Pawnbrokers' Shops.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. O'BEIRNE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STACPOOLE, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth Victoria, chapter fifty, for regulating the keeping of Dogs, and for the protection of Sheep and other property from Dogs in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STACPOOLE, Mr. LAWSON, and Mr. O'BEIRNE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bunhill fields Burial Ground (105); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (119).
Committee — Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* (85 & 128); Army Enlistment (112).
Report—Increase of the Episcopate (118 & 129).
Third Reading—Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* (104); British Spirits* (103); Statute Law Revision* (106) and passed.

THE KNIGHTSBRIDGE CAVALRY BARRACKS.—QUESTION.
LORD REDESDALEasked, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have the Cavalry Barracks at Knightsbridge pulled down; and in that event, whether those persons who were to benefit by the removal of the Barracks were to find a site and build other barracks at their own expense? He was induced to bring the subject forward in consequence of his having seen in the newspapers, and heard from other sources, that a great agitation was being raised by persons connected with property facing or adjoining the barracks, with the object of getting them pulled down. He had been informed by persons who were well acquainted with the subject that these were extremely good Barracks, and that their situation was the best that could be found for them in the metropolis for the services which the regiment quartered there, being the Household Troops of Her Majesty, were called upon to perform. They were also most conveniently placed for giving assistance to the civil authorities should the necessity unhappily arise. It had been reported that the Barracks were unhealthy—but he had heard from officers who had been quartered there the strongest authority of their remarkable healthiness. In fact, they were more healthy than the Regent's Park and Windsor Barracks. It was objected that these Barracks were unhealthy because a considerable portion of the soldiers' living-rooms were over the stables; but many of their Lordships' grooms and servants lived over stables and they did not complain of anything injurious. The only other objection was that the hospital was not so good as it might be; but that might be easily remedied. It would be going too far to say that any barracks built in former days were perfect with regard to all their arrangements—indeed, he believed it was doubtful whether the new model Chelsea Barracks, which had been recently erected at a great expense, were perfect in regard to ventilation and other matters. It was evident that this was a movement originating with persons who were interested in the property in the district, and who desired the removal of the Barracks with a view of improving their property at the public expense; and he thought that the persons who were agitating for the removal might fairly be called upon to provide another site and erect

