Sitting of 2 May 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutionin Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [142].
Ordered—First Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [141]; Ulster Tenant Right* [144]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [143].
First Reading—Naturalization* [145].
Second Reading—Local Government Supplemental * [133]; Customs and Inland Revenue * [106]; Unlawful Assemblies (Ireland) Act Repeal [72], put off.
Committee—Corrupt Practices* [22]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [21–139]; Court of Chancery (Funds)*[43–140]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation * [125]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2) [124]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2) * [134].

THE RUSSIAN WAR—BRITISH GRAVES IN THE CRIMEA.—QUESTION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been drawn to a Letter, which appeared in "The Times" of the 30th March, describing the disgraceful condition of the British Cemetery at Sebastopol; and, whether he has reason to believe that the statement is correct, and if it be so, whether the Government will take some measures to protect the graves of the Officers and Men who fell in the discharge of their duty from desecration?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, I have seen the letter referred to by the hon. Member, and from other evidence believe that the statement is in substance correct. Up to the middle of the year 1866 there had been a custodian of the graveyards, but in that year Colonel Gordon, who was then in charge, resigned his appointment in consequence of being obliged to return to active service. It is the intention of the War Department, with the consent and concurrence of the Foreign Office and the Treasury, to despatch two British officers to the Crimea to visit the cemetery and graves, and to report home as to their present condition and the best means for their preservation.

INDIA—CONVICTS AT THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the statement is correct that Ahmed Oolah, who was convicted as a leader in the Wahabee conspiracy about the year 1865, was in confinement at the Andaman Islands at the time of the assassination of Lord Mayo; that he had frequent opportunities of conversing with the other convicts; and that the Wahabee prisoners in the convict settlement have been able to hold regular communication with their friends in India?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I regret to say that I have no means of answering his Questions categorically. The acting Viceroy has, however, sent Mr. Campbell, a very experienced judicial officer, to the Andaman Islands to make a full inquiry into their state, and when we receive his report we shall, no doubt, be in a position to state which are true and which are false of the many rumours current.

METROPOLIS—SUNDAY OBSERVANCE— THE SHEEPSHANKS GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the memorial recently presented by deputations from public meetings held in London, praying them to carry out the wish of the late Mr. Sheepshanks that his pictures should be exhibited on Sundays?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the House was doubtless aware that the Sheepshanks' collection of pictures was at the South Kensington Museum. It was quite true that Mr. Sheepshanks, when he made that most generous gift to the nation, expressed a wish that the pictures should be shown to the public on Sunday afternoons; but this was not a condition of the gift, as Mr. Sheepshanks was aware at the time that, according to the existing regulations, the pictures could not be so shown. Deputations had waited on the Marquess of Ripon and himself (Mr. Forster) in reference to this subject, and at several meetings held in London a desire was expressed that the South Kensington
  100
  Museum should be opened on Sundays. This, however, brought up a very important question, which applied not only to the South Kensington Museum, but to the British Museum also. Without expressing any personal opinion on the subject, he might state that the Marquess of Ripon brought it under the notice of the Government, who did not think they were at present warranted in taking steps for opening those Museums on Sundays.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—THE FINSBURY ESTATE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. CARTERasked the honourable Baronet the Member for North Devon(Sir Thomas Acland), Whether it is true, as stated in "The Times" newspaper on the 30th of March, that many of the houses on the Finsbury Estate belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in such a filthy and dilapidated state that they are unfit for human habitation; whether 120 of these houses have been closed by order of the sanitary authorities of the district; whether (supposing these reports to be correct) the Commissioners are taking such steps as will effectually remove this state of things; and, further, whether the alleged condition, so far as paving and cleansing is concerned, of Willow Street, Charlotte Street, Paradise Street, and other streets on this estate is to be attributed to carelessness and neglect on the part of the local authorities of the district, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?
  SIR THOMAS ACLAND: Sir, the statement in The Times of the 30th of March as to the state of the Commissioners' property is not correct; but it is true that when the property came under their management at Christmas, 1867, it was in an extremely bad condition. Immediately after the Commissioners obtained possession of the property they engaged workmen to cleanse and repair such cottages as were capable of being maintained, either for a short time or permanently, and to remove buildings that were dangerous. Many cottages were removed by agreement with the parties to whom agreements for leases were granted, as part of the terms of such leases. It would have been inexpedient to remove so many poor in a short space of time without

  101
  other buildings being provided. To obviate this, the Commissioners encouraged the erection of model dwellings, and the result of their dealing with their property in the parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, may be shortly stated as follows:—About 750 cottages stood upon the property; upwards of 600 are removed. About 20 more are under agreement for removal, some others will follow, and the remainder have been repaired. On part of the land cleared about 500 new convenient residences have been erected; others are in course of erection. In all, about 100 more are agreed to be erected. On other parts of the land cleared of old buildings, a church, schools, and two parsonage houses have been erected. Other improvements are still in progress. With regard to the question whether 120 houses have been closed by order of the authorities of the district, no such orders have been addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, nor to their officers. They are aware that proceedings were taken against lessees under them in respect of some cottages; but at that time those lessees were under covenant to remove the cottages, and the Commissioners were taking steps to enforce that covenant for the removal. They are now removed. The paving and cleansing of the streets is wholly under the charge of the local authorities, and no responsibility in that respect rests upon the Commissioners. I desire to state that if any hon. Members wish to satisfy themselves as to what the public spirit of an individual or the energy of a particular corporation can do in the way of substituting, as a matter of business, wholesome dwellings for the poor in one of the worst parts of London, they ought to visit the Finsbury Estate, where they will see that which will give them hopes for their country. I have seen some photographs of the property as it existed before and as it exists now, and with your permission, Sir, I will place them in the Library for inspection.
  MR. FLOYER: Are the 500 houses, which the hon. Baronet mentions as being built, suitable for artizans and the working classes?
  SIR THOMAS ACLAND: I believe they are. I have seen some of them, and I believe they are let at the average rate of 2s. per room. Wages in that part
  102
  of London are considerable, and I have met with several artizans who are living in these lodgings.

TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON—PROSECUTION OF THE "CLAIMANT" FOR PERJURY.—QUESTION.
MR. MELLORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intends to prosecute at the public expense the person calling himself Tichborne for perjury; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay before the House an Estimate of the probable cost of such prosecution, and to take a previous Vote of the House upon it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is, Sir, the intention of the Government to prosecute, at the public expense, the person calling himself Tichborne for perjury. He is also committed for forgery. The hon. Member asks me to lay upon the Table an Estimate of the probable expense of such prosecution. I should be very glad to do so; but I am told that it is impossible to form any estimate or give any information on the subject; therefore, I must decline to do so under the circumstances, and as to those Gentlemen who think I am too diffident in making estimates, I would refer them to their own experience.
MR. MELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question. As the amount required will probably be very large, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will take a previous Vote of the House upon it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If I spend the money first, I do not see how I can take a previous Vote upon it.

NAVY—CHANNEL SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, if it be true, as is reported, that the Channel Squadron is to go round the coasts of the United Kingdom during the summer and autumn, he will permit it to visit Lough Foyle?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that he was unable to give a pledge that the Channel Squadron would visit any particular locality, as the cruise of the Squadron had not yet been determined

  103
  upon. He was, therefore, unable to say whether the inhabitants of the district immediately surrounding Lough Foyle would be able to carry out the hospitable intentions which he believed they entertained.

ARMY OFFICERS—PRESENTATIONS AT COURT.—QUESTION.
MR. H. A. HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been drawn to a Regulation by the Lord Chamberlain which forbids the name of the Regiment, or Corps in some cases, being announced at Court, in addition to the name of the officer, on presentation to Her Majesty, and so making a distinction between the officers of the different branches of the auxiliary forces and those of the Regular Army, although they, like the latter, hold Her Majesty's commission; and, if he would endeavour to have the Regulation reconsidered?
MR. CARDWELL, in answer, said, he could only repeat the Reply he had previously given to a similar Question—"The Regulations for the Queen's Courts are not within his province, but depended upon the commands of Her Majesty, and were carried out under the direction of the Lord Chamberlain."

ARMY—EQUIPMENT OF THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Controller General, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the following documents:—Copies of a Letter written to the Adjutant General, Horse Guards, by Colonel Ponsonby, then commanding 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, applying for permission to have a renewed and proper trial of Lieutenant Colonel Carter's equipment with the new Valise Equipment; and the Reply; of the Application made by Colonel the Honourable Percy Fielding, C.B., commanding Coldstream Guards, for permission to try the said equipments, and the Recommendation of the same by Major General Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar; and the Reply; and, a detailed Statement of the various articles (under the head of Equipment), and the amount of ammunition (showing how distributed), each soldier will have to carry during war, together with a List
  104
  of the Regiments which wore the new Valise Equipment at the Autumn Manœuvres; specifying whether any, and which, of those Regiments failed in wearing this equipment as intended during war, with the particulars of the cause of any omissions?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, it is not considered desirable to give the Correspondence referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend. The equipment of the Army was adopted, after mature consideration, on the recommendation of a most competent Board of Officers, and experience has shown that the present valise equipment is well suited to the service. I may add that a voluminous Correspondence as regards Lieutenant Colonel Carter and his proposed knapsack has been already laid on the Table of the House, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). I consider the question settled, and do not think any further expense should be incurred in printing Correspondence on the subject.

ARMY—CASHEL BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the barracks at Cashel, as described in a letter published in "The United Service Gazette" of the 30th March last; whether the statements in that letter are accurate as to the condition of the barracks; if they are, whether he will direct the next training of the North Tipperary Militia to be held at Clonmel or Nenagh, where ample barrack accommodation can be afforded them; and, whether it is his intention to fill up the second majority now vacant in that regiment, and when?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, his attention was not drawn to the letter referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend until Notice of the Question was given. He had made a reference to Ireland in order to obtain an answer on the subject. With regard to the second portion of his hon. Friend's Question, he begged to say that it was intended to fill up the second majority now vacant in the North Tipperary Militia, and the question of who should be appointed was now under consideration.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
    CORRESPONDENCE.—QUESTION.
    MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am unwilling to press Her Majesty's Government unnecessarily or unfairly with any inquiry respecting the Geneva Arbitration; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government will, I am sure, recollect that on last Tuesday week my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), on my behalf, preferred an inquiry of a distinct character upon that subject. He asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would undertake that there should be no further proceedings before the Arbitrators of Geneva until the Indirect Claims were given up by the Government of the United States? The right hon. Gentleman then said he declined to answer that Question until after the receipt of the Despatch, which was then hourly expected. We have since had information that the Despatch has been received by Her Majesty's Government, and I venture now to make an inquiry, which I believe the public feeling demands—namely, Whether the right hon. Gentleman, being in possession of the Despatch, will now give a direct answer to the Question, which, as I have said, was asked by my right hon. Friend?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Question, Sir, of the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated a statement which it was my intention to make. There is just one very slight inaccuracy in the recital of the right hon. Gentleman which I wish to correct. I think he said—I do not know whether intentionally or not—that I had already stated we were in possession of a Despatch from America in answer to Lord Granville's Note of the 20th of March. That is not so. What I said was that we had just learnt that the American Minister was in possession of the answer, and that he had not been able to inform us precisely when it would come into the hands of Her Majesty's Government. That is not the state of facts now. A copy of the Despatch was received by Lord Granville yesterday afternoon from the Minister of the United States, and it has been considered by the Cabinet to-day. And, Sir, as far as the contents of that Despatch are
    106
    concerned, there is nothing in the Despatch that would have led us to ask, or that would have warranted us in asking, for further forbearance on the part of Parliament in withholding the Papers of the Correspondence which has taken place from immediate publication. There are, however, known to us grounds for the hope that a settlement of the entire matter may be arrived at of a character which would be satisfactory, as we are well assured, to both countries. Under these circumstances, we trust that Parliament will approve our postponing for a short time, on the specific ground which I have now stated, the production of the Papers. I do not venture to specify the number of days over which this postponement should extend; but I have no doubt the delay will be very short.

PARLIAMENT—WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which he had not given Notice, but which was of great interest to the House. He wished to know on what day they were to commence the fortnight of holiday which was promised at Whitsuntide?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there never was a fortnight promised; but it was promised that the holiday should approximate to a fortnight. All these promises are necessarily contingent, to a certain degree, upon the progress of Public Business, and in the answer I am about to make I shall speak on the assumption—a very simple one, I think—that the proceedings in Committee on the Ballot Bill will be brought to a termination this evening. It may also be convenient that I should refer to the Report on the Bill. It probably will not be the wish of the House to consider the Report so early as Monday next; but we hope it will be practicable to dispose of it on this night week, in which case I should be able on the following Monday to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until that day fortnight.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 21.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
AND

CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL— [BILL 22.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
Considered in Committee. [Progress 29 th April]
(In the Committee.)

CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL— [BILL 22.]

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  First Schedule.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, as an Amendment, that the words "or by inability to read" be inserted in the 24th Rule, after the words "incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause," page 19, line 25. The hon. and learned Member said, that this Amendment did not raise a party question. The Bill, as it stood, would disfranchise, he believed, more Liberals than Conservatives. His object was to mitigate the severity of its disfranchising clauses. The Amendment was not nearly so sweeping in its scope as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), which was discussed on Monday night. That Amendment enabled all persons incapacitated by any cause to appeal to the presiding officer for assistance. His Amendment only extended this privilege to persons "incapacitated by inability to read." He objected to the Bill as it stood, because it would disfranchise the very persons whom it was designed to protect. Illiterate voters were generally dependent, and the object of the Bill was to protect dependent voters. What a mockery to say to these dependent voters—"We will protect you by enabling you to vote secretly," when, at the same time, they, in effect, told them—"We will mate the mechanical process of recording your vote so difficult that you won't be able to understand it, and therefore will be practically disfranchised." Were they prepared to take away with one hand what they gave with the other? Under the existing system the illiterate voter could, at all events, record his vote. Suppose there were 15 per cent who were dependent voters, and 10 of them could not read; were they prepared to disfranchise the 10 for the sake of protecting the remaining five? But then,
  108
  it was said, the presiding officers would falsify the vote. Well, the Bill gave the Returning Officer absolute power of rejecting votes for invalidity. If the right hon. Gentleman could trust the Returning Officer, why not trust the presiding officers? There was only one Returning Officer, but many presiding officers, and, in his opinion, the danger of corruption would be diminished by spreading the power and responsibility over a large surface. And what was the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to obviate the disfranchisement of voters unable to read? That the names of the candidates were to be distinguished by numbers; but the illiterate voter would know as little about 1, 2, 3, as he did of A, B, C. Indeed, at school, A, B, C, was taught before 1, 2, 3. And what was there to prevent the voter who could not read from holding the ballot paper upside down, and trying to decipher it the wrong way? There was another point to which, before sitting down, he wished to allude. By this Bill they were imposing a new educational test. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), on Monday last, referred to a Bill which he introduced and withdrew in 1866—a Bill by which it was proposed to give the franchise in boroughs to those who satisfied a certain educational test. It was an enfranchising Bill, and was therefore much better than this Bill, which was a disfranchising measure. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill was before the House, and in moving its rejection he said—
  "In the Scotch Church there is the phrase 'fencing the tables,' used by way of describing the means taken to prevent persons not properly prepared from taking part in sacred rites. My hon. Friend, I must admit, has fenced his tables very well, and the sacred rite of the franchise is not likely to be intruded upon by too many labouring men. I think my hon. Friend has totally overlooked all considerations of human feeling. In my opinion the labouring classes—the mass of the English people—would rise with dissatisfaction—I will not use a stronger word—against those enactments which my hon. Friend proposes to establish in connection with what he calls a boon, but to which he has given a very different character by this Bill. My hon. Friend proposes to burden the people with conditions of time and the observance of a multitude of forms from which the whole of us are free. And let us remember that the observance of minute particulars and dates with regard to notices and documents, and going backwards and forwards, are annoying even

  109
  to such as are in our station of life, and would become almost impossible of observance by persons of a certain station.…. My hon. Friend might, for any use the Bill will be to them, put a cipher at its head, and substitute a cipher for every one of its clauses.…. In my opinion, no method has yet been suggested of making any educational test practically available in regard to the franchise.…. Regarding the amount of accomplishment and knowledge required, the cumbrous difficulty—practically, the almost impossible nature—of the process my hon. Friend requires these, I must say, unfortunate people to go through, I contend that his Bill is unsound in principle, and that it would be inoperative and even offensive in practice."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 1484–6–7.]
  The present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen), speaking against the same Bill, said—
  "It combines the maximum of Liberal profession with the minimum of Liberal result."—[Ibid. 1499.]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) also opposed the Bill, and in the course of his remarks, said—
  "The idea of education, in the sense of reading, writing, and arithmetic—and I know not what other branches of knowledge may at some time be added—seems to me to be almost puerile in considering this question.…. The Bill might admit a large number of young men from 21 to 25 or 30 years of age. Now, I have no objection to young men; but I think a system of franchise which said to the great bulk of the existing working men of England—'Whilst your boys of 21 shall be admitted to the franchise under this Bill, you, their fathers, because in your time education was not so common, shall not be admitted, although it may be that you have brought up those very boys in the position in which they are now'—I say a Bill like that would be wholly contrary to the constitution of the country, and would be grossly insulting to the great body of the working classes."—[Ibid. 1513–17.]
  All the passages he had quoted were equally applicable to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Education Act, had provided the means for educating the rising generation; but the opportunities so afforded could be of no avail to the existing generation of working-class voters, and it was unfair first to fine and imprison the fathers if they did not send their children to school, and to punish them also by disfranchisement for not having themselves been properly educated. To defraud the working classes of the extended franchise given to them in 1867 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was a policy on the part of the Prime Minister which might, indeed, be correctly described as
  110
  combining the "maximum of Liberal profession with the minimum of Liberal result." The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. ELLICEbelieved that the object of the Bill was not to regulate or limit the franchise, but merely to protect the voter in its independent exercise. An evening or two since he had interposed because it seemed to him that the clause, as understood and explained by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster), would have a very prejudicial effect upon a considerable number of voters in the Northern part of Scotland. That position was controverted by his right hon. Friend. He (Mr. Ellice) spoke at that time in general terms, and without any precise data; consequently, he was not prepared to state the exact effect which the Bill would have in the part of the country he had referred to. Since then he had been in communication with gentlemen well acquainted with the Highlands, and who were specially conversant with the condition of the population of Inverness-shire, in many parts of which the English language was imperfectly known, and he now wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend for a moment to the two polling districts of Inverness and Fort William. The district of Inverness was, including the town of Inverness, somewhat thickly populated, and contained a large number of voters. Fort William, on the other hand, had a very sparse and scanty population and a small number of voters; but the two taken together might very fairly represent the average condition of the Northern part of Scotland. After he made the statement which was controverted, he telegraphed to parties upon whom he could thoroughly depend, and he begged to assure the House that there could be no possible bias in the information which he received in reply. What he asked for was the number of voters who it was supposed would be unable to deal with the ballot papers as proposed under this Bill, and the reply he received was—
  "In the town of Inverness and its vicinity nearly all are able; in the upper parishes one quarter unable; in some parishes a higher rate unable."
  With respect to Fort William, he had his information from the Sheriff, who would be the Returning Officer. He was a gentleman well known to most gentlemen in the Highlands, exceedingly well

  111
  acquainted with the whole district, and he said—
  "There are 236 voters in my district; of whom 88 are Gaelic, and not able to deal with ballot papers without assistance."
  Now, upon this showing, it was plain that under the provisions of the Bill, unless modified to meet these peculiar circumstances, one-fourth, at least, would be disabled from voting in one district, and one-third in another. Taking them together, rather more than one-fourth would be practically disfranchised by the Bill as it now stood, unless some assistance was given to the voter. He did not think that that could have occurred to his right hon. Friend, who, he believed, was actuated by an earnest and honest desire to give the country a good Bill. They had arrived at a stage of the measure at which he (Mr. Ellice) thought that if there were reasonable grounds shown for the re-consideration of this Schedule, his right hon. Friend would not be indisposed to adopt an Amendment. It was a serious matter that in a Bill to protect the independence of voters, clauses were inserted which, in all probability, would tend to disfranchise a large number of them. They were going to create a complicated machinery, which, he was satisfied, that a large number of uneducated voters in various districts of the country would, without help, not know how to deal with. In all probability they would make a complete mess of the paper, or else they would not vote at all. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration, with a view of proposing some clause which might be brought up on the Report, to provide against the contingency he had referred to. The Bill, as it stood, would practically take away votes which Parliament had deliberately conferred, and whether this was done directly or indirectly, and whether the number of persons disfranchised was one or a thousand, the principle involved was the same, and ought not to be countenanced.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper of a more practical character than that under consideration. He was not disposed to give to the presiding officer the power of determining whether a man could read or write, or even to read only, and therefore proposed that he should act only on the production of a declaration to the effect that the voter
  112
  applying to him could not read, and required his assistance. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the point in dispute. Out of 1,540,148 adult males in Ireland, 816,000 could not read. The county of Cork, which was a model county in the matter of education, had a male population of upwards of 200,000, of whom 64,000 could not read and write—say nearly half the adult male population. The constituency numbered 16,000, and perhaps a quarter of those forming it could not read and write. If they numbered only 2,000, that was far too many to disfranchise by the Bill. Suppose the defect were not remedied, what would be the consequence? The landlord's agent would try to coach the voter by telling him that all the names would be printed one below the other, and that he was to make his mark against the first and second. But the man might say he could not count. Then the agent would tell him to put his fingers down the side against his names, and to put his mark against the name upon which his third and little finger rested. The voter would naturally ask for a paper to see how this was to be done, but of course this was forbidden. So he would go into the polling-place, and, being unable to read, he would be as likely as not to turn the paper upside down, and placing his fingers on the names, would mark the names upon which his third and little fingers rested, which would chance to be the third and fourth names, and the priest's candidates instead of the landlord's. Again, if they reversed the order of things, and supposing the voter to be coached by the priest or by the agent of the popular candidate, the voter would be as likely to vote for landlords' candidate as for the one he supported. Again, he was as likely to mark it in some wrong place or in some informal manner. By this means one-half or three-fourths of the votes of the ignorant voters would be misapplied or thrown away. It might be said they should not have votes. [Mr. RYLANDS: Hear!] If so, let the House act honestly, and pass a Bill disfranchising the ignorant. It was scarcely possible to secure absolute secrecy in regard to the vote of the illiterate voter, who was as much in need of assistance as the blind voter, for whom they had provided help. Either exclude the illiterate voter from the voting compartment,

  113
  or, if they admitted them, permit the officer to give them the directions he stood in need of.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) had added a very valuable contribution to the common sense arguments by which that question ought to be decided. But it was not in the Highlands of Scotland, nor in the wilds of Galway alone, that persons were found who could not write. Scores and scores of excellent and industrious English workmen were fully competent to exercise the elective franchise, although they could not read or perform the mechanical act of writing, and common justice required that they should have proper facilities given them for voting. If the House wished to lay down an educational standard for the voter, let them say so; but they ought not to disfranchise by indirect means that class of voters. The two great arguments adduced for the Ballot were that it was easy and convenient, and that it would protect the poor and dependent voter. But they were now going practically to deprive the poor voter of his vote altogether by refusing him assistance in filling up his ballot paper. He would not, until he saw it, believe that the Liberal Members of that House would take such a course. The Amendment before them was a practical one, and he trusted it would commend itself to the good sense of the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, that they were not considering this question in a party spirit, but they were seeking so to deal with the principle of secret voting as to cause the least inconvenience to the voters. He quite agreed that they ought not to make the Ballot Bill a means of imposing an educational standard. If it were intended to take that step it ought to be done by positive enactment. It was never meant by the Government, nor would the House permit, that the Ballot should be employed in order to disqualify persons who could not read or write. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) had given them some figures, which had considerable force, as everything which came from him had; but it was rather doubtful whether the question had been quite fairly brought before his friends in the North, and whether many of the people referred to were persons who were unable to read English or who could not read at all. However, there
  114
  were, no doubt, a great many people in England who could not read; but he could not help thinking that they were now rather overrating their numbers, and also underrating the ability of such persons to get over that difficulty as to their votes. He maintained that the form of the voting-paper itself, the fact that that form would be known, and the additional fact that there would be hundreds of people who would tell the illiterate elector what was the meaning of the voting paper, would make it easy for every English, Irish, or Scotch elector of average sense to solve the question whether he should vote for the top, the bottom, or the middle name on the list of candidates. An ordinary artisan, whether he could read and write or not, knew very well whether one brick was above or below another. Hon. Members seemed to forget that there was something in Clause 4 that prescribed the duty of the presiding officer. Though there was a prohibition as to obtaining information as to the person for whom the vote was given, there was nothing to prevent the presiding officer answering necessary questions. A voter might ask the presiding officer—"Which is the way in which I am to hold the paper; which is the top and which is the bottom?" There was no difficulty upon that point. What the presiding officer was prohibited from doing was finding out how the voter had marked his paper. If there were no objections to giving the presiding officer the proposed power of helping illiterate voters, the Government would be glad to do so; but if they invested him with such a large power they would probably create a great want of confidence throughout the country. The mere possession of that power on his part would perhaps do more mischief than any actual misuse of it. The hon. Member (Mr. Charley) asked him whether he could not provide some machinery which would meet all these difficulties; but he need scarcely inform him that a great part of the labour he had gone through in reference to this measure had been that of considering the various plans which had been laid before him by which it was proposed that these difficulties should be overcome, and he must honestly say that he could not hold out any hope of hitting upon any plan better than that proposed by the Bill. In consequence of a suggestion that had appeared in a morning

  115
  journal that all the inhabitants of England should do their best to aid him (Mr. Forster) in finding out the best method of taking votes by ballot, he had been overwhelmed by proposals, some certainly of the most ingenious description, but all equally impracticable. One most remarkable piece of machinery proposed would not take more than one ball from one voter, and would, in a manner, spit up a second if there were an attempt to introduce it; at the same time, it counted the number of balls on each side, and appeared to meet every difficulty that had been anticipated in the working of the ballot. It was impossible, however, that such complicated machinery could be used by thousands of presiding officers and by millions of electors without there being great danger of its getting out of order either by accident or wilful act, and thus vitiating the election, and under these circumstances it would, in his opinion, be most inexpedient to adopt it, more especially as the Committee were not likely to sanction the substitution of the ball ballot for the voting paper ballot. He merely alluded to this subject in justification of himself, as he was anxious to show that he had closely looked into these various suggestions, and had not thrown them aside without having examined them. It had been stated that voting papers were a novelty, but that statement was inaccurate, because they had been used in all municipal and local elections in this country, and had been adopted in every part of the world where the Ballot was in force, except in Greece. He should gladly accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley), if he (Mr. Forster) did not think that they should be exposing themselves to a much greater danger by accepting it, and if he did not honestly believe that the plan they proposed was sufficiently clear to enable a voter with common sense, even though he should be unable to read, to record his vote.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman founded his opposition to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley) on the experience of those countries where the Ballot obtained; but he must remind him that in all the Australian Colonies, to which such frequent reference was made, means were provided for taking the votes of illiterate persons analogous
  116
  to those proposed by the hon. Member. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to provide such machinery for taking the votes as would prevent any person who was enfranchised by the Act of 1867 from being practically disfranchised. All Englishmen on whom the Legislature had conferred the franchise ought to be encouraged to give their votes, whether or not they could read or write. The right hon. Gentleman said that by the Bill as framed a man who could not read would be entitled to receive that amount of assistance which would enable him to vote. But if a presiding officer answered any other question than that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, he would be guilty of a misdemeanour. Was that a position to put the presiding officer into? Again, what sort of question was likely to be addressed to the presiding officer, when he was asked for assistance by a man who could not read? Was it not very likely to be—"Where am I to put my mark for Jones?" The speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be really worth nothing at all. He protested against the clause as it stood, and unless some such Amendment as that proposed was carried it would practically disfranchise a very considerable portion of those on whom the Legislature had conferred the privilege of the franchise.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought the effect of the clause would be to disfranchise a large number of voters, and to lead to such confusion in the manner in which the votes were delivered, that the Bill would require to be remodelled in the course of another year. His right hon. Friend suggested that a voter who could not read might take counsel from the Returning Officer; but had he ever seen how even half-learned persons came to behave when they required to put their names on paper? If the Committee wished to get votes of illiterate people recorded, some means must be devised by which they might give their votes without the confusion which the clause threatened, and which might vitiate either the election or a large number of votes.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not understand why the Government should not adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charley), seeing that the Bill had already provided

  117
  that where a voter had, through inadvertence, improperly marked his voting paper, he could apply to the Returning Officer for a fresh paper.
  MR. DODSONpointed out an ambiguity which appeared to arise in connection with the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment, by proposing to insert the four words "by inability to read," classed a man who was unable to read as equally and absolutely incapacitated with the man who was blind or paralyzed. And the sub-section so amended would be open to the interpretation that a man who was unable to read was to be held to be absolutely incapacitated, and be bound to apply to have his vote marked by the presiding officer. It seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member could not be adopted, as it would give rise to that ambiguity. Effect would be better given to the intention of the Mover of it by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan). And he would also alter the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, by making it so run that the voter who could not read should have the option of applying to the presiding officer to mark his paper for him, accompanying his application with a declaration that he was unable to read.
  COLONEL BERESFORD, in supporting the Amendment, referred to an instance in which great confusion, and even a riot, had arisen in consequence of the voters being called upon to make marks opposite the names of the candidates. Four-fifths of the voters on that occasion did not succeed in voting at all.
  CAPTAIN GROSVENORadmitted that the number of illiterate voters was likely to decrease; but he thought some provision was necessary for them. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. He would have no option but to vote in its favour. Against the evidence brought forward in support of it they had nothing but the unsupported assertions of the right hon. Gentleman. The necessity for it would, no doubt, be greatly diminished in time; and though the statesman was bound to keep one eye upon the future, it was no less binding upon him to keep the other eye upon the present.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked that they had been told that this Bill had been introduced and pressed forward for two Sessions, not for the sake of the great bulk of the constituency, but for those unhappy electors who laboured under a difficulty in the free expression of their votes. Now, the Bill itself interposed a difficulty in the way of that class of voters who could not read, and it was inevitable that some one should assist them to give their vote unless some ingenious contrivance was adopted by which they might inform themselves. In criminal cases a highly efficacious method had been introduced of identifying persons who had committed a great offence. They were photographed, and he ventured to suggest that a photograph of the candidates should be affixed to their names, for the benefit of those who could not read their ballot paper. The whole Bill was a sarcasm on the alleged in competency of the mass of constituencies to vote freely, and on Members of the House, to whom it imputed that they had been returned by, if not accessory to, a system of intimidation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of repeating the arguments he had used. He thought the Committee, after their decision on Monday on the somewhat broader Amendment of the the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), could not accept the present proposal. Were it adopted, the presiding officer would either make an inquiry into the educational state of the voter applying for his paper to be filled up, which would involve delay, or would, on his mere statement, fill it up, which would throw a large power into his hands. He admitted, however, that a good deal of sympathy had been shown by the Committee for the position of these persons, and he believed he should carry out the views of the majority if he stated that the Government were prepared to some extent to meet the case. He was willing, with verbal alterations, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he was surprised that the Government, after secret voting had been done away with by two divisions, each resulting in a majority against them, should have offered any objection to such an Amendment as this. The strongest objections

  119
  to the clause in its present shape had come from their own side of the House, and 11 speakers had all favoured the Amendment. He had a right, therefore, to say that the Government had been compelled to yield because their own side would not support them in a clause which he would describe as iniquitious. As to the large power which the Amendment would confer on the presiding officer, why did not the right hon. Gentleman put that forward as an objection in the case of a similar concession which he had made to the Jews? He had acceded to the proposal that if the election occurred on a Saturday the officers should fill up the papers for the Jews, though in London, no doubt, there would be a very large number of them. Surely, then, as much should be done for Christians who could not fill up their papers from not being able to read. He was perfectly certain the people of England would appreciate this Bill when it came before them. Government showed their apprehension of this by not daring to take the sense of the people upon it. He believed that this Bill was repugnant to the feelings of the people of England, as it was to the majority of the Members of the House, and that the Government dared not put it to the test of having their opinions recorded. They had refused to give way and had been beaten; again they had refused to yield until pressed and squeezed by their own supporters, when they gave way to avoid another defeat; and now, after refusing to give way to the Opposition, they had yielded to their own supporters, not because the proposal was fair and just, but because of the quarter whence the pressure came. This was an unfair Bill, and it would be unworkable without alteration.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he stated at first that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would require to be modified in some such way as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) met his view completely, and he should think it would also meet that of the hon. and learned Member for Salford, to whom he would put it, therefore, whether it would not be better to withdraw his Amendment and accept the offer made on the part of the Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Salford would yield to the appeal just made to him; and in reply to the remarks just made he would say that the position of a person in charge of a Bill was not an enviable one. If he refused to yield on a point which was important, he was called obstinate; if he yielded on one that was not vital, he was called squeezable; and in regard to details it was the business of a person in charge of a Bill to ascertain, if he could, the opinions on both sides of the House, and to give effect to them, so far as he could, consistently with the principle of the Bill. He had come to the conclusion that the general feeling of the Committee was that some provision should be made for persons who could not read and write, and although he was not convinced, he thought it unwise to waste time and resist that conclusion.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had no fault whatever to find with the conduct of the Government in reference to the Bill. As he understood it, they accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), and therefore he would recommend the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) not to press his Amendment; but he should like a clear understanding of the situation. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick was to be adopted, it should be adopted at once—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Quite so]—and without alteration, so that the Committee would know at once what was the decision it had arrived at.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair. The only alteration he would make in the Amendment would be to retain the words relating to the declaration and omit those at the end of the Amendment relating to perjury.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he wished to say one or two words before this bargain became a contract. He protested against the proposition being accepted without there being time for full consideration. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was fatal to secrecy, and it would give to one individual a power which would be objectionable to every friend of the Ballot. Of course, the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) cheerfully accepted it; but he was surprised