1471
barracks at their own cost. When he asked a short time ago when the new Government offices were to be proceeded with, he was told that the money was not forthcoming for that most important object, and to remove these Barracks at the public expense — and he supposed it would cost £150,000 to find a new site and rebuild the Barracks—would, under such circumstances, be a most wanton expenditure of public money. The present site was a very good one, and he doubted if another so advantageous for the Household Troops could be obtained. The removal of the Barracks would be most unfair to those who used them, and would be followed with the greatest inconvenience. He hoped there was no intention on the part of the Government to accede to the request of interested parties.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he should not be doing his duty if he did not express his opinion upon this matter, as he knew of no barracks in the country as good as those at Knightsbridge. He was glad to see the noble Earl the late Secretary for War (Earl De Grey and Ripon) in his place, as he had not the pleasure of listening to him when on a former occasion he had expressed himself so forcibly upon the subject. The noble Earl was reported to have said that the Barracks were so hopelessly bad that it was impossible to do anything in the shape of improving them, and that it was so unhealthy that it would admit of no sanitary alteration whatever of worth. But he (the Earl of Lucan) found that the Household Troops occupied these Barracks alternately with the Windsor and Regent's Park Barracks, and he had in his hand a statement to show that the Knightsbridge was the most healthy of the three. On what, then, did the noble Earl found his very bad opinion of the Knightsbridge Barracks? It could not be on insufficient space, because the men had on an average 700 cubic feet of air each; it was true the stables were only ten feet high, and perhaps it would be better if they were twelve; but how many of their Lordships had stables not more than ten feet high? He had known the Barracks many years, and had never heard of any serious sickness among the horses there. He challenged any noble Lord to produce a case of sickness among the horses. Doctors were known to be very fastidious; but the surgeons of his own regiments had expressed their surprise at the spaciousness of the Knightsbridge Barrack
1472
Hospital; the wards were no less than sixteen feet or eighteen feet high, and the only objection he had heard to the wards was that the windows were too high and prevented the sick from looking out. He therefore could not understand how it could be said that these Barracks were so hopelessly bad that they should be pulled down at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000. He did not exaggerate in making that estimate; the Chelsea Infantry Barracks, which would not hold 1,000 men, without officers, had cost the country nearly £200,000. [The Duke of CAMBRIDGE: £250,000.] He preferred being within the estimate, but would say £250,000. Could it be seriously intended wantonly to pull down Barracks which occupied the best possible site in a military point of view? However ill - disposed the late noble Secretary for War might be towards these Barracks, they would certainly survive him if left to time. No doubt there was a great outcry raised against the Barracks by persons in the neighbourhood; he held in his hands a petition addressed to a Secretary for War urging their removal; but the petition contained no allegation which was not false, and he believed its promoters had not only gone to every house in the neighbourhood but had gone every day in the week until they had extorted a signature. The petitioners asserted that the Barracks had been condemned by successive Secretaries of State; but he (the Earl of Lucan) could not endorse that assertion:—they said that the neighbourhood was infested with disorderly characters, and might be likened to the Haymarket; now, he had taken the trouble to make the comparison, and in his opinion there could not be a greater mistake. The petitioners also "respectfully referred to the statement made by Earl De Grey" that no barracks in the United Kingdom were as bad as those at Knightsbridge.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONasked, whether the noble Earl would be good enough to tell him when he made that statement.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he was glad to hear the noble Earl ask that question, because he had already expressed the opinion that every statement in the petition was false; no doubt the statement had been put in the noble Earl's mouth; but every one knew it was untrue. The noble Earl was further stated in the petition to have said that

1473
it had long been the wish of successive Secretaries of State for War to remove these Barracks and to build others more suitable to the requirements of the troops and with all the modern improvements. He was therefore happy to find that the noble Earl had made no such statement. He believed the Barracks were at the present time in a most healthy state and required scarcely any sanitary improvements—certainly not more than £ 100 or thereabouts would pay for. He was under the impression that there was some speculative builder ready to buy the property, and that the outcry against the Barracks had been raised by persons who might make a good thing out of it. The Barracks did not, he believed, cover more than three or three-and-a-half acres, and, supposing the land were to revert to the Crown to-morrow, what would be done with it? Would they lay it out in buildings? In his opinion, houses erected on that site would be as great a nuisance as the Barracks themselves were supposed to be. On those grounds he felt strongly opposed to the views of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDbelieved there was no intention on the part of the military authorities to surrender the Barracks at Knightsbridge. The subject had been mooted more than once, and the only approach to any idea of that kind might, perhaps, have arisen from the fact that the War Office had intimated to those who petitioned for their removal their willingness to accede to the request, provided barracks equally commodious and a site equally convenient were furnished without any expense to the War Office. That amounted, therefore, practically to a fixity of tenure; because it would be impossible to find a site equally convenient, and there were no funds available even if such could be found. With regard to the memorial, he certainly had seen the document to which the noble Earl had referred, though it had not officially come under the notice of the War Office; but its arguments had, he thought, been disposed of by the noble Earl. The remedy for the state of things complained of was in the hands of the inhabitants themselves, for it was quite in their power to proceed against the disorderly houses in the neighbourhood instead of proceeding against the Barracks, which were not disorderly. It was, no doubt, desirable to improve the approaches to the South Kensington Museum and the new Hall of Arts and
1474
Sciences; but still there were some persons so stolid as to think that Cavalry Barracks were quite as ornamental as a Hall of Arts and Sciences. No doubt, by the removal of some of the houses at Knightsbridge a great improvement might be effected; but the cost would be immense, and he very much doubted whether that or any future Parliament would consent to the large expenditure of public money that would be required for such a purpose.
LORD DE ROS, having attended the annual inspection of these Barracks for eighteen years while employed on the Cavalry Staff, did not hesitate to assert that they had always been considered one of the best Cavalry Barracks in England. The Inspection Returns, if referred to, would also show them to have been peculiarly healthy both as to the men and the horses. He thought that barrack improvements had in some instances been carried to a most absurd extent. The Barracks at Chelsea, for instance, were a standing reproach to the country, the architecture was of such a character that it was almost impossible to pass them without laughing, while they were so ventilated that the inmates were at times almost blown out of their beds. It so happens that pocket-handkerchiefs are no part of the equipment of the British soldier, which seemed to bear hard upon men placed in positions so peculiarly favourable to catching colds. Several supposed improvements had also been made at the barracks at Windsor, where, among other things, three or four warm baths had recently been erected. These baths had only one objection, and that was that no provision was made for warming the water—so that the men in using them either had to sit in empty baths or to confine their ablutions to cold water. He did not think the Secretary for War of the last Administration (Earl dc Grey and Ripon)—whom he regarded as a very able administrator—was to blame for these matters. The fault was probably attributable to certain gentlemen in the War Office, who were rather fertile in the invention of new schemes and plans, without much practical knowledge of the habits and requirements of the soldier. He might add that, with regard to the Barracks at Knightsbridge, every Report presented by Inspecting Generals of the Cavalry had referred to them in favourable terms, while the charges of misconduct alleged against

1475
their occupants were as unfounded as the abuse of the Barracks, since the records of the regiments of Household Cavalry sufficiently prove the remarkable good conduct and sobriety of the men of those distinguished regiments.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I wish, my Lords, to say a few words before this discussion closes, it having been asserted that the opinion of my noble Friend (the late Secretary of State for War) was that the Barracks are so bad and so inefficient that they ought to be pulled down. The question certainly was discussed; but I was quite surprised at hearing that statement, because my memory, which is by no means a bad one, will not justify me in coming to such a conclusion. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the public have complained about the appearance of the Barracks; and it was upon that fact that the idea of their removal was originally founded. But when we came to look into the subject we found that the Barracks were thoroughly good, though undoubtedly capable of some improvement; and even at the present moment some portions of them are not quite such as the)' ought to be. These, however, are questions which ought to be attended to, and no doubt they would have received that attention on the part of the military authorities before now but for the desire that has been expressed in some quarters for the entire removal of the buildings. A few days ago I went over the Barracks with a view to seeing what improvements were necessary, and, with the exception of certain repairs and alterations, there can, I think, be no doubt that the Barracks are very good and efficient. Still, however, it must be admitted that their appearance from without is a little objectionable in an artistic point of view. In the present day that portion of the Park in which they are situated is much frequented by carriages, whose occupants can find in the appearance of the Barracks no very pleasant prospect. That, however, may be remedied by a small expenditure of money. In a military point of view the Barracks are among the best in the metropolis. London, too, has of late years, grown so much that it is very important the soldiers, as well as the public, should have some open space for exercise, and Hyde Park is one of the few spaces at present at their service. I wish, also, to add, with reference to the conduct of the troops, that I have felt it my duty to make very close inquiries
1476
on the subject, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that no body of soldiers have behaved themselves better than the Household Cavalry (the two regiments of Life Guards and the Horse Guards Blues). When, therefore, the removal of the Barracks is sought to be effected on the ground that the troops do not behave well, the charge is one which I must repudiate. I quite agree with the noble Earl who has remarked that these Barracks are the healthiest in the metropolis. I do not, however, quite agree with my noble Friend (Lord de Ros), who has expressed an opinion so unfavourable to sanitary improvements, for they have certainly tended much to the comfort and general health of the troops. All these matters—such as lavatories and other things—though small matters in themselves, tend to create a feeling of respectability in the men. I cannot concur, therefore, in the opinion that the Knights-bridge Barracks ought to be removed.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no recollection of having spoken on this subject in the terms set forth. Nothing could be more unlikely than that he should at any time have used the strong language referred to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Lucan), because if he had thought that the Knightsbridge Barracks were the worst in England, he should, in the pursuance of his duty, have recommended Parliament to take steps for their improvement or removal. At the same time, it should be recollected that the construction of the Barracks had been complained of as being very faulty in a sanitary point of view. That was the opinion of the Barrack Hospital Commission presided over by the late Lord Herbert. The question of their removal was considered by the late Lord Herbert, the late Sir George Lewis, and himself; and though reasons were urged for entirely remodelling them or building them on a different site, yet the objections to their present situation were not of so overwhelming a character as to make it necessary, in the opinion of Her Majesty's late Government, to call upon Parliament for the large sum of money which would be required for that purpose. He trusted the question of removing the Barracks would now be decided one way or other. He was glad to be able to bear his testimony to the good conduct of the Household Cavalry; no troops in Her Majesty's service conducted themselves better than they did.