  121
  that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not ask for time to consider it. According to that Amendment, the voter, before he went to the poll, would have to make a declaration which any corruptor or intimidator could make for him; and he would take this declaration with him to the Returning Officer, upon whom there would be no check, and who could therefore give such vote as he liked. The voter would be unable to tell which way the vote was given, for if he were able to tell he would be able to vote for himself. If there were no check on the Returning Officer, he would have the power of disposing of the vote of every illiterate voter; and however honourable a man he might be, there would be sure to be a portion of the constituency who would suspect him. If the Amendment were to be accepted, why should not the vote be recorded in the presence of a third person? If an agent were objected to, let the voter take a friend in whom he had confidence. If this fatal step were to be taken, against the taking of which he protested, do not let them invest the presiding officer with the power of giving votes. He would ask the Committee not to be led away now, but to take time to consider whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick would not make the Bill worse than useless.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to say that the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had been one-sided, inasmuch as the speakers on the Government side of the House sat above the gangway, and the supporters of the Ballot sat below the gangway. For one, he did not hesitate to adopt every word which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. James), and to say that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) would strike fatally at the object of the Bill. It would give an immense control over the illiterate voters to the Returning Officer; and although he might be respectable and trustworthy, it should not be forgotten that his deputy was generally merely an attorney's clerk. Under the clause of the hon. Member for Limerick, he would undertake to contest the constituency against him if he could fee the deputy Returning Officers handsomely, and he should be confident of the result, always assuming that the
  122
  hon. Member did not outbid him. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hesitate before he accepted this Amendment on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), as by doing so he would give the Ballot a stab which he believed it would not survive.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his hon. Friend must be aware that he had no intention of accepting the present Amendment. He had some cause to complain of the remarks of his hon. Friend, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) stated that the ball went from one side of the House to the other, and that a fatal blow against the Ballot had been struck on both sides. But surely the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him ought to have interposed and caught the ball. The feeling of the Committee certainly was that this alteration ought to be made, and although he did not conceal the fact that he did not like it, he must altogether deny that it would be such an evil as the hon. Member for Warrington imagined. He might mention that no one was a more ardent supporter of the Ballot than the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), who nevertheless declared before to the Committee his preference for the Victorian plan, which authorized the presiding officer to fill up the papers of voters who were unable to read and write. Ever since he had to deal with the Ballot he felt this was a very difficult question, and that strong arguments might be advanced on either side. He had put it to deputations of working men, and had by no means got a conclusive answer as to their feelings upon the matter, the answer being sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was himself a very strong supporter of the Ballot, and what he (Mr. Forster) had said to him was that he would accept substantially his Amendment, but that he must not be surprised to find that there were some alterations or modifications upon the Report. He thought that it was doubtful whether other persons beside the presiding officer and the voter should be present, because those other persons would probably be agents of the candidates, the landlords, or some other person of influence. He

  123
  hoped, therefore, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would be withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) was rather hard on his supporters. They had not discussed the proposal because the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) had passed the word to be silent. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) Was adopted at once, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), though it was true that it might require amendment.
  MR. CHARLEY, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, said he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CRAWFORDmoved in page 19, line 26, after "Act," insert—
  "Or (if the poll be taken on Saturday) of any voter who declares that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in manner prescribed by this Act, shall"
  The object of the Amendment was to enable Jews to vote when elections took place upon their Sabbath.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved that the Amendment should be so altered as to apply to all persons who on any day of the week might object on religious grounds to fill up their voting papers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) was intended to apply only to members of the Jewish persuasion, who were forbidden by their religious law to write on Saturday, and he could not agree to insert the words just suggested.
  Amendment (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) negatived.
  Amendment (Mr. Crawford) agreed to.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONmoved in page 19, line 26, leave out "cause," and insert "himself secretly mark." He thought it important that the knowledge of how any man had voted ought to be limited as narrowly as it was possible.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped he Amendment would not be pressed. It would greatly delay the polling if the Returning Officers were alone empowered to mark the papers where necessary, instead of their clerks, who were also bound to secrecy by penalties, being allowed to assist in the work.
  MR. CHILDERSsupported the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), but urged the importance of subjecting the clerks, as well as the Returning Officers, to severe penalties, if they disclosed the votes or attempted directly or indirectly to influence the voters.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the power of marking the ballot papers of persons unable themselves to mark them should be confined to the Returning Officers and their clerks. If the Amendment were not pressed, he would undertake to consider the point raised by it, and also the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers.)
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SYNAN, on rising to move formally the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and upon which he had already addressed the House, remarked that a deal of unnecessary heat had been introduced into the discussion by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who charged him by insinuation with having entered into a secret compact with Her Majesty's Government and with the Opposition for the purpose of carrying an Amendment, the effect of which would be to render corruption easy. He denied the accuracy of this, and declared that his only object was to save the votes and protect the voters. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 19, line 28, after the word "box," to insert the words "Provided further, That on the application of any voter who is unable to read, and on the production by him to the said officer of a declaration that he is so unable, the said officer shall cause the vote of such voter to be secretly marked on a ballot paper in manner directed by the said voter, and the ballot paper to be placed in the ballot box; and the said officer shall retain the said declaration and hand the same over to the returning officer."—(Mr. Synan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. M'MAHONopposed the Amendment on the ground that it would inter-

  125
  fere with a vital principle of the Bill and render corruption and intimidation much more easy than it would otherwise be.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, out of the 16,500 electors in his county (Cork) he did not think there were 50 who would not be able to exercise their right of voting according to the provisions of the Bill as it originally stood. He wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would look below the gangway, before adopting as he did the proposals of those immediately behind him. The right hon. Gentleman would then be prevented, if that were possible, from making any further mistakes in this Bill. The proposal was, that a voter should be enabled to have his paper marked for him if he made a declaration that he was "unable to read." Read what? There was no Gentleman in that House who could not with truth make a declaration that he was "unable to read" something or other. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a certain number of Gentlemen sitting upon that side of the House who would not be led away even by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but who would be true to the pledges they had given and still do their best to pass an honest Bill and to prevent the adoption of anything that looked like a sham. There were, under existing arrangements, 10 polling-places in his county. In accordance with the proportion fixed by the Bill these would at once be increased to 110, with an equal number of presiding officers. He contended that the real effect of this Amendment would be to disfranchise a large number of voters. Besides, no provision was made for those electors who were unable to speak English, and each polling-booth would have to be furnished with an interpreter. The principle of the Bill was now torn asunder, and the Returning Officer might be able to turn an election if he chose to act dishonestly.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he was alive to the danger of entrusting so great a power to the hands of the Returning Officer, but they had to consider a choice of evils. Personally, he had approved the proposal to adopt the use of the colours; but the Committee had refused to sanction that plan. He would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) that the position of the man who could not speak English would not be affected either one
  126
  way or another by the proposal now under consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it had been suggested to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) to omit the declaration "before a magistrate," because it was open to the objection that it would probably entail an expenditure of money on the part of the voter. It might be necessary to make it clear that the declaration was a bonâ fide declaration by the voter of his inability to read the ballot paper, and he would undertake to insert some words on the bringing up of the Report to effect that object, and he would be happy to receive the assistance of his hon. Friends the Members for Cork (Mr. Downing) and New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon) in framing such a provision. In going to a division he desired it to be understood that the Government, recognizing what was understood to be the feeling of a great number of the Committee, and also the difficulties which beset the question, were prepared to do what they could to meet the case of those voters who were unable to read; but some safeguard would have to be provided against the abuse of power which the Amendment would place in the hands of the presiding officer. To re-assure the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, he might state that there was only one country where the Ballot was in use where provision was not made for the case of voters who were unable to read.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he preferred an Amendment of his own, which could come on subsequently, that the candidate's name should be printed on a ground of such colour as he or his agent might select. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought it right that some one from the North should enter a protest against the course of Her Majesty's Government. They in the North, at any rate, could read and write, and they did not require such a provision as that proposed; and he was surprised that the Vice President of the Council should for a moment have thought of adopting a provision which would render the Bill, as a Ballot Bill, almost useless. He spoke the sense of all those who wished for a secret ballot, that they would rather not have the Ballot at all than have it with this Amendment.

  127
  If a specimen ballot paper were printed large enough and posted up, even those who could not read would become sufficiently familiar with it to be able to mark it properly.
  MR. REDMONDexpressed his dissatisfaction at the disposition that had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment which would have the effect of lessening the efficacy of the measure. He had just left his constituency, and one of the declarations that he made was that he would support the Government in the efforts they were making to insure that this Bill should be a real and not a sham Bill. He regretted exceedingly that in the first division in which he was called upon to take a part he should have to vote against the Government. To create the slightest suspicion in the minds of the electors of Ireland upon the question of voting would produce the greatest harm possible. What they required was a really efficacious measure, and not a sham.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was desirous that no exaggerated views should go forth to the country, but erroneous impressions would prevail if it were supposed that the Committee was discussing the question of a real or sham Bill. There might be those in the House—though he did not pretend to say that there were—who put down Amendments with the view of impairing the efficiency of the Bill; but such an imputation ought not to be made except on the clearest evidence. It was the duty of the Government to consider impartially every suggestion that was made, and it was impossible for a man of candour to examine the question before the Committee without seeing that it was one of considerable difficulty, though its operation would be on a small scale. The hon. and learned Member for Cork County (Mr. Downing) had expressed his belief that there were not 50 out of the 16,000 voters he represented who could not read and write. ["No, no!"] [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Who are not able to exercise the franchise.] But if so, there were not 50 men who would be entitled to make this declaration, and therefore even supposing it were a declaration before a magistrate, which he apprehended it would be, where was the ground for fearing some great wholesale operation which was largely to affect the character of the election? For his own
  128
  part, his belief was, that this declaration would not be largely used. The great bulk of intelligent men, if they could not read or write, could count, and they would be able to put their mark against the candidates for whom they wished to vote. There were other securities. It was not a very attractive thing for a voter to come forward and make a declaration that he could not read or write. As a general rule, a man would not do so unless there was a real necessity for it; and, upon the whole, he could not believe there was any reason for supposing that any great effect upon the efficiency of the Ballot was to be produced one way or the other by this Amendment. But, unquestionably, there was force in the appeal that had been made that the Bill should be divested of anything that was likely to have a disfranchising effect. If there were those who required assistance in voting from their inability to read and write, it would be a very odious and invidious reproach, which would be justly made against the Government unless, under an imperative necessity, they consented to exclude from the Bill provisions under which those who could neither read nor write could receive assistance how they should vote. It was a question of considerable difficulty; but he was inclined to hope that they were leaning to a just decision. But whether it was so or not, he hoped they would not allow it to be supposed that they had been engaged in a struggle of life and death, such as to determine whether this was to be a Bill or no Bill; but to approach the question as it really deserved, when he felt satisfied the Committee would come to a just conclusion.
  The O'DONOGHUEsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had done good service in bringing forward this Amendment. He was sorry to say that in his part of the country (Tralee) a great number of voters were unable to read or write, and the Government had simply to choose between disfranchising them, and affording them facilities for recording their votes under this Bill. It, however, should be borne in mind that it was perfectly optional with the voter to exercise this privilege or not.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that once more, not in anger but more in sorrow, he protested against the course that was being adopted by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped he had given proofs of his

  129
  wish not to throw obstacles in the way of the progress of this measure; but he wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to recollect that the opponents to the Amendment who had stood by him and expressed their views on Monday night last had no knowledge of the Amendment until it was put on the Paper this morning, which had prevented many from knowing what it was until within a few hours they were called upon to express an opinion upon it. And now, when practical suggestions were made, an admission was made by the Government that they intended practically to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister had told them it was a question of great difficulty; and that being so, the more time was required for consideration before arriving at a decision. Like the right hon. Gentleman, he was unwilling to disfranchise voters; but, on the other hand, he was unwilling to increase presiding officers; and although he had said that only 50 voters need make this declaration, the opponents of the Amendment feared that those who need not avail themselves of it would be induced to make it, for the causes for which the Ballot Bill had been introduced to remedy. The Prime Minister, a few nights ago, warned his Friends not to listen to the cheers of hon. Members opposite; and he (Mr. James) would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to listen now to the grateful murmurs of hon. Members opposite in approval of the concession, but learn from it what he might expect would result from it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think there was much practical difference between himself and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee. He agreed that the power of the presiding officer would have to be very carefully considered with a view to its limitation, and it would be necessary that something should be done with regard to it on bringing up the Report. All the Government wished to determine by this Amendment was, that persons who could not read should not be disfranchised. He trusted that the Committee would go to a division without regarding it as a party division, and that they would have the real opinion of the Committee on that question.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 88: Majority 154.
  MR. CAWLEYmoved the first of a series of Amendments on the 25th subsection which deals with the subject of personation. As the sub-section now stood, in the case of a voter who tendered his vote—and it appeared that a vote had already been given by another person in the same name—the man who tendered the second vote would have his ballot paper marked with his name and number on the outside, and placed in the list of tendered votes, and in case of a scrutiny the paper would be opened, and it would then be known for whom the person tendering the vote had voted; whereas the vote of the first person, who might be the real personator, would have been put in the ballot box, and would be regarded as a good vote. So that the unfortunate men who had been personated would be the only class whose votes, under the Bill, would become known, while the personator would escape detection. Personation in most cases—and especially in the great towns—would only be made in the names of the dead or the absent; but when it was made in the name of a living voter, the only vote which could be challenged would be that of the legitimate voter who would come up after the guilty personator had voted for him. The Committee had decided that personation should be a felony; and, therefore, under this Bill, a man might be arrested after he had personated, or when he was tendering a personating vote. It was a most anomalous state of things that a man who might be arrested when he had voted, or was about to vote, had still a perfect right under this Bill to have his voting paper put in the box, and his vote would be counted at an election, though he might be tried, and, when found guilty, condemned to serious punishment. He (Mr. Cawley) proposed to insert words which would make the vote of any man which was challenged a tendered vote, and not an absolute vote; but that the way in which the person tendering the vote proposed to vote should not be known, inasmuch as the challenged voting paper should be placed in an envelope, which should be marked, instead of having the voting paper itself marked. In a subsequent portion of the Bill he intended

  131
  to propose another Amendment, the effect of which was that in cases of personation, as that offence depended on identity, the Returning Officer should be empowered to hear evidence on oath in relation to the charge, and should himself decide it without going through the long and expensive process of a scrutiny before an Election Judge. It was clear that after a vote was given in the ordinary way under the Ballot it would be impossible to strike it off, because the way in which the vote was given would not be known, and, therefore, all challenged votes should be made merely tendered votes, and should not be put into the ballot box, until the charge of personation had been heard and decided, which should be done as speedily as possible before the Returning Officer before the official counting of the votes took place. His first Amendment which he now moved was the insertion, in line 30, of the words "to whose right to vote objection shall be then taken on the ground that he is not such person."
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 30, after the word "paper," to insert the words "to whose right to vote objection shall be then taken on the ground that he is not such person or."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would enable the presiding officer at his own discretion to use a vote, and would, in fact, abolish the present law; because, according to the present law, if a man tendered a vote and the presiding officer suspected that he intended to personate, all he could do was to put the oath to him, and if he answered in the affirmative he was bound to take the vote. He believed that law was passed in consequence of its having been discovered that it was very inconvenient to leave it to the discretion of the Returning Officer to say who was and who was not a voter. The effect of the Amendment would be that the vote of a person to whom objection was taken on the ground that he was not such person would not be counted, and would, be put aside by the Returning Officer.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely beside the question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if the Amendments of the hon. Member were taken as a whole, the Returning Officer, after refusing to take the votes in question on the day of the poll, would be placed in the position of an Election Judge, and would have to determine whether or not they were valid. That would lead to endless delay, and open the door for operations on the part of election agents.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsupported the Amendment. If it were undesirable that the Returning Officer should decide upon the validity of tendered votes the matter might be left to the decision of a stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace. Anything that would tend to get rid of the scandal of personation would be a benefit to public morality.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the Amendment right in theory, but it would be difficult to carry out in practice.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 77: Majority 55.
  MR. MUNTZurged the importance of taking precautions against the ballot box being tampered with by the Returning Officer. He was in France about 20 years ago, when a vote was taken on a new system of government, and it was almost universally believed that unfair returns were made; the officials, indeed, being so zealous for their new master that they returned a larger number in his favour than that of the whole adult male population of France. In Paris, Lyons, and other large towns such practices were, no doubt, out of the question, and there Opposition candidates were repeatedly returned; but it was believed that in many of the rural departments duplicate locks and seals were used, by means of which the voting papers were manipulated over-night. He did not suppose English Returning Officers would resort to such devices; but what might happen hereafter could not be known, and it was desirable to prevent the possibility and even the suspicion of trickery. At his last election he had a majority of 5,000 or 6,000; but his opponents expected from their canvass up to the previous night a majority of 2,000 or 3,000, and had ballot boxes then been left for the night with the Returning Officer, who was rather a friend of his, suspicion might have rested on him. It might

  133
  be said that if 100 presiding officers had to meet in one room and count the rotes in the presence of the Returning Officer and of the agents, the process would be a tedious one; but Members of the House underwent the fatigue of sitting till 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and a Returning Officer might go through a night's work, for the duty was not likely to fall on one man more than twice in his life. Without such a regulation the public would lose confidence in the Ballot and in their being fairly represented by the Members returned. He therefore moved, in page 20, line 19, to leave out all after "shall," and insert—
  "Convey such packets to the Returning Officer, so that the number of votes may be ascertained before the presiding officer of each station or the agents (if any) of the candidates shall have lost sight of the ballot box."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed in the necessity of taking every reasonable precaution—in fact, sufficient precaution—against any possible tampering with the ballot boxes, though the Committee might congratulate themselves on the suspicions raised in a neighbouring country being unlikely to arise here. He could not accept this proposition, however, because it was impracticable. In a large borough or county all the presiding officers could hardly be crammed into one room, and before the counting was over sleep would close the eyes of some of the persons who were to watch or take part in it. They would have to sit up one night and perhaps two. His hon. Friend appeared to underrate the precautions embodied in the Bill. The rules stated that at the close of the poll the papers were to be sealed in separate packets with the seals of the presiding officer and of the agents of the candidates, and that the presiding officer was to deliver such packets to the Returning Officer, who could only count the ballot papers in the presence of the agents. If a night intervened, they were to be again sealed by the Returning Officer and agents, while the presiding officers had to account to the Returning Officer for all the papers issued, and he in his turn to the Clerk of the Crown. He thought that was sufficient precaution to prevent any tampering; but he proposed to take the additional precaution in Rule 32 after the word "shall" in the lines "before the Returning Officer proceeds to count the votes he shall open
  134
  each ballot box," to insert, "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTobserved that the object of the Amendment was not so much to guard against fraud as to prevent suspicion of fraud. His right hon. Friend had given no sufficient reason for not adopting the Amendment. Surely the mere deprivation of sleep in the case of a Returning Officer for a few hours in one night would be held of little account in that House, where they were accustomed to such late hours.
  MR. MELLORasked whether it would not be possible to count the papers before they left the polling booth?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that would increase the danger.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the checks already provided were quite sufficient to prevent fraud or the suspicion of fraud. He did not see how the return could be made up at all if any additional checks were imposed.
  DR. LUSHfelt convinced if the suspicion once got abroad that the ballot-box could be tampered with, the secrecy of voting would be entirely frustrated.
  MR. SCOURFIELDreminded the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) that although they often sat until a late hour in that House, it did not prevent hon. Members from going to sleep, which some seemed to enjoy very much.
  MR. ANDERSONwas of opinion that the ballot boxes should not be lost sight of until the result had been ascertained.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreally did not see how they could adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz). It might be very desirable not to lose sight of the ballot box, but the parties would lose sight of it by falling asleep. Even if the scheme could be worked, it would add largely to the expenses of an election.
  DR. BREWERpreferred the Schedule without alterations.
  MR. MUNTZbelieved that there would be no difficulty in carrying out his proposition without adding to the expenses.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to insert words to allow the agents of candidates, if they chose to do so, to watch the boxes during the night?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would think over the suggestion if his hon.

  135
  Friend would put it into a form which could be adopted; but he thought they would want somebody to watch the agents.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed the addition, in line 28, page 20, respecting the counting of the votes, of the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, in Rule 54, page 24, line 36, at the end of Rule, insert, as a fresh paragraph—
  "The expression 'agents of the candidates,' used in relation to a polling station, means agents appointed in pursuance of section eighty-five of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that in regard to elections, they laboured under very considerable disadvantages in Scotland as compared with England. The Provost of a burgh in Scotland had no power to act as Returning Officer, and there was not a single deputy-officer who was not a lawyer. The practice in Sotland was to pay these officers three guineas, while in England the practice was to pay them two guineas. To that extent there was an additional cost on Scotland. Then the Reform Act of 1831 did not enact that these deputy Returning Officers or presiding officers at the poll should be lawyers—the words used were "The Sheriff or Sheriff-Substitute," and the use of these words had led to the popular notion in Scotland that the men appointed to this office should be lawyers—in other words, a legal officer receiving Government pay, and having a Government appointment, In England there was no such rule, and the practice was now growing up in England to appoint as presiding officers men who were not lawyers, and who received no payment for their services. He therefore proposed, as an Amendment, in page 24, line 40, to add the following words:—
  "In the seven cities and burghs, which severally return one or more Members to Parliament the Lord Provost, Provost, or acting chief magistrate shall be Returning Officer, and in districts of burghs each Provost or acting chief magistrate shall be a presiding officer at the poll in his own burgh, and accountable to the Sheriff as Returning Officer for the district of burghs. It shall be
  136
  lawful for the Sheriff to appoint as presiding officers at the poll persons not belonging to the legal profession, and no presiding officer shall be entitled to a fee of more than two guineas."
  He proposed the Amendment not so much for the purpose of pressing its adoption at the present stage, but in the hope that, after the ventilation of the subject, some such provision might be adopted on the Report.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that with regard to the first part of the Amendment, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member. In Scotland the Sheriffs of counties were the Returning Officers not only for the counties, but also for the burghs within the counties, and the object of the Amendment was to make the chief magistrates of seven large burghs the Returning Officers for the burghs, superseding the Sheriff; but that the Sheriff of the county in which the burghs were situated should still be the Returning Officer. He should be very glad to consider that proposal, and, according to his present impression, to consider it not unfavourably. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, the hon. Member was quite right in his statement that it was not the law, but only a popular error, that Sheriffs were constrained to appoint lawyers as their substitutes with reference to election matters. That being clearly so, it did not occur to him that an enactment of the Legislature would be a very judicious method of correcting a popular error—an error which certainly did not extend to the Sheriffs themselves, because they, as lawyers, knew very well that it was open to them to appoint competent persons without legal qualification. As regarded the fee of three guineas, that was prescribed as the maximum—the fee was not to exceed that sum—and he thought it should be allowed to stand so, because there were many eases in which three guineas were certainly not excessive.
  MR. ORR-EWINGexpressed the opinion that the country would prefer it if the post of Returning Officer were retained in the same hands as at present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made, after Rules 56 and 58, "Sheriffs Clerks" in Scotland, "Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper" in Ireland, to be construed to the same effect as "Clerk of the Crown in Chancery" in England.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONmoved, in Second Schedule, page 31, line 24, after "large," insert "black." Same line, after "form," insert "upon a ground of such colour as the candidate or his agent may select." The proposal was perfectly simple, and as every voter identified his opinions with a colour, the result would be to enable every voter, however illiterate, to record his vote.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that an Amendment of a similar character had already been decided by the Committee, and therefore this Amendment could not be discussed.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he thought it would have been as well if he had been stopped before troubling the Committee with any observations; but he submitted that his Amendment was not the same as that which had been already disposed of. ["Order!"]
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought it would be well if the Committee knew the rule which governed them in this matter; because, when some time ago the Committee struck from one of the clauses the word "wilfully," his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill proposed next day to insert words which were exactly equivalent.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member was about to propose that which had been substantially before decided by the Committee—that in the ballot paper the name of each candidate should be accompanied by some distinguishing colour, and his ruling was, that an Amendment virtually to the same effect could not be put to the Committee.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, that before the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) moved his Amendment, he would move the omission of the side-note to the Second Schedule, with a view to a subsequent Amendment.
  Side-note omitted.
  MR. BOWRINGthen moved to insert in the blank in the Schedule the word "cross" as the mark which the voter was to put in the ballot paper against the name of each candidate for whom he voted. He objected to allow the insertion of any other mark, and contended that it was a very natural thing for an illiterate man to mark his voting paper with a cross.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, it was no doubt desirable to have uniformity; but a voter might make a mark which was not a cross at all, and he therefore moved the addition of the words "or other mark."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that he had consented to the omission of the side-note—first, because it was not very intelligible; and, secondly, because it was undesirable to let the Returning Officer decide what kind of a mark should be made. Nobody intended that a vote should be cancelled because a man marked his paper with a mark which was not a cross. In his opinion it was of little importance whether the words "or other mark" were inserted or not.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought it was advisable to have simplicity, and could not perceive why any mark should not be as good as a cross.
  MR. CANDLISHpointed out that another section of the Bill would prevent any vote from being lost by reason of an informality in making the mark.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the Committee were arguing about a mere matter of form, as the Government had declared that if any other mark than a cross were made the vote would still be good. On the whole, it would be better to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, this part of the Bill did not contain enactments, but merely directions for the guidance of the voter, and he did not think it would make much difference whether the Committee inserted "cross" alone, or the words "cross, or other mark." If, however, "cross" alone were inserted, it would be equivalent to advising the voter to use that particular kind of mark.
  MR. F. S. POWELLexpressed the opinion that the Amendment ought to be agreed to, or otherwise the difficulties prepared by the Bill for the voters would be very considerably increased.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, it was absolutely indispensable to prevent voters from making such marks as would render the identification of votes possible. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) were agreed to, an agreement might be made by a voter to use a particular mark in order that his ballot paper might be identified.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the 13th clause provided that an election should not he declared invalid in consequence of an infringement of the Rules in the First Schedule; but it did not follow that such an infringement would not render a vote invalid.
  MR. JAMESremarked that Clause 13 was not applicable to this regulation, which was in the Second Schedule. If they told a voter that he might put any mark he liked, how could they prevent him putting his initials, or any particular mark? But the Bill provided that if a voter could not he identified by his mark, his vote should be void and not counted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas inclined to think that the word "cross" which was inserted in the last Bill should be inserted in this Bill. If the word "cross" were inserted, he would undertake to move on the Report the addition of other words if, upon obtaining legal advice, he found that such addition was necessary.
  MR. CAWLEY, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would return to the question on the Report, would not press his Amendment.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) might be overcome by inserting after the word mark "by which the voter cannot be identified."
  Amendment (Mr. Cawley) withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Bowring) agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules and Preamble agreed to.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEasked whether the Bill would be reprinted before the Report?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid the Bill would be instantly reprinted and delivered to Members of the House.
  In reply to Mr. R. N. FOWLER,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Report would be fixed for that day week.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL— [BILL 72.]
(Mr. Patrick Smyth, Sir Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Syrian, Mr. Digby, Mr. Downing, Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Maguire.)
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL— [BILL 72.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. P. J. SMYTH: Sir, in moving the second reading of the Bill for the repeal of the Act of 33 Geo. III., c. 29, I deem it necessary to offer a few words of explanation. The title of the Act—"To prevent the Election or Appointment of unlawful Assemblies"—is calculated to mislead. Its more correct title would be "an Act to create Unlawful Assemblies," for it renders unlawful any assembly of delegates or representatives, how lawful or constitutional soever the object of such assembly may be. It enacts that—
  "All assemblies, committees, or other bodies of persons elected, or otherwise constituted or appointed, are unlawful assemblies, and all persons giving or publishing notice of the election to be made of such persons or delegates, or attending, or voting, or acting therein by any means, are guilty of a high misdemeanour."
  The House, then, I hope, clearly understands that my object is not to encourage unlawful assemblies in Ireland; but, on the contrary, to elevate the tone of public assemblies by restoring to my country the right of public meeting, in accordance with the forms prescribed by the Constitution, and sanctioned by the custom of England from time immemorial. This Act was passed by the Irish Parliament in the year 1793. It was vehemently opposed by Mr. Grattan. He said its object—
  "Was not the peace of the country, but reflection on great bodies, the gratification of spleen at the expense of the Constitution, by voting false doctrine into law. His objection to the Bill was that it was a trick, making a supposed National Convention at Athlone in 1793 a pretext for preventing delegation for ever."
  In the discussion last Session on the Phœnix Park Riots, the allegation that there was one law for England and another for Ireland with reference to public meetings was denied; it was asserted, on the contrary, by occupants of the Treasury bench, that the law on the subject was actually the same in both countries. That was an excusable mistake, for very few hon. Members of this House were then aware of the existence of this Act. The leading journal even

  141
  was not aware of its existence; but the moment its attention was called to it, it did not hesitate to avow its concurrence with the view of Grattan—that the Irish Parliament would have done more wisely had it originally limited the duration of the Act, and that it was no longer desirable to maintain it. Am I guilty of presumption in now asking the Government and the House to give effect to their own declarations to assimilate the Irish law with reference to public meetings to that of England, and to give to Ireland the benefit of that saving principle of the Constitution—the principle of representation—which, operating through public assemblies, has enabled England, without tumult and without disorder, to repeal her own laws and reform her own Parliament? In that same Park debate the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government complained—and not without some show of reason—that while meetings in England were held for purposes of discussion, in Ireland the object seemed to be to produce an effect by the display of large numbers. The difference is not to be ascribed to any preference of the Irish people for tumultuous assemblages, but to this particular Act, which drove O'Connell to the expedient of monster meetings, and leaves to the Irish people now no other resource. Although asking the House to sanction the formal repeal of this Act, I am free to avow the opinion that the Irish people would be justified in treating it as obsolete and not of binding effect, and I will state the grounds of that opinion. While the Act for the disestablishment of the Irish Church was before the House, a Convention in opposition to that measure, summoned by the Primates of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishop of Dublin, of delegates chosen and elected from every parish in Ireland, sat day after day in Dublin. A letter addressed by the Most Rev. Dr. Trench to each of the clergy of the united dioceses of Dublin and Kildare violates in every line the spirit and the letter of the Act which I propose to repeal, and the writer of it, and every member of that Church Convention, rendered himself liable, on conviction, to the penalties of high misdemeanour. These gentlemen exercised—and properly exercised, as I conceive—what they deemed to be a constitutional right, and they held their
  142
  Convention with the full sanction of Her Majesty's Government. Nay, at the very time the proceedings of that Convention were being published in the Dublin newspapers, the then Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Barry, referred in this House to the Act in question, in these terms—
  "By a peculiar law of old standing in that country, and framed for a particular purpose, no persons or body could meet by delegation."
  I do not mean to censure the Government for their action on that occasion—far from it—they felt, I presume, that the Act was one which either ought not to be enforced, or could not be enforced. Well, the Act which ought not to be enforced, ought not to be upon the statute book; and the Act which cannot be enforced offends against the majesty of the law every instant that it remains unrepealed. This Act, therefore, stands already condemned by the Government, but it stands also condemned by this House. A special clause in the Church Act places this Act in abeyance, in order to enable the Protestants of Ireland to meet by delegation for the organization of their Church—that is, before an influential section of the Irish community can discharge one of the most important duties that could be committed to any body of men, a special Act of Parliament is required to remove the obstruction interposed by this Act. A stronger legislative condemnation than that it would be difficult to conceive. The Act is general in its scope, embracing all sections, all persons, and all objects; I claim, therefore, in the name of justice and of law, that the right reserved by the Church Act in favour of a section of the Irish community for a special purpose, shall be extended to the whole Irish people, for any and every purpose that is legal and constitutional. It may be said that if this Act is repealed, the Irish people will hold representative meetings for Repeal of the Union, or some form of Home Rule. Granted that they may do so; at present they can hold monster meetings for a similar purpose. The only difference that I can see between the two forms of meeting is, that while the representative principle affords a guarantee for order and regularity, the monster meeting is usually attended with excitement. But either one or the other may be prevented, if convened for an illegal purpose. The Act, moreover,