BUNHILL FIELDS BURIAL GROUND BILL—(No. 105.)—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, Bunhill Fields, which occupied a space of about four acres in Finsbury, would fall into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the course of the present year, and the Bill before the House proposed to sanction an arrangement which had been entered into between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Corporation of London, by which it was proposed, in order to preserve the site of this celebrated burial ground as an open space and as an historical record, to transfer the management of the property from the former to the latter body, subject to certain conditions calculated to secure the interests of the public; the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reserving to themselves power of resuming the management if they should think fit. The property had been held for the last 200 or 300 years under lease by the Corporation of London, who had granted a sub-lease of it to the Dissenting body. During that period no less than 120,000 bodies had been interred in the burial ground, and among other celebrated personages who had been buried there were Defoe, Bunyan, Lieutenant General Fleetwood, son-in-law to Cromwell; Dr. Isaac Watts; Ritson, the antiquary; John Horne Tooke; Dr. John Owen, chaplain to Cromwell; Dr. Gordon; the Rev. Dr. Neal, the author of the History of the Puritans; Dr. Gill, and Dr. Nathaniel Gardner. A spot so remarkable as containing the ashes of not a few of those to whom, among others, we are indebted, under God, for our civil and religious liberties, ought, for ever, to be preserved from desecration.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL—(No. 112.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL—(No. 112.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Renewal of Enlistment.)
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEdrew attention to the recommendation made by the Royal
  1478
  Commission on Recruiting, that there should be a discretionary power given to the Secretary of State to authorize arrangements for the re-enlistment of time-expired men serving abroad, and for a graduated scale of bounty to meet their cases. He complained that there was no clause in the Bill to carry out this recommendation, the great object of which was to prevent the waste of expense in bringing home men who might be willing to re-enlist. There might perhaps be valid reasons for not introducing such a clause, but if so, he was not aware of them.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the recommendation of the Commission in this matter had been fully considered in the preparation of the Bill, and the reason why it was not adopted was the very great inconvenience of having a great number of soldiers enlisted in the same regiment and serving for different periods and on different terms. The graduated scale of bounty would cause considerable trouble. Though the precise recommendation of the Commissioners was not carried out, Clause 2 was framed to give greater facilities for enlistment.
  Amendments made; The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 118.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2 (Income of New See).
  LORD LYTTELTONproposed to raise again the question in reference to the incomes of the new Bishops—for he thought that when they affirmed the Amendment of the right rev. Predate (the Bishop of Oxford), some of their Lordships did not quite understand the point raised. He did not expect that the Bill would have any immediate operation by the institution of the proposed new dioceses, because he did not suppose that the large sum required would be raised by voluntary contributions for that purpose; but yet he should be very glad to have Parliamentary sanction to the opinion that these overgrown dioceses might properly be re-cast; and if the Bill passed, those who were favourable to the principle would have the opportunity of considering what further I measures might be required to carry the object into effect. But, nevertheless, there