  143
  is utterly indefensible. No such Act exists in England, and if maintained, it can only be with the intent of preventing the Irish people from deliberating in an orderly and constitutional manner upon Irish affairs, and petitioning with effect the Crown or the Parliament. I hope the House will not commit the fatal blunder of elevating this infamous Act into the position of the Malakhoff of the Union—if it should do so, that Malakhoff will be captured, and no bridge of fire will save the Sebastopol behind it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Patrick Smyth.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was sorry that he was unable to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and he need hardly tell the hon. Member who had charge of it and the House that no one would have more pleasure than he should if he could think that this piece of exceptional legislation with regard to Ireland could be safely repealed. The hon. Member had stated that the Act which he now sought to repeal was intended to restrain the right of public meeting, but against public meeting in that country there was no Act whatever in existence, provided it was convened for a legal purpose; the Act in question only prohibited persons who either were, or purported themselves to be, delegates from other bodies, from assembling in Convention. The hon. Member had further carefully abstained from entering into the history of this measure; but he would not imitate the hon. Member in that respect, but would at once tell the House that it was passed not by the English, but by the Irish Parliament at a time when hon. Members of the hon. Gentleman's mode of thinking believed that Ireland was most prosperous and most happy. It would be a mistake, however, were the Government to treat this Act as being altogether obsolete. Doubtless, it had been passed for reasons which he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not altogether approve, and under very different circumstances from those which now existed; but, unfortunately, it had been found necessary in recent times to put it into operation, and had not the Irish Parliament passed it, it might have been necessary for the British Parliament to have enacted some provisions of a similar
  144
  character. Thus, in the time of Mr. O'Connell, it was proposed to hold a National Convention, which was announced as furnishing a correct representation of the Irish people; and it was only by means of this Act that that Convention was prevented from being held. In still more recent times the Act had been put into operation. Thus, in 1848, the Irish Confederation announced its intention of summoning a National Council, to be elected by the various local national councils in that country, and, of course, such a Council would equally have purported to be the national representative of Ireland. The late Lord Clarendon, the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, believing that such an assembly would be dangerous to the public peace of the country, gave notice that it would not be permitted to meet, and that the Act would be put into force in order to prevent such a Convention being held. Any hon. Member who had read the speeches of Members of the Irish Confederation, in which they announced their ultimate views, would have little doubt that the Government of that day came to a right conclusion in thinking that the permitting of the assembling of such a National Council would not be conducive to the public peace. Those speeches plainly showed that it was the intention of the promoters of that National Council that it should purport to represent the national will and the feelings of the Irish people more completely and fully than Parliament itself, and there could be no doubt that such a Council would have been regarded by large numbers of the people of Ireland as possessing a superior weight to that of the Parliament of England. The hon. Member said that the Act had been condemned by the action of both the Government and of Parliament; but it appeared to him that, in the observations he had made on the subject, the hon. Member had answered himself. The hon. Member had said that the representative Convention of the Church Body in Ireland was an infraction of the Act, and that the Government by proposing, and Parliament by assenting, to a provision legalizing that assembly, had practically condemned the Act in question. But the Government had taken a reasonable and a proper course by asking Parliament to agree to a provision repealing the Act in a special case, which

  145
  they believed to be a reasonable and a proper one. The general question however they had now to determine was, what would be the immediate effect of repealing the Act at the present time? He was far from saying that the time might not come when this Act might be repealed; but he should not be expressing the opinions which he entertained were he to say that that time had now arrived. The hon. Member was of too practical a turn of mind to wish to repeal this Act without having some ulterior object in view; and, therefore, would not say that in the event of the Act being repealed, a Convention of the Home Rule party would be held; but was it not extremely probable that such an assembly would be held in that event? He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know whether it would be worth while to preserve the Act merely for the purpose of preventing a Home Rule Convention being assembled; but it was impossible for the Government to shut their eyes to the fact that, although much had not been heard about it lately, and although it was dormant, the Fenian organization was not altogether extinguished. He did not know whether the hon. Member was aware, but he himself was aware, that many members—perhaps not the most prominent, but, at all events, not the least active members—of the Home Rule Association were still connected with the Fenians. ["No!"] Whether the hon. Member who cried "No," was aware of the fact or not, he could inform him that he had not the smallest doubt that many members—perhaps not the most prominent, but not the least active members—of that Association were now or had been connected with the Fenian organization, and their object in taking up the agitation on the subject of Home Rule it was not difficult to conjecture. At the present moment Fenianism was at a very great discount. The failure of the Fenian plans had been complete, and the people of Ireland were fully aware of the hollowness of the proposals and the selfishness of the aims of those who put them forward—in fact, Fenianism might be said to be very nearly dead. But although Fenianism was dormant, it was not altogether dead, and the great object of the leaders of that organization was, that some kind of agitation should be kept up in Ireland, so that, if a more convenient
  146
  opportunity arose, the Fenian organization might be easily revived. The Home Rule agitation accordingly seemed to open up to the nearly extinct Fenian party the requisite means for keeping up what they called a patriotic spirit, they biding their time till a more convenient season; and he again maintained that, whether the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was aware of the fact or not, many members of the Home Rule party did at all events belong to the Fenian organization. [Mr. BUTT: No, no!] He would repeat, in spite of the denial of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, that if that hon. and learned Member was not aware of it he (the Marquess of Hartington) was, that many of the most active members of the Home Rule Association did at present belong, or had belonged, to the Fenian Association. If that was not the fact, let the hon. and learned Gentleman point out to the House what means were taken by the Home Rule Association to exclude Fenians from their body. Let him institute inquiries, and, if he did it honestly, he would find that the statement now made was not an exaggeration. He sincerely wished, as the whole House must wish, that every trace of exceptional legislation in Ireland could be effaced; but the best way to effect that object was not by moving for the repeal of these Acts before the time had come at which they could be repealed with safety, but by removing altogether the cause for such legislation. If the hon. Member for Westmeath and others would exercise their influence with a view to destroy all disloyal and illegal associations in Ireland, the Government would gladly propose the repeal of those Acts; but so long as they knew that treasonable associations had very recently been rife and active in Ireland, and that many men there were only waiting for the opportunity of reviving plots which a few years ago did so much to check the prosperity of Ireland, and caused so much alarm, it was impossible to repeal laws which imposed checks in the way of these associations. While he hoped the time might come when exceptional legislation would cease, it would not at present be either wise or politic to repeal those Acts. He regretted, moreover, that the discussion had come on at a time when it was not expected, and

  147
  when, therefore, hon. Members were not very well prepared to discuss it. Among other Members absent was the hon. Gentleman who had undertaken to move the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Leeman). In the absence of the hon. Gentleman, however, he should adopt his Amendment, and accordingly would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BUTTsaid, he rose in consequence of the direct appeal made to him by the noble Marquess. He also regretted that the House was not better attended, because he should have been glad to ask a full assembly of English Gentlemen whether, in the first place, these professions of liberality towards Ireland were a reality or a sham; and, in the next place, whether it was the province of any Minister to bring against Gentlemen as honourable as himself charges that they had taken part in the Fenian conspiracy? He gave the most direct denial to the statement just made. If the noble Marquess was of opinion that "some members of the Home Rule Association are members" of the Fenian conspiracy—mark these words "are members"—[Several hon. MEMBERS: "Are or were" was the expression used.] In that case, he would like to know what was the meaning of the alternative? Would the noble Marquess retract, and say that no member of the Home Rule Association was now a member of the Fenian conspiracy? If such men were now Fenians it was the duty of the noble Marquess to prosecute them. If he forbore from prosecuting, it was the duty of the noble Marquess to be silent in that House; and he (Mr. Butt) protested against the conduct of a Minister who, upon the assertion of detectives and spies—who constituted the real Government of Ireland—brought such charges against Gentlemen who were as respectable as himself. "They were members of the Fenian conspiracy." He denied the statement; but if it were true, it would be one of the greatest
  148
  triumphs of the Home Rule Association that it had won back to peaceful agitation men who had been driven by such Legislation as this to pursue their objects by illegal combinations. He would take upon himself the responsibility of calling on the noble Marquess to name the members of the Home Rule Association who "are or were" members of the Fenian conspiracy. To the best of his belief the charge was without a particle of foundation. The noble Marquess asked him, individually, what steps had been taken to prevent Fenians from joining the Home Rule Association? Had he received due notice of such a question, or had he expected such a charge to be made, he would have brought over the rules of that association, which declared that the only object contemplated was to gain for Ireland, under the Sovereignty of the Queen, with a House of Lords and a House of Commons, the right of managing in Ireland exclusively Irish Business, leaving still to the Imperial Parliament the task of dealing with Imperial legislation. That was the fundamental principle of the society, and there was a declaration that it was to be accomplished by peaceful means. A Fenian who joined the Home Rule Association under such circumstances, or, indeed, any man who had any reserve, or any disloyal or revolutionary object, would betray every member of the society when he joined; and, further, he had been present at the meetings of that society and had never heard a word uttered inconsistent with these declarations; but the effect of such legislation as this was to drive many men in Ireland into illegal combinations. He did not expect on such an occasion that he should be called upon to discuss Home Rule; but members of that association believed that until Ireland obtained the right of managing Irish affairs in an Irish Parliament, they would never have peace, prosperity, or content there. He was anxious to maintain the Union, and so were those engaged in the Home Rule organization, including men of high position and large property, who were not likely to lend themselves to revolutionary projects. Their proposals might be wild and impracticable, or otherwise; but they were simply as he had said—that Ireland should have an Irish Parliament managing Irish affairs under the Sovereignty of the Queen,

  149
  with a veto given to Her Majesty upon every Irish subject; and the supreme control of the Imperial Parliament to be exercised in the last resort. He believed that the whole Irish people would make that demand at the next General Election, in such a form that every Englishman would feel it necessary for the peace and for the interest of the Empire that the demand should be granted. He had not, however, come here to discuss the question of Home Rule, nor ought it to have been raised that evening. An Act of Parliament remained on the Statute Book, which rendered it illegal for Irishmen to assemble, if they presumed to represent any portion of the Irish people; and those who took part in it would be liable to penalties. For example, an assembly of medical men sent up by the medical profession in the various counties would be illegal, and those who took part in it would be liable to penalties. The representative assembly of the Disestablished Irish Church would be illegal, if it were not expressly authorized by the recent statute; otherwise, the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin would be liable to a prosecution for having contravened this Convention Act. The noble Marquess assigned the Fenian organization as his reason for continuing this Act. Did he think that thereby he would prevent the holding of a Fenian assembly? Would he seek to subject the members of a Home Rule Convention to penalties? He (Mr. Butt) would like to ask a number of representative men to meet together in Dublin, and determine upon a plan for an Irish Parliament to submit to this House; believing that if he did so, he should come here with an overwhelming representation of the intellect and property of Ireland. Such an assembly would, however, be illegal. He would hold it, if necessary, in defiance of all the Convention Acts upon the statute book; but if they met, it would not be under the protection of the law, or with the restraints imposed by the law, but more or less as outlaws, evading the law. Under this Act of Parliament the Corn Law League in Ireland would have been illegal, and Mr. Cobden would have been put in prison; while the advocates of Parliamentary Reform would have been put in precisely the same position. On the part of the Irish nation, he, however,
  150
  maintained that they desired Home Rule; and claimed the same liberty to express their opinions upon the subject as was now possessed by Englishmen and Scotchmen, who were under no coercive statutes, such as that which it was now sought to repeal. And, moreover, he would warn the House, that if this Act was not repealed, it would cause in Ireland an agitation such as would be likely to endanger the safety of the Empire, and the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland would stand forth before the eyes of Europe, as a body which held and governed Ireland by an unconstitutional system of coercion. Why, if such a system existed in Naples, the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would be stirred, and eloquent and high-sounding despatches would be written upon the subject by the British Minister at Naples, if the King of Italy attempted to hold that province by putting down public meetings. All he wanted, therefore, was that Ireland should be placed under the same law with England; and if the law was violated—if Fenians chose to assemble and to agitate, the common law of the land was sufficient to prevent and punish any such proceeding. The effect of a policy such as that which the Government seemed inclined to act upon in regard to this question must inevitably result in convincing the people of Ireland that they did not stand in apposition of equality under the British Constitution, and that, in order to obtain fair play, they must have a Parliament of their own sitting in Dublin; for nothing was more likely to stir up the inhabitants of Ireland who sympathized in any degree with the Penian movement, to rebellion and acts of violence, than to throw into their face the reproach that the British Parliament was asked by the Government not to repeal an unconstitutional and coercive measure, and to prevent them from meeting to discuss the dearest interests of their own country. He asked the House to believe him, when he said that if this line of policy were persisted in, Ireland would undoubtedly become a scourge for England in days which were not very far distant. God forbid that that should be so. He had struggled long—and should continue to struggle—to prevent such a state of things coming to pass; but the Ministry which would perpetuate an

  151
  Act of Parliament like the one now under consideration was doing more than any other agency could do to bring about the denouement which he so strongly deprecated. He regretted very much that the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have opposed this Bill, and he should regret still more to see the Prime Minister taking a similar course; because it would be impossible to inflict a greater blow upon British authority in Ireland, or to throw a greater difficulty in the way of those who, like himself, were anxious to reconcile the Irish people to the authority of the Queen, than would be inflicted by continuing these unconstitutional Acts upon the statute book.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he did not intend to follow his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) into a discussion upon Home Rule—a matter which deserved separate discussion, and would probably receive attention from Parliament in the course of that or some future Session. He hoped when that discussion took place the voice of the Irish people generally would be heard upon the question, for he felt convinced that, when heard, it would show that the great bulk of the people were not under the guidance of his hon. and learned Friend upon this subject. Irishmen held a variety of opinions upon most subjects, and Home Rule was a matter upon which they were by no means ignorant. He came from the Province of Ulster, which was, whatever else might be said in reference to it, the most prosperous part of Ireland, and he assured his hon. and learned Friend that the people among whom he lived in his early life, and some of whom he represented in that House, held, and would express at the proper time, very decided opinions upon the subject of Home Rule. He did not intend to import into the discussion any amount of heat, but he wished to make one observation in reference to a remark which fell from his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. His noble Friend said that there were in the Home Rule Association—[Mr. BUTT: "Are now" were the words which the noble Marquess used]—he desired permission to finish the sentence before any correction was attempted. He understood his noble Friend to say that there were now
  152
  or had been Fenians among the members of the Home Rule Association. [Mr. BUTT: No, no!] Then, what his noble Friend said was, that at the present time there were in the Home Rule Association persons who were now or had been members of the Fenian conspiracy. He should like to know from his hon. and learned Friend how many members the Home Rule Association had? [Mr. BUTT: 700.] 700 men, to represent the property, the intellect, and the patriotism of Ireland! Certainly, their number was greater than that of the men who fell at Thermopylæ; but though it was so small—[Mr. BUTT: 70,000]—he certainly should have thought they were more like 70,000—he ventured to think that of the 700 Home Rulers, or at all events of the 70,000, there was some one who at some period of his life had some connection with the Fenian conspiracy. That was substantially all his noble Friend had said on the subject. The real question, however, before the House was, whether in the present condition of Ireland, the Government responsible for the well being of the country ought to give up any of the safeguards that the wisdom of a former age had enacted for the preservation of the country's peace? He was in hopes that the time would shortly come when this Act might be safely repealed; but he did not think—and the Government did not think, it would be safe to repeal it just now. He did not think it would be denied by anyone that a Fenian conspiracy existed in Ireland. It might be dormant, but the Irish were a very lively people, and when asleep it was not very difficult to awake them. No man in Ireland had done more to discourage violence than his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, who, judging from his speech that evening, was not so far astray as many people thought he was; and he therefore asked his hon. and learned Friend to say, whether it would be wise to give up any of the existing safeguards, in face of a society which boasted its connection with a powerful organization across the Atlantic, openly stated its opposition to the maintenance of the Throne and the British Constitution, and looked forward to nothing less than the creation of an independent Irish Republic as the only means of securing the end they had in view? His hon. and learned Friend had referred

  153
  to the Act it was now sought to repeal as a somewhat trumpery measure passed in 1793, and said it might be used to prevent certain country doctors from meeting in Dublin to discuss pathological subjects; but so far from this being a correct description of the measure, he (Mr. Dowse) found on reference to the statute, that it was enacted for the purpose, among others, of putting a stop to the holding of meetings convened for factious and seditious purposes. The Act in effect said that all assemblies assuming authority to represent the people of any province, city, town, or district, and elected for, and meeting under pretence of petitioning for or in any manner procuring an alteration of matters established by law in Church and State, should be declared an illegal assembly. It was not the right of public meeting that was aimed at; it was the principle of elections and delegates. He was at a loss therefore to understand how such an assembly of the Protestant Bishops as his hon. and learned Friend had referred to, held in order to protest against an alteration of the law as then established, and not in any shape calculated to effect a violation of the law, or the disturbance of the public peace, could be said to be an assembly convened to procure an alteration of that law. It required all the ingenuity of his hon. and learned Friend—and he (Mr. Dowse) knew how great that ingenuity was—to bring such a meeting under that Act. What that Act however was really aimed at was the assembling of a mock Parliament affecting to represent the people of Ireland, and thus setting up an opposition Business to that carried on in that House. If that were permitted, and a place for the purpose were obtained on College Green, they would doubtless see the county of Cork electing three or four different Gentlemen from those who represented it already in that House. Again, in a borough a different Member would be chosen from the Member who sat for it in that House, and it would be said, "Look on this picture, and on that—here is the real there, the sham representative." It would not be a case of—"How happy would I be with either, were t'other dear charmer away;" but the pseudo-Member would be decidedly preferred. His hon. and learned Friend himself would not be there as really representing
  154
  Limerick, but would probably be President of the body set up in competition to the British Parliament, and which would go on discussing Bills and measures, in order to show how all those things could be managed in Ireland. In the present state of Ireland, with many ill-affected men in the country, armed to the teeth, and Fenianism dormant or smouldering, he did not think it would be safe to allow a sham Parliament to meet in Dublin. They frequently had Naples and the imprisonment of Poerio and other distinguished men mentioned to them; but there was no real similarity between the case of Naples and that of Ireland, and the reference to the former could only be made in these discussions by way of rhetorical flourish. That Act inflicted no practical grievance upon Ireland, which at the present moment enjoyed as much practical liberty as England or Scotland. ["No, no!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Henry) objected to that; but he (Mr. Dowse) defied any man to show that anything but the merest sentimental grievances existed in regard to that subject; and, at all events, he contended that that House was the proper place for the ventilation of Irish questions and complaints, for that House had never turned a deaf ear to anything which Ireland had to say. The grievance was a mere ideal one, for he ventured to assert that till this Bill was brought forward there were not 10 men out of every 10,000 in Ireland aware even of the existence of such a law. It was true there was no exactly analogous statute in England; but there were various enactments in England affecting the right of meeting even more stringent than those in force in Ireland, and yet no one asked for their repeal. The people were aware that no resort would be had to these laws, except on occasions when the whole people would approve of their application. In conclusion, he must say that the Government, having honestly considered that subject, felt it to be a duty to Ireland itself and to the entire United Kingdom not to ask for any change of the law at present; and as a consequence of that, they were bound to resist the proposal made by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. Smyth) to repeal that Act. In doing so, however, they wished to give utterance to

  155
  the sentiment that they were extremely anxious that the time might soon come when there would he no necessity to continue a statute of that description. If all Irishmen were as desirous as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt) to bring Irish questions to the touchstone of discussion and examination in that House, and abide by the result, the Government would not stand in the way of the repeal of that law; but they knew there were many men in Ireland who would not be offended if he called them the advanced thinkers of Irish politics, and who would not be satisfied with anything short of the separation of the two kingdoms. Being anxious, therefore, to allow Ireland time to heal the wounds inflicted on her in past times, and to encourage her people to come to the right tribunal for the consideration and redress of their grievances—the Imperial Parliament, the Government could not at present consent to part with what they deemed to be one of the safeguards of peace and order in that country.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that primâ facie, the case for the repeal of the Act was irresistible, for Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, and it ought to be governed by the same laws as England and Scotland. A case therefore must be made out for enacting or maintaining such exceptional legislation as that, which, in his opinion, would renderillegal the meetings of any representative body of men—say, for instance, the medical authorities from the different Irish counties, if they assembled to petition for a change of the law affecting medical relief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said that no practical grievances had ever been felt under the statute; but under that very Act the committee to obtain the redress of Roman Catholic grievances had been dissolved. That fact overruled the assertion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Attorney General had also thought that an attempt would be made to return Irish Representatives to compete with those now sitting in that House; but was he afraid of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) and his 700 adherents of Home Rule? If the friends of Home Rule were as weak as was alleged, surely, it would be wise to let the true touchstone be applied which would
  156
  test that weakness? The argument of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland was based on the assumption that if this Act were repealed the order and stability of the Empire would be endangered. It was because he (Mr. O'Reilly) believed that its repeal and the consequent enlarged freedom which Ireland would enjoy would tend to produce loyalty and contentment, that he advocated its repeal. The same fallacy pervaded the arguments of the noble Lord as had pervaded those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, when the noble Lord referred to the agitation that existed under O'Connell's direction, when that hon. Gentleman entertained the idea of assembling a National Council in Ireland in opposition to the Parliament of Westminster, whose decisions and decrees were to be looked upon as equal to or possessing greater weight than those of the Imperial Parliament; but if the question had been brought to such a test, the public would have seen a practical difference between the power and authority of a merely voluntary and irregularly elected body, and the power and weight of the Imperial body. Such an assembly would, no doubt, have had great weight in appealing to the Imperial Parliament; but the attempt to bring its decrees in contrast with Acts of Parliament would have simply shown its inefficiency. Penal legislation in reference to the expression of public opinion had never succeeded in any country in the world; but, on the contrary, it had conferred a fictitious value and a suppositious strength on the power against which it was directed. It did not prevent the meeting of Fenian delegates, because conspirators were not deterred by such Acts; but they used them in their appeal to the people as instances of how unjustly they were treated by the Government. The Imperial Government need not dread the Fenian organization; and he should like to see this legislation swept away, in order that the real feeling of the people might be tested. In conclusion, he must protest against the expression which the noble Marquess had used, when he said that unless a very different state of things were to occur in Ireland hon. Members would appeal in vain to an English Par-lianent to repeal such Acts. Now, if the Parliament of this country were a purely

  157
  English Parliament, he should not be sitting in it; but it was because it was an Imperial Parliament that he sat in it, and it was to an Imperial Parliament he therefore appealed.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that if he had had any doubt before coming down to the House as to the vote he should give, the speech of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have dispelled it. That noble Lord had fairly told the House that this was an Act of the Irish Parliament, but passed under different circumstances to those in which they now lived, and, instead of basing his opposition on that, he had introduced the subject of Fenianism and Home Rule. He need not remind the House that he (Mr. Bagwell) had never been connected with Fenianism or mixed up with Home Rule. He differed entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and he had no hesitation in stating his belief that Home Rule would lead to the utter destruction not only of Ireland, but of the whole country. It would be a simple act of the dismemberment of the Empire—such an act as was contemplated when the Southern States attempted to separate from the United States, and which led to the unfortunate war which took place between them. England, however, would imitate the conduct of the United States, and would no doubt spend her last shilling and fire her last shot before she permitted the dismemberment of the Empire by the separation of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had spoken of that country as being armed to the teeth; but every Irish magistrate well knew it was really not so, in consequence of the stringent working of the various Arms Acts that had been passed; and when a landlord was shot—which was the only thing that was done—he was shot with some such wretched gun that the man who fired the shot ran as much risk of losing his life as the person did who was fired at. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, could not have got the information upon which he founded his remark from the police of Ireland. If this Act were so harmless as it had been represented, why keep it on the statute book? But the fact was, that he had noticed over and over again, that what was proposed by independent Irish Members on the Government side of the
  158
  House was opposed by the Government; and, if, after a time, it was proposed by Irish Members on the other side, it was immediately adopted by the Government. He did not think that was a proper course for the Government to adopt, and he, for one would always deprecate it. Were the Government not strong enough to keep down insurrection, or any meetings calculated to lead to riot, when they had a strong law, with an enormous army of superior police to carry out that law? With all these powers, he maintained that it was unworthy of the Government to continue obsolete Acts, passed in former times, and under circumstances different from the present.
  MR. PIM, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, the continuance of the Act was an exceptional restriction on liberty in Ireland, and, indeed, was no remedy for the evils referred to, for Fenianism worked in the dark, and would not be affected by an Act against open meetings. Therefore, while it was inoperative as respected Fenianism, the Act strengthened the antipathies of the people, and was therefore injurious. But even if a mock Parliament were to meet in Dublin, he did not suppose the Government would think it judicious to enforce this Act; it was more probable they would regard it as a dead letter, as they had done in the case of the Party Processions Act. He thought, therefore, the repeal of the Act was desirable, for there was greater danger in the maintenance of exceptional restrictions than in repealing them.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he felt bound to support the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In doing so, however, he must give expression to the hope and the belief that at no distant period the laws between the two countries would be equal. Before he could consent to the repeal of the present exceptional legislation for Ireland, he must have an assurance from the Executive Government that the country was in such a state as to justify that repeal. It would have afforded him great pleasure to hear that the Fenian movement was no longer in existence, instead of being still dormant, and ready to wake into new life on the first opportunity that might occur, for the House must not forget what it had been obliged to do in order to put down that movement—namely, to suspend the Constitution.

  159
  He fully believed what had been stated by his noble Friend, that the Fenian movement existed still, though only in a dormant condition, and every Irish Member in the House was, no doubt, of the same belief. With regard to the Act now under consideration, it was worthy of remark that not one hon. Member who had spoken that night had pointed out a single instance in which the Act had been brought into play inconsistently with the perfect liberty of Irishmen as well as Englishmen; and while he should be sorry to see the Government draw the string too tight, and apply this law on a slight transgression of its strict letter, he thought they were justified in maintaining the law, so that they might be enabled to assure themselves that Ireland was now not only in a tranquil state, but that it would continue to remain so for some time to come. There was a disposition in that House to do strict justice to Ireland, and the determination prevailed on both sides to remedy existing defects in that country. Several measures were already before the House for the purpose, and he believed it was not too much to say that within a few years the Government would be enabled to recommend the House to sweep away all that exceptional legislation, and to govern Ireland and England by the same laws.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, that when the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. Smyth) introduced his Bill on this subject last year, the general opinion of the English Press was in favour of the abolition of the Act. Had the Act done any good—had it prevented sedition, treason, or rebellion, its continuation on the statute book might be justified. He might, however, remind the House of the fact, that the Act was passed during the Irish Parliament, and at a time of great political excitement, in 1793. Its object was to prevent meetings for political purposes; but what was the result? Treason and sedition still continued; men who would have been known to the Government had they assembled openly, met privately and plotted against the Government, and five years afterwards, when the delegates met in private, a majority of them were arrested in Dublin. That was the commencement of the Rebellion in 1798. The objects of those men were treasonable, and the men themselves might have
  160
  been seized and tried, and the rebellion nipped in the bud, instead of leading to loss of life and property. They were told that the Act was again put into operation in 1848; but it did not prevent another rebellion then, though, no doubt, it was a rebellion of very contemptible proportions. The Act, therefore, had not been operative or beneficial in preventing meetings for illegal purposes. If people met openly for illegal purposes, the common law was quite sufficient for dealing with them; but if they met in a legal and constitutional manner, they were entitled to do so in England and Scotland, and they ought to be entitled to do so in Ireland also. In no sense of the word could the continuance of the Act give greater security to the Crown, or prevent sedition if people were disposed to be seditious. He was prepared to support the present Bill on principles totally irrespective of Home Rule, because he believed that the Act the repeal of which was sought for was a piece of exceptional legislation, which, while it offended and annoyed, did not serve any useful purpose. If the Government were wise, instead of adopting the Amendment which had been moved, they would repeal a statute which could do no good and which served but to irritate and excite.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am glad to observe that this debate has been conducted with moderation; and I am desirous of expressing the lively satisfaction with which I listened to many of the most important propositions contained in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). I think it is matter of public importance that the declarations which he has made should have been made at this early period after his reappearance in the House; and that they should go forth as a portion of the debates of this House to the hearing and knowledge of the people of Ireland, because undoubtedly there have been exaggerations—there has been doubt, there has even, perhaps, been either apprehension or irritation on the subject of the views entertained by my hon. and learned Friend and others in Ireland, which, whether we agree or disagree with him, unquestionably the declarations he has made, perfectly explicit as they are, must tend very materially to allay and to remove, My hon. and

  161
  learned Friend is not satisfied, as Irish reformers or popular leaders have been in former times, by desiring to maintain as the sole link of connection between the two countries the authority of the Crown. My hon. and learned Friend is evidently aware to what risk the authority would be exposed, if upon the Crown alone the whole strain of its continuance were to be devolved. My hon. and learned Friend desires to maintain as explicitly as any one among us the supreme authority of Parliament. What he seeks for Ireland is the management of local affairs, and as Parliament is the supreme and last resort, it follows that with Parliament must rest the definition of the important question as to what affairs are local affairs. That is essentially involved in the declarations which my hon. and learned Friend has made. No doubt he has assumed that that definition would be liberally and fairly made, but he knows very well that you cannot have two supreme authorities in a country; and as in the great American Civil War it was the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature which found it necessary to take into its own hands the circumscription of the liberties of the States, and the solution of the controversy which had formerly been raised on that subject; so it is quite plain that if there is to be an Assembly in Ireland such as he desires, and an Assembly in England also, one of those must be paramount, and the one which has the power of defining and of drawing the line between the provinces of the two will be possessed of paramount authority. My hon. and learned Friend told us explicitly his view of the relations that should exist between the two.
  MR. BUTT: I should be very sorry to be misunderstood on this question. I do not suggest that the Imperial Parliament should have power from time to time of defining what the power of the Irish Assembly should be. I propose that that definition should be made once and for ever. Exactly as in the American Constitution, the separate Provinces of the State Legislatures and of the Federal Union were defined once and for ever.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. and learned Friend does not mend the matter at all by that, for that is just what the American Constitution failed to define; that is precisely the point that is left in
  162
  doubt, and dispute, and difficulty, and which no man could solve—the point, namely, as to the division of authority between the Federal Legislature and the Legislatures of the States. That was the subject of controversy between American statesmen for two generations, and it was the solution of that question which was the great cause of the American War. My hon. and learned Friend does not mend his argument in the least when he says he would have federal arrangements made once for all. How is there to be a federal arrangement between this Parliament, which is Imperial and supreme to all intents and purposes, and any other body whatever within the area of the United Kingdom? But I will not endeavour to develop my hon. and learned Friend's thoughts further than he developed them himself; but unquestionably he said—and I am sure he said it in good faith—that the Imperial Parliament was to be supreme in the last resort. Those were his words, and with those words I will leave that part of the question. Then he expressed—as warmly as any of us could express—his desire that the Irish people should be induced and habituated to look to the two Houses of Parliament for the redress of Irish grievances, and he told us also the mode in which he wished to deal on the part of his Home Rule Association with Fenianism in Ireland. He evidently regards his Home Rule Association as the means of reclaiming from Fenianism those who unfortunately have been dragged into it. If he has to deal with Fenians they are converted Fenians, and I have no doubt he will labour assiduously in their conversion. I commend the subject of his American illustration to his further meditations, and I am sure he will find I am perfectly right when I say it is idle to suppose you can have existing in a country two separate Legislatures co-ordinate in power. There must lie somewhere in the last resort an appeal to that supreme authority which in case of necessity holds in its hands the solution of every problem that may arise. No doubt it is the virtue of a truly free country to multiply subaltern authorities, and subaltern authorities not with powers granted in a narrow spirit of egotism, but making local government and local institutions strong to the uttermost point of the strength which they can develop, and finding in that strength

  163
  of local authorities and in that development of local government the surest source of strength for the Central Government. That is the spirit in which the supreme authority of the Imperial authority would always he exercised. Now I come to a point on which I differ greatly from my hon. and learned Friend and from some of those who followed him, and that is their statement of the operation of the Act, the repeal of which is now in question. That is a very simple matter. I may quote the authority of my hon. and learned Friend himself, who says the Act is intended to prevent the people from meeting together legitimately and legally, and that has been the burden and strain of several of the speeches which we have heard to-night. Those who listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland could not fail to observe that the Act from beginning to end makes no reference to public meetings—it nowhere interferes with them—it does not touch them at all. The nearest approach to it is a declaration to the contrary effect in the 4th section, where it says that nothing in the Act contained shall be construed to prevent or impede the undoubted right of all the subjects of the Realm to petition for the redress of any public or private grievance, and as the right to petition and the right of public meeting are inseparably connected together, it is not too much to say that the right of public meeting is recognized by this very Act. At any rate, let it be understood that we are not debating a question which has any relation to the right of public meeting. One hon. Gentleman said this Act aimed at repressing the expression of opinion; but that is not so. What it aims at is the assumption of authority. The constitution of representative assemblies may be a matter of very small political consequence. I fully admit that; and that when an Act of this kind is passed you may know it is extended to the extreme of its theoretical meaning, and the extension of it applies to organizations which are perfectly harmless. It is not changes in the law which this Act seems to contemplate, but alterations of matters established by law in Church and State. Well, is it really true that political liberty under all circumstances requires that the law should permit of the constitution of these
  164
  representative assemblies by voluntary delegation? It is plain that assemblies so constituted assume the appearance of rival Legislatures. That is what they aim at; and I think it is too much to state that freedom cannot prevail except where it is possible for individuals to associate themselves by the methods of representation and in the very manner prescribed by the constitution of the Legislature of the country. My hon. and learned Friend says that if there were such a law as this in Naples, we should have the British Minister protesting against it; but, Sir, I am not aware that any British Minister or writer ever made a protest upon such a subject. I believe if he had done so he would have exposed himself to merited ridicule and the interests of this country to serious detriment. Such subjects, however, are entirely beyond our province. The real strength of the case is this—that you have no such law in England, and you say—"If you mean to have equal laws for England and Ireland repeal the law in Ireland." Well, Sir, England is a country where, happily, not only the laws which belong to freedom, but the habits and usages and traditions of freedom, combined with order, are more firmly established than in any other great country in the world, and under these circumstances England can bear laws which, perhaps, it requires more consideration and deliberation to apply to other countries. I do not say that that of itself is a reason why this should be applied to Ireland; but let us see if there is anything open to just exception in the course taken by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He expressed a hope that the time would soon come when this law could be repealed: is there anything unreasonable in saying that the time has not yet arrived? We are told that we ought to have the same laws in England and Ireland. I rather doubt whether that is a formula which ought to be adopted as entirely secure from danger. That we ought to have laws conceived in the same spirit for England and Ireland is not a formula at all, but a broad and deep principle of policy, and one which leaves you free to take into view the history and exigencies of the country. But when you say there should be the same laws, you almost seem to assent that you will have no regard to those