  1479
  was a chance of the Bill having some effect; and he should be sorry to see that formidable obstacle which this clause would introduce—for, in effect, it required that £100,000 should be raised for the erection of one of these sees, and it was very unlikely that this would be done. He thought that it was desirable that the salaries of the new Bishops should not be necessarily fixed upon a level with the other Bishops. He desired to see the system of the Church somewhat more free and elastic; and if, with the consent of the Commissioners, the Crown, and Parliament, the income of the new sees should be a few hundreds a year less than that of the older sees, he should see no objection. He quite admitted that the old system of translation was not a desirable one, and without the clause there might be some danger of encouraging it; but he thought that danger was overbalanced by the evils on the other side.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 2."—(Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYbelieved that the object of the noble Lord was to do away with all restrictions as to salary.
  LORD LYTTELTONexplained that his object was to leave the amount quite open; but the matter would be subject to the consent of the different authorities he had named, which would be required in every case.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had voted in favour of the proposition to fix the amount at £3,000 instead of £4,200; but he was quite ready to agree to strike out that clause.
  EARL GREYbelieved that the system of translation on the Episcopal Bench had led to the grossest scandals, and he was opposed to anything that would tend to revive it. If this clause were struck out, there might be two or three Bishops sitting in Parliament having much lower salaries than other ocupants of the Episcopal Bench, and looking to the Minister of the day for promotion. He thought that such a state of things might produce very injurious effects in reference to the dignity and respectability of the Episcopal Bench and of the Church generally. Rather than run that risk, if this clause were struck out, he should vote against the Bill altogether.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there was at present a considerable variety of income among the Bishops; and
  1480
  although he quite agreed as to the scandal of translations, the objection of the noble Earl applied to the present variety of income as much as it would apply under the clause in its present form.
  EARL GREYthought it was a very different thing to create three new sees having a much lower scale of salary than the existing Bishops. To that he had the greatest objection.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that he was in favour of an increase of the Episcopate, which had been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners twenty years ago. Considering the duties he had to perform, and the obligation resting on him to maintain a decent hospitality, and to attend in their Lordships' House, a Bishop could scarcely maintain his position upon less than £4,200 a year; and he was sorry to see this attempt to reverse the decision at which their Lordships had already arrived. If Parliament sanctioned the sum of £3,000 a year as the income of a Bishop, he feared that the result would be that thereafter all Bishops' salaries would be reduced to that figure.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought that £4,200 a year was certainly not more than adequate, and, indeed, his opinion was that the sum was not enough. He was certain that if the House affirmed that £3,000 a year was enough for a Bishop, then, in any future reform of ecclesiastical revenues (and the time was not far distant when such a proposition would be made) he was convinced that the proposition would not be to raise the lower salaries from £3,000 to £4,200, but would be to bring down the incomes of all the Bishops to £3,000. He thought that this would be a very great evil, and he would maintain the interests of the Bishops in this matter.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that no scheme in respect to the creation of a new Bishopric could be carried into effect without the sanction of Parliament, and it would be for Parliament to decide when any scheme was proposed whether the income assigned was adequate. He should certainly object to putting £3,000 a year into the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not wish to express any opinion as to what was a sufficient income for a Bishop; but he thought that it was the duty of Parliament to settle that question, and this clause adopted what Parliament had already decided.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 36: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Sydney, V.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bangor, Bp.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  London, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Bandon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Belper, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Clermont, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumley.)

  Lucan, E.

  Powis, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Seaton, L,

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Taunton, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Wentworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Churston, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Digby, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Eldon, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda

  Malmesbury, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Romney, E.

  Penhryn, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Bagot, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Clause 9 (Number of Bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased, struck out, and new clause inserted in lieu thereof.)—(Lord Lyttelton).
  Clause 12 (No part of the Common Fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
  1482
  to be applied to any of the purposes of this Act).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDmoved the insertion of the words "until one half of the amount necessary for the endowment of such Bishop shall have been otherwise provided." It was said that the object of the proposal was to endow new bishoprics out of the Common Fund. It was no such thing. The Episcopal Fund was now merged with the Common Fund, and when that fusion took place, it was agreed that the fund so constituted should be liable for the two charges to which the two funds had theretofore been severally liable. The money which was available from the alteration of the episcopal incomes might afford the amount requisite for supplying the incomes of new Bishops, and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Government, and the Parliament thought right to sanction this, there was no reason why the plan should not at all events partly be carried into execution. His proposition was that this should not be done, however, until half of the requisite fund for the endowment of each bishopric was raised by voluntary efforts. The lay mind of England was not, he believed, convinced at the present moment that it was worth while to give money for such an object, and he simply proposed that it should be lawful for the Commissioners to render that aid which as matters now stood they might lawfully render out of the funds at their disposal. He should prefer to see the clause omitted altogether, leaving it to the wisdom of Parliament to deal with the question whenever occasion arose; but if that were not done he should press his Amendment, as tending in some degree to mitigate the operation of what he looked upon as an unjust provision in the Bill.
  Moved to add the following words:—
  "Until One Half of the Amount necessary for the Endowment of such Bishop shall have been otherwise provided."—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought it should be left to the laity to come forward and provide the whole of the income necessary for the new bishoprics, and that that House should not consent to the adoption of a proposal for appropriating any part of the fund which would be most injurious to the interests of the hardworking clergy of England, who were the most underpaid set of men in the world.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would vote for either the Amendment or for the omission of the clause. He believed the creation of the three additional bishoprics to be not merely expedient but necessary; but he did not believe that the subscriptions necessary for the purpose would be raised. The whole thing, therefore, would be a sham unless they adopted this principle of the Amendment. He desired to establish those and other bishoprics by means of funds of which the far larger portion came from episcopal and capitular estates.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 31: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor).

  Ely, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Belmore, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Cardigan, K.

  Derby, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Devon, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Romney, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carlisle, Bp,

  Bristol, M.

  Belper, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Airlie, E.

  Churston, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Digby, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Foley, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Taunton, L.

  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought their Lordships, after the decision which had just been arrived at, ought now to pause. Their legislation would be made more simple and intelligible if it proceeded on the responsibility of the Government. He regarded it as a matter of the highest importance that the creation of a new bishopric should be made on the undivided responsibility of the Government. Moreover, he could not understand the position which these new ecclesiastical officers who were to be designated "Assistant Bishops," were to fill. Unlike ordinary Bishops, who, as soon as they were consecrated, entered into possession of all their powers, when created these would be in a state of suspended animation, having no means of exercising authority except by permission of another, which permission might afterwards be wholly or partially withdrawn, Hence every Bishop would carry about with him his own Prometheus, or to use a more intelligible phrase, would have at his disposal one or more "movable dummies." But was such a provision calculated to maintain the character, and position of the Bench of Bishops? The House had shown its disposition to maintain the efficiency and character of the bench of Bishops; but would that efficiency and character be maintained by creating Assistant Bishops with so small a share of responsibility and power and not a particle of income? The assistants of one Bishop might not be recognised or continued by his successor, and would then have to sink back to the position of rural deans. Hence they might have Bishops to the number of 130, ill paid, and with duties indefinitely defined; would that give increased influence or respectability to the right rev. prelates? He believed the House would do well to take a little more time to consider the subject, and that the noble Lord would do well to confine the provisions of his Bill to the creation of the three new bishoprics and let it go down to the other House in that simple shape.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the House appeared to have proceeded very carefully in its legislation hitherto, and he did not see any necessity for adopting the advice of the noble Earl.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Her Majesty may appoint certain Persons to aid Bishops).
  LORD PORTMANmoved the omission