  165
  difficulties, but that in a spirit of political pedantry, or with an unworthy regard for popularity, you will literally transfer to one country whatever you find in the other. What have we done in this Parliament? We have not made the same laws for England and Ireland. We have abolished the Established Church of Ireland; we have not abolished the Established Church in England. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that I have communicated to them a piece of intelligence of which they were formerly not in full possession. After the Church Act we proceeded to make a Land Law for Ireland. We have no such Land Law for England. I will repeat that the laws for the two countries should be conceived in the same spirit; but it is decidedly unnecessary that they should bear the same shape, and I quote these two great statutes to show that Parliament has not hesitated to give to Ireland laws more popular and liberal than laws which prevail in England. That is an application of the principle of which I speak. With regard to this particular Act, I believe it is too much to say that there is no law in England of the same tendency, and standing on the same basis. But, assuming that this law of Ireland does contain what is not in the law of England, is that unreasonable? Have we been able during the last 25 years, with regard to questions bearing upon public order, to apply the principle of identical legislation? Look back 20 years to the stormy period of Lord Clarendon's rule, when it was found necessary by the Government of the country to apply this law. It has been argued that the law failed because there was a rebellion in 1848; but my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) might as well argue that the laws against murder had failed because of the murder in Park Lane. It may be true that there was a rebellion in 1848, and also that this law materially diminished the proportions of the rebellion. Not very long afterwards the Fenian conspiracy was hatched, and from the year 1861 onwards, when the American War gave it additional scope, it assumed proportions of public danger. With that danger the strength of the country easily dealt; but it proved itself to be a reality to our fellow-subjects in Canada. My hon. and learned Friend says we do not want an Act of this description to deal with the
  166
  Fenian representative body; nor do we, if it would avow Fenianism in all its public proceedings. But the argument is, that a representative body of this kind may be used as a cover under which treasonable proceedings may be concealed. I rejoice that we have in my hon. and learned Friend and his coadjutors and allies assistants as earnest as ourselves in the disposition to oppose this mischievous delusion. Let us consider the course which this House has found it necessary to take. In 1866 it was obliged to suspend the law of Habeas Corpus, and in 1868 to extend the suspension, and since then we have been obliged to pass a Peace Preservation Act, which is still in force, and which deals with matters appertaining to political liberty in a manner which is not recognized in England. Therefore, do not let us hug ourselves with impressions that do not correspond with reality. We must admit, with deep regret, that we have not reached the time when we could safely and prudently venture to apply the entire identity of political legislation to Ireland which I believe every man in this House desires. I think it has been shown in the first place, that the question is not one of the expression of public opinion, or the right of the people to meet; and, in the second place, that that assumption of authority, which is an essential property and characteristic of these quasi-representative assemblies, although it may be safe in certain States of highly advanced civilization, is not to be too hastily and universally assumed to be applicable to every country in the world. These are grounds which I hope will be well understood, and which I believe to be entirely consistent with the absolute demands of duty on the part of the Government in the interests of peace and security, as well as with the firmest adherence to the principle of desiring to remove at the earliest moment possible every provision from the statute book which can suggest to the minds of the Irish people the idea of political inferiority.
  SIR JOHN GRAY, as an advocate of Home Rule, was pleased to recognize in the speech of the Prime Minister the broad principle on which its advocates based their demand, and would at once admit that this law was wanted in the first instance to meet the revolutionary tendencies of a great part of the Irish

  167
  people; but that, he contended, was not the purpose to which it had since been applied. He wished, in the next place, briefly to refer to the remarks which had fallen from, a former Chief Secretary for Ireland (Colonel Wilson-Patten), who asked for an instance in which the Act which it was now sought to repeal had ever been used for the purpose of suppressing the free expression of opinion. He would inform the right hon. Gentleman that it had been so used in 1812 in the case of the prosecution of Thomas Kirwan for attending a meeting held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the repeal of the laws affecting Roman Catholics, Lord Fingall, who was certainly no revolutionist, being in the chair. A resolution was on that occasion moved to the effect that every man had a right to worship God according to his conscience, and that it was wrong for any Government to inflict penalties on him for the exercise of that right. The Attorney General of the day, in commenting on the resolution, spoke of it as an attempt to impress on the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland that they were suffering from pains and penalties under the law, and under those circumstances it was that Thomas Kirwan had been found guilty. [Colonel WILSON-PATTEN observed that what he had said was, that the Act had not been put in force for several years past.] But it might be put in force at any time, and he should like to know whether such a law ought to be allowed any longer to remain on the statute book?
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENthought that that case had happened so long since as to be almost out of date.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, the present was not the first time that, looking on a question from an impartial point of view, he had come to the conclusion that both sides in the discussion were in the wrong. He had tried to discover, not which was the better, but which was the less worse of the two. On the one side, he saw no opportunity at present of redressing those grievances; and on the other, he felt, from the manner in which the question was regarded, that there was no man in that House but would vote for what was good for Ireland and good for the United Kingdom. He had, however, a reason for voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. Smyth)—
  168
  though the grievance involved was not one of a practical, but a sentimental character—which had not been yet stated. It was that he was anxious to take away from the Home Rule Association their greatest grievance, for there was nothing on which people in Ireland throve as on grievances. He was greatly pleased at the tone in which the subject had been discussed on both sides of the House, and if any danger should arise, as was suggested, from the repeal of the Act, there need be no hesitation in coming to Parliament and asking for its re-enactment. It was said that this was a sentimental grievance; but the same argument would have equally applied against repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. If the Act which it was now proposed to repeal had done no harm and could do no harm to Ireland, let the Government boldly propose a similar measure for England, so as, at all events, to give both countries equal laws. If it was said that there was disaffection in Ireland there was none in England, he would ask hon. Members who dwelt upon the existence of Fenianism in the former country whether they had never heard of Republicanism in the latter? He believed the proposal now made to be inopportune; but if a division were taken, he must vote for his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the Motion was a challenge to the House to do away with a law affecting Ireland which did not exist in England, and he thought that a fair proposal. He desired to proclaim his connection with the Home Rule organization, and to protest against the unfairness of any sweeping taunt of disloyalty, come from whom it might, being cast against men who were as loyal as any who sat on the Treasury Bench. They were not Fenians—they were not disloyal men; but the demand for Home Rule was one that they would make, and, with God's help, would in time make successfully. Their efforts might form the subject of the Attorney General's jesting; but if the right hon. Gentleman was kept off the Bench for a few years there was every chance that he would shortly change his tone. That the feeling of Ireland was getting stronger and stronger upon this point the continued exclusion of the second Irish Law Officer of the Crown from Parliament was sufficient to prove. When the time was ripe

  169
  for the discussion of that question they would meet face to face any man on the Treasury Bench, however eminent. The challenge, however, he had now thrown down was neither unjust nor inopportune. The Irish people were not, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin appeared to think, mere grievance mongers. [Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN: I never said anything of the kind.] That, at all events, was the impression which his hon. Friend's speech had left upon his mind. All that they asked now was that a hardship not inflicted upon the one country should be removed from the other, and he could not help thinking that it betrayed a sort of moral cowardice in England to refuse to accede to a claim which was just in itself, and which might be granted without even the slightest shadow of danger.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 145: Majority 118.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION 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 confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Cruden, Dundrum, Gill, Gosport, Herne Bay, Llanfair-fechan, Skerries, and Withernsea.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Cleator Moor Gas, Ossett Gas, Ruthin Gas, Swinton and Mexborough Gas, Kettering Water, and Margate Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 141.]

  ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to legalise the Ulster custom of Tenant Right in holdings not agricultural or pastoral in their character, ordered
  170
  to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. CALLAN, and Mr. PATRICK SMYTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to confirm a Scheme under "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," relating to Hackney Fields, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) (78).
Committee—Royal Parks and Gardens* (79).
Committee—Report—Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses * (84).

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
    THE CORRESPONDENCE.
    OBSERVATIONS.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, seeing in his place my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) who, on Tuesday evening, put a Question to me respecting the receipt of the answer of the United States Government to my Letter of the 20th of March, I beg to inform the House that yesterday afternoon General Schenck read to me and gave me a copy of a despatch from Mr. Fish to himself, dated 16th of April. I think it right to inform your Lordships that, taking the despatch by itself, it does not afford a solution which would remove the unfortunate misunderstanding which has arisen. If I only had regard to that despatch, I should not feel that Her Majesty's Government were justified in further delaying the production to Parliament of the whole of the Correspondence: but I may state, though I cannot give a precise assurance to Parliament, that I have grounds, and Her Majesty's Government have grounds, to hope that an arrangement satisfactory to both countries will be come to. I beg to express my thanks and the thanks of my Colleagues, for the forbearance your Lordships have shown under circumstances, I admit, of a trying character. I have no hesitation in saying your forbearance has very much assisted Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to come to a satisfactory arrangement; and I hope I am not going too far in expressing a hope that this forbearance will be continued for a few days longer by your Lordships' House.
    LORD CAIRNS: I may observe that there is a Notice of a Motion for next Monday which may raise a discussion on the question to which the noble Earl has referred. I am sure, therefore, that the House would be anxious to know what number of days the noble Earl asks to be suffered to elapse before such a discussion should take place.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord must be aware that when negotiations of this informal character are going on it is impossible to say in what number of days an arrangement perfectly satisfactory in substance and details may be come to. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government
    74
    are fully sensible of the grave responsibility under which they lie in respect of this important matter; and the House may be sure there will be no delay beyond that which the Government may consider necessary for the interests of the public service.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL—(No. 78.)
  (The Earl of Kimberley.)
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL—(No. 78.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, after the length at which he had explained the provisions of the Bill on the first reading, he would merely say that in consequence of certain enactments respecting beerhouses being of a temporary character, provisions would have to be introduced to meet the case of those expiring enactments.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, as I have had an opportunity of looking through the provisions of this Bill since it was printed and distributed, I wish to offer a few remarks on the subject. As the Bill was not before us when the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) made his statement, it was impossible to follow him through all the details, notwithstanding the great ability and clearness of his speech; and I am not, I think, guilty of exaggeration when I say that the subject of which this Bill treats is one of the last importance, affecting, as it does, almost every class of the community. This Bill deals with the interests of the numerous and wealthy traders who have embarked their capital in the liquor trade, and I need scarcely say that it also affects the interests of a very large portion of the poorer members of society. And here, my Lords, I would express a hope that in legislating for the moral improvement of our poorer fellow-countrymen we shall at the same time show that we are desirous not to interfere with their comforts or with the wants of their every-day life. My Lords, I hope the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) will forgive me for remarking on the form in which this Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. He took a course which I think

    75
    was somewhat inconvenient; for though I am aware it is a perfectly regular course, and has been adopted on many occasions, I do not think it was a satisfactory course in the case of a Bill of this importance—I mean the course of introducing the Bill in "dummy." Your Lordships will remember that the noble Earl came down one evening and stated that he intended to introduce on the following evening a Bill having reference to the licensing question. Under the circumstances, therefore, I do not think the course taken with respect to this Bill was a convenient one, seeing that the noble Earl made an elaborate statement, not only of its scope and bearing, but of its details, on the 16th of March, and that it was not printed till the 24th. The noble Lord, as I have remarked, introduced this Bill in "dummy" on the 16th of March, which, by a curious coincidence, happened to be the day preceding that on which a Bill on the same subject, introduced in the other House of Parliament by the hon. Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), stood for second reading. One can almost imagine that at the meeting of the Cabinet held on the previous Saturday Ministers were reminded by some Member of the Cabinet that on Wednesday, the 17th, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson was going to move the second reading of a measure which might overtrump the Bill of the Government, and this may explain why it was that the Government resolved to introduce their Bill here on the 16th, in order that they might not appear to be behindhand in this important question. I am the more inclined to think that this would not be an incorrect surmise, because the Bill on the face of it bears all the marks of a hastily-prepared and ill-considered measure. Certainly one would be inclined to suppose that if it had received sufficient attention from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, it would have come before us in a very different shape. A promise of legislation on this subject having been announced in the Speech of our most gracious Sovereign from the Throne, the right hon. Gentleman having had so much experience of it during the last Session, and as it must have occupied no small share of his attention during the recess, it was not too much to expect a very much more perfect measure than that which has been submitted to your Lordships. In proof of
    76
    its being an ill-considered measure, I may refer to what has fallen from the noble Earl himself this evening. It treats as permanent Acts measures of 1869 and 1870, which were only temporary; so that, as it stands, the Bill does not deal with the beerhouse question at all. Clause 68 of this Bill purports to repeal several Acts "set forth in the second schedule," but when I turn to this schedule I find it to be a blank. This is pretty conclusive evidence that those who prepared the Bill failed to look to all the Acts of Parliament which should have been included in the schedule. One of my principal objections to this measure is that it appears to me to be one of merely a temporary character. On reading the Bill I almost doubt that the Secretary for the Home Department can have even seen it, because it seems to me that it is entirely contrary to the views which the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed as to the only basis on which satisfactory and permanent legislation on this subject could be attempted. In his speech last year the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "He should expect them to concur in the proposition that, under the existing system of licensing, far more licenses had been issued than were required for the public convenience. He had no doubt of this concurrence in the face of the fact that there exists a publichouse or a beerhouse for every 182 of the population. The next proposition he would advance was, that the present mode of issuing licenses was unsatisfactory, no guidance being afforded to the magistrates either as to the number to be issued, or the respectability and responsibility of the persons seeking to be licensed."—[3 Hansard, ccv, 1063.]
    I can see nothing in this Bill to carry out the views so clearly expressed in that passage of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for the Home Department went on to say—
    "The Bill of the Government, which was framed on the principles he had stated, would repeal in whole or in part from 4.0 to 50 Acts of Parliament, and would consolidate and amend the laws regulating the ordinary retail sale of intoxicating liquors."—[Ibid. 1064.]
    In this Bill no attempt is made to consolidate—if anything, it adds an additional Act to those already in force, and therefore, instead of consolidating and simplifying, it rather adds to the confusion. It leaves the many existing Acts in force, and adds one more to them. The Home Secretary, alluding to the Bill of the hon. Member for Essex, said—