  1485
  of the words "honorary canon" and "rural dean" from the clause, because he thought clergymen of that position should not fill the post of Suffragan Bishop.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, the noble Lord had completely misapprehended the case in hand; the Assistant Bishops the Bill proposed to create would not act on their own independent authority, but would simply exercise certain temporary functions committed to their charge by the Bishop of the diocese. He, however, repeated his objections to endowing these Assistant Bishops with territorial titles which they would never be able to drop. He thought that they should be selected from the higher grades of the clergy.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDhoped their Lordships would not stultify themselves by reversing a decision which they had come to after full discussion on a former occasion.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought their Lordships should remember that if a rural dean was consecrated by the Archbishop to the office of Suffragan Bishop he would remain a Bishop for ever, his episcopal functions could never be taken from him. He could not help thinking that if these titular Bishops were greatly multiplied, in times of excitement an impetus would be given to the movement in favour of what were called "free churches."
  LORD CRANWORTHpointed out that the Suffragan Bishop appointed by the Bill would be unable to exercise any episcopal functions except under the authority of the Bishop in whose see he was appointed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought that no apprehension need be entertained that the Assistant Bishops would have more power than it was necessary for them to have.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYinsisted that the Suffragan Bishops could continue to minister in spiritual things.
  After some discussion, which was inaudible, Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of the Bishop of LONDON, the words "other dignitaries" were inserted, and—
  On Motion, that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested a postponement. It was evident, after the desultory character of the conversation
  1486
  which had just taken place, that the clause had not received sufficient consideration, and moved to leave out the clause.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the postponement suggested by the noble Earl.
  EARL STANHOPEthought that it would be advisable to omit the remaining portions of the Bill. The measure was originally intended to give assistance to aged or infirm Bishops, but it had now assumed a magnitude which, he believed, would necessitate its re-consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought that the subject of the clause was of the greatest importance, and ought not to be disposed of in a hasty manner. He did not object to the appointment of Suffragan Bishops, but he did object to the proposition before the House, for the question was a grave constitutional question, and one which, if touched at all, ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. There were two schemes before the public for the increase of the episcopate. One was reasonable; it proposed to relieve the over-worked Bishops of Lincoln and London, and possibly of Exeter, by the creation of sees cut off from their too populous dioceses. The other was revolutionary; its aim was the subdivision of all the dioceses of England and Wales into three and four dioceses each, coupled with the election of the Bishops. The latter scheme it was obvious involved of necessity the removal of Bishops from Parliament. The present Bill was for the appointment of Suffragans in any see—and not one only, for the number was unlimited—and while there were at present twenty-four or twenty-six Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, there might under this Bill be 100 Bishops who would have no seats in the House, and would be receiving greatly reduced incomes. He was afraid their Lordships were lending themselves unconsciously to the revolutionary party, to whose plans he had just alluded. He would tell their Lordships what had occurred lately at Leeds. A meeting of the partizans of this scheme had been held. It was first decided that Leeds should be the seat of a new bishopric. The towns of Halifax, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, determined not to be left behind, also came to the conclusion that it would be desirable that they should be the seats of new sees. Then the question arose, what was to become of the Bishop of

  1487
  Ripon? "Make him Archbishop," was the reply. "What," it was next asked, "was to become of the present Primate of England, the Archbishop of York?" The reply was, "Oh, make him Patriarch." This might be ludicrous; but he had been informed that what he had just narrated had actually taken place. He need scarcely point out to their Lordships the necessity of being on their guard against persons holding such extreme opinions. He trusted that the proposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) would be acceded to, and then the clause would be held over for further consideration.
  LORD LYTTELTONdeprecated the idea that the clause had been hastily prepared, and pointed out that all the terrible consequences it was suggested as likely to arise from the clause would be guarded against by the proviso that the Suffragan Bishops should only be appointed if Her Majesty thought fit.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 23: Majority 3.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Airlie, E.

  Devon, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Grey, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Seaton, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Halifax, V.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. David's Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Churston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Portman, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clause struck out.
  Then the dependent Clauses 14, 15, 16, 17, struck out.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.