    77
    "The Bill of the hon. Member for Essex passed without a division. Yet that Act was regarded only as a makeshift until some complete measure could be introduced. The legislation affecting the trade was in such a state of confusion that it had become necessary to have a conclusive measure. Existing Acts contained conflicting provisions; there was a strange variety of licenses; while there was no definite principle on which licenses were to be granted."—[Ibid. 1067.]
    The hon. Member went on to refer to the hours of closing, the variations in the Excise duties, and so on. The noble Earl, in introducing the Bill, said it was not an ambitious measure. It did not propose to deal with the vast number of Bills and licenses to which he had alluded; but which last year was the opinion of the Home Secretary as to what was essential. Having thus expressed himself—
    "Under these circumstances it was clear that consolidation and simplification of the law was necessary."
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I submit to your Lordships that this Bill does not affect what he held to be necessary. Now, although I entertain strong objections to this Bill, I will not incur the responsibility of opposing the second reading. I think that as the Government have laid it before your Lordships it is necessary that we should give it a second reading; but before I sit down I will endeavour not only to point out what are the objections to certain provisions in the Bill, but also to indicate certain provisions which, in my opinion, it ought to have contained. My Lords, I object to the manner in which vested interests are dealt with in this Bill. Under its provisions the owners of property were entirely in the hands of their tenants. This I regard as a serious blot. On conviction for certain offences against the Act not only does the person convicted forfeit his license, but the house is deprived of the license for five years. It might easily occur that the owner of a public-house might have a tenant who offended three times against the provisions of the Act without the owner having the slightest knowledge that the Act had been so violated; and yet his house would be deprived of a license for five years. I put it to your Lordships whether to shut a public-house up for five years is not in reality to shut it up for ever. Other houses would spring up in the neighbourhood and the owner of the closed house would be entirely
    78
    deprived of his property. I do not throughout the Bill find any provision for encouraging the establishment of a better class of houses to which licenses might be given, although that was a matter which was strongly recommended in the discussions of last year. Then, I strongly object to the way in which the Bill entirely ignores magisterial authority in the granting of original licenses. The manner in which those licenses are proposed to be granted is nothing more nor less than a scheme of centralization by which the Home Secretary will be enabled to override magisterial authority in respect of the granting of original licenses. There is another point, my Lords, and it is this—notwithstanding the Motion passed in "another place" by a large majority against the increase of local rates, the expenses of all the appointments under this Bill are to be defrayed by local rates—thereby adding to a burden already too heavy. The provision in the Bill of last year for the removal of licenses from crowded localities to places in which public-houses were more required, and which would be of great public advantage, is omitted from this Bill. I should have thought that the experience of the past would have induced the Government to adopt a system of minimum penalties. Under this Bill recourse is had to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but the Small Penalties Act is not referred to, though it strikes me that you must of necessity avail yourself of its provisions if you proceed under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. All this tends to show that the Bill is what I have described it to be—an ill-considered and hastily-prepared scheme. I have referred to the mode in which magisterial authority is dealt with by this Bill. The proposal of the Government is that the magistrates in petty sessions shall grant licenses, but that they shall not be valid until they are approved by a committee of magistrates appointed for that purpose by the Quarter Sessions, and they are not to come into force until they have been approved by the Home Secretary. Practically, therefore, the licensing power is vested in the Home Secretary. Now, last year, when speaking of the measure then before Parliament, Mr. Bruce said—
    "No appeal would be given from the decision of the justices in respect of the exercise of their

    79
    licensing jurisdiction, they, living on the spot, being supposed to be better judges of local and personal questions than the justices of Quarter Sessions could be."—[Ibid. 1077.]
    The justices living on the spot were then supposed to be better judges in the matter than the justices of Quarter Sessions; but now the authority is to be taken out of their hands because no licenses granted by the magistrates will be valid till they have received the fiat of the Secretary for the Home Department. The offences under this Bill are of two classes, and the first class are, I think, 13 in number, and each conviction for any one of these offences is to be recorded on the license. But, curiously enough, no record is required to be made on the license of the first conviction for two of the most serious offences among the whole of those enumerated in the Bill. Clause 8 deals with the case of a sale of spirits to children under 16 years of age, and Clause 20 with that of adulteration; but the first offence against either of those two clauses is not to be recorded on the license, though under Clause 6, if a glass of beer is drunk on or near premises in which it has been bought, and which are not licensed for the sale of liquor on the premises, the first conviction for this offence is to be recorded on the license. But surely it is quite as great an offence to adulterate the liquor as to give a glass of beer outside the premises. This may have been a mistake in the drawing of the Bill; but, while on this point, I should like to inquire whether three convictions by which a license is to be forfeited must be three convictions recorded on the license or may be three not recorded, or a mixture of both? I would now beg to call your Lordships' attention to the Preamble of the Bill, which is in these terms—
    "Whereas it is expedient to amend the law for the regulation of public-houses and other places in which intoxicating liquors are sold, and to make further provision in respect of the grant of new licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors."
    Now, when I come to Clause 13, I find "Penalty on persons found drunk." Surely that clause is not consistent with the Preamble, which refers only to the regulation of places in which intoxicating liquors are sold and to the granting of licenses. Penalties for drunkenness are a part of our police regulations, and have not properly anything to do with a Bill such as the Preamble recites this to be.
    80
    It is, no doubt, difficult to deal with the question of publicans harbouring improper characters; but as Clauses 15 and 16 are of the most stringent character they will both require grave consideration hereafter. Reverting again to Clause 20, I must say I think it is the most extraordinary one I have ever yet read. I imagine I see it in the hand of the noble Earl himself, and I am satisfied it must have emanated from his colonial experience. It states—
    "Where a licensed person is convicted of any offence under this section he shall affix, at such part or parts of his premises as may be prescribed by a public-house Inspector under this Act, a placard stating his conviction, of such size and form and printed with such letters and containing such particulars as such Inspector may prescribe, and shall keep the same affixed during two weeks after the same is first affixed;"—
    so that the unfortunate publican is required to act the part of bill-sticker to his own establishment—
    "and if he fails to comply with the provisions of this section with respect to affixing or keeping affixed such placard, or defaces or allows such placard to be defaced, or if the same is defaced and he fails forthwith to renew the same, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 s. for every day on which the same is not so affixed and undefaced, and such Inspector as aforesaid or any public constable may affix or re-affix such placard during the said two weeks, or such further time as may be directed by a court of summary jurisdiction."
    This punishment appeared to me alike novel and un-English; and I asked in vain where this clause was taken from. I was told that the only country in which any such degradation was inflicted upon anyone was New Zealand. I therefore attribute the clause to the colonial experience of the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill. The clause dealing with adulteration is very unsatisfactory. I am as willing as anybody to prevent the adulteration of liquors; but I think the dealers in the liquors to be analyzed should have better security that the liquor cannot be tampered with from the time it leaves their premises till it reaches the hands of the analyst:—it is important to remove from the mind of the publican any ground of suspicion that such a thing has been done. Clause 27 refers to the "local authorities;" but I have looked through the Bill in vain to find what the "local authority" is. Clause 28 prescribes that refreshment-houses should close at 10 p.m. I cannot see any good reason for this, because I think persons

    81
    are less likely to get drunk in such houses than in places where no food is sold. Clause 31 makes this provision—
    "There shall be appointed in every police district a sufficient number of constables as public-house Inspectors, so that in every police district there shall be at least one public-house Inspector; and in police districts containing 100,000 inhabitants and upwards there shall be at least one Inspector for every 100,000 inhabitants, and for every fraction over 100,000 inhabitants or multiple of 100,000 inhabitants."
    I object very much to the appointment of public-house Inspectors for reasons which I shall state presently. It is an additional charge on the rates which is totally uncalled for. But the arrangement provided by this clause is an inadequate one. Take the western division of the county of Sussex for instance. It contains 100,000 inhabitants; it is 40 miles long, and between 30 and 40 wide. Would one Inspector be sufficient for such a division? Under the Petty Sessional divisions we have one constable for each of these divisions, which is much better than an arrangement under which there would be only one Inspector to travel over the whole of such a division as West Sussex. But my great objection to the clause is that it appoints a particular man to be a spy on the public-houses of a district. I object to the Inspectors on the ground that they would be spies—a character which will not dignify the administration of the law. Moreover, at the annual courts for granting licenses, it will be impossible for him to be at all the Petty Sessions for the purpose of giving evidence. In Clause 44 I object to this provision—
    "The justices shall not entertain any objection to the grant of such new license, or take any evidence with respect of the grant thereof, unless written notice of an intention to oppose the grant of such license has been served on such holder not less than seven days before the commencement of the general annual licensing meeting."
    My objection is that an offence which ought to disentitle the publican to a renewal of his license might be committed within less than seven days before the commencement of the general annual licensing meeting, and this proviso would prevent any opposition to the grant of the license founded on such offence. I am sorry that I find no attempt made in this Bill to put an end to a state of things which I believe does more to demoralize the lower class, and particularly the female portion of it,
    82
    than anything else in connection with the traffic in intoxicating liquors. I allude to the sale of wine and spirits by grocers. What does Dr. Little, the senior physician of the London Hospital, say on that subject?—
    "I am satisfied that any multiplication of the number of places at which spirituous liquors are obtainable tends to extend the habit of solitary drinking among females. I regret to add that tradesmen reputed respectable have been found to send wines and spirits, packed in disguise, to the wife's order, without the knowledge of the husband. I was professionally consulted in one lady's case, her brain and health having been thus destroyed."
    My Lords, it is stated on good authority that the sale of wine and spirits by grocers who take out wholesale licenses is very injurious to the poorer classes. It is said that in a village near Ipswich, with a population of 900 persons, there is a grocer who thinks it no unusual thing to sell as many as 100 bottles of gin on a Saturday night. In conclusion, my Lords, I must again express my regret that this Bill has not been more carefully drawn, and while I will not oppose the second reading, I must express my conviction that on account both of its omissions and its objectionable provisions the measure will require very careful examination in Committee.
    LORD HOUGHTONdid not think his noble Friend who had charge of this Bill need have made any apology for its introduction in that House; their Lordships were particularly well fitted to deal with such a measure because of their local knowledge, and also because they were independent of all those classes which were affected by the Bill. At the same time, he did not think the Government had any reason to complain of the criticisms of the noble Duke. He approved of the form in which the Bill was presented. He was of opinion that the Government had done right in not making the measure too ambitious, and he thought that because it was not ambitious it had a better chance of success than the measure of last year. Such a Bill must be tentative, and therefore he did not think it would have been wise to include in it all the subjects glanced at by the noble Duke. He was struck with the observations made by the noble Duke about grocers being allowed to retail wines and spirits; but the noble Duke must have forgotten that so long ago as the ninth year of George II. an

    83
    attempt was made to put down that system by the imposition of penalties; but the step was so unpopular that only a few years had elapsed till it was repealed. The licensing question was surrounded with difficulties. Their Lordships would remember that the Committee presided over by Mr. Villiers came to the conclusion that the whole system of licenses ought to be abolished, and that the liquor trade ought to be put on the same footing as the other trades of the kingdom. It was a delicate and difficult subject, though not one as to which legislation ought to be avoided for that reason; but at the same time it was a full justification for the Home Secretary not having attempted to legislate at once on the whole subject. Everyone knew that a powerful agitation had been got up out-of-doors in favour of what was called the Permissive Bill, and that the position and prospects of many political persons depended upon that movement for the absolute repression of the sale of strong liquors. He believed that such an attempt would be wrong in principle and inconsistent with all the foundations of our social life. In truth, there were two classes of men whom no legislation could prevent indulging too freely in stimulants—those who could afford to buy them, no matter what the expense; and those whose constitution was such that they would succeed in satisfying their craving even if great physical difficulties were put in their way. It was hopeless to dream that such persons could be made sober by Act of Parliament. But there was the large middle class, who might be tempted into habits of excess by the presence of undue facilities for obtaining drink; it was in behalf of such persons that legislation might usefully be invoked, and it was because this Bill would be useful to that class that he hoped their Lordships would assent to it. To a very great degree, the proper regulation of the liquor traffic must be a question of police; and he was glad to observe that the Bill proposed that a system of police inspection should be established. He was not blind to the difficulties in the way of carrying it out; but if it could be efficiently carried out it would tend to great moral improvement. He believed that it would be welcomed by all the respectable members of the trade, and
    84
    that they would willingly co-operate with the Inspectors in securing the respectability of their houses. He did not believe that any good would be achieved by merely diminishing the number of public-houses, because the only effect of such a step would be to increase the size of those that were left; and a few large houses, gaudy with lights and rich in decorations, were more harmful than a greater number of less pretentious establishments. The Legislature had no right by any means whatever to deprive the working classes of innocent enjoyment. Such was not the object of this Bill. Its object was the welfare of the people, and he hoped the House would read it a second time, and thus assist the Government in applying a remedy to an admitted evil.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to intrude my opinions on the House; but as this is a question so deeply affecting the social welfare of the people, I do not think you will deem it unbecoming that one Member at least of the Episcopal Bench should say something on it, especially as there are some considerations connected with it which have not been brought fully into discussion by the criticism of details which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) has made at such length and with such ability. My object is to put before your Lordships a view of the question which I know to be very largely entertained by persons fully entitled by their knowledge of it to express an opinion and which has hardly found expression in this debate. I am one of those—and they are many, indeed—who do not find fault with Her Majesty's Government for the stringency of the provisions of their Bill as compared with that of last year. Assuredly the Government have not now erred on that side of the question. A moment's comparison of this Bill with that introduced by the Home Secretary last year, both with respect to the renewal of licenses and the regulations for public-houses, convinces me that Her Majesty's Government have felt it necessary—I should be sorry to think that they merely felt it would be expedient—in order to insure the passing of this Bill to relax the stringency of many of the provisions of the Bill of last year. They have omitted several important provisions, the absence

    85
    of which I, for one, regret. One other matter that I particularly regret is that this Bill does not, any more than the Bill of last year, make any provision for giving to the ratepayers any share in the control of the liquor traffic in their own town or district. That seems to me, my Lords, a great defect in any Bill dealing with the licensing question. There is a very deep and growing feeling in the country, especially among the humbler ratepayers, who are so much interested in this question, that those who pay the rates and whose rates are increased by the crime and pauperism intoxication creates, should have some voice in controlling the machinery which is to issue licenses and regulate the whole of the liquor traffic. I do not, my Lords, claim for the ratepayers entire control; I do not say that they, or a majority of them, should have the power of suppressing the liquor traffic in any town or district. It seems to me monstrous to say that it shall not be a crime to make an article, it shall not be a crime to use it, but it shall be a crime to sell it—to leave the manufacturer free to make liquor and the customer to buy it, but to say to the middle man who comes between these two, you shall not sell it. That, my Lords, I hold would be something like an outrage to the moral sense of the community—it would never be tolerated by the English people if by any chance it became an Act of Parliament. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who preceded me (Lord Houghton) as to the mischief, and I would even say the absurdity, of the Permissive Bill. I believe such a Bill would be not only absurd but mischievous, and that it would tend to exasperate all the difficulties of this question; that in towns where it was most needed it would be inoperative, and that where it is most operative it would be least needed. It proceeds on this most vicious political principle—that the tyranny of a mere majority, not of representative men, but counted merely from door to door, should govern any people. Such a principle is most pernicious. I hold that it is the right of Englishmen to be governed by the Estates of the Realm sitting in Parliament, and not by a hap-hazard majority collected by agitation and canvassing. This is one of the dangers of all democracy—it ignores the rights and privileges of the minority as against the
    86
    majority; and therefore I believe the tendency of all modern legislation ought to be towards protection of the rights and privileges of minorities. Therefore I entertain the strongest dislike to the Permissive Bill. I cannot, perhaps, express it in a stronger form than by saying that if I must take my choice—and such it seems to me is really the alternative offered by the Permissive Bill—whether England should be free or sober, I declare—strange as such a declaration may sound, coming from one of my profession—that I should say it would be better that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober. I would distinctly prefer freedom to sobriety, because with freedom we might in the end attain sobriety; but in the other alternative we should eventually lose both freedom and sobriety. But, though I am thus strongly opposed to the Permissive Bill, I do wish that the ratepayers should have some voice—not an absolute and sole voice, but some voice—in the regulation of the liquor traffic. I think it would not be wise or desirable to in-trust the regulation of the liquor traffic to a Board elected entirely by the ratepayers; but I do think it would be quite possible so to combine the official and elective elements in the Licensing Board as to give to the ratepayers the assuring conviction that their interests were fairly represented; while by retaining the magistracy you would have the conservative element duly to resist popular influences and give consistency to their decisions. I appeal to the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill (the Earl of Kimberley) with all the more confidence on this point, as the principle for which I contend has been adopted and sanctioned by a measure introduced by the Government in 1869 for the establishment of County Boards. These County Boards were to be managed partly by elected and partly by official members, the latter being Justices. I would ask your Lordships to consider one fact of great importance in its bearing on this subject. I have spoken of the mischievous tendency of agitation for the Permissive Bill. My Lords, I have had to discuss this question over and over again with some of the most eminent advocates of the Permissive Bill, and I have always found at the bottom of their advocacy—not so much the desire to carry

    87
    a Maine Liquor Law or totally to suppress the liquor traffic—as the desire to have for themselves, and for the ratepayers, some share in the control of the liquor traffic; and if some such control was given by this Bill and the ratepayers felt that they were fairly represented on the Licensing Board, and were not altogether ignored in the decisions come to as to the number of public-houses, the whole of this most mischievous agitation for the Permissive Bill would, if not altogether collapse, receive a shock which would make it much less dangerous for years to come. There is another consideration which I must mention. In the 44th clause of this Bill there is an extremely stringent provision against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions;—when a prosecution fails the person instituting it must pay the costs and compensate the licensee. A clause so stringent against vexatious prosecutions almost amounts to a prohibition on individual ratepayers taking proceedings; and it is therefore all the more desirable to place on the Board itself representatives of the ratepayers, so that without the vexation and irritation of prosecutions due weight may be given to the objections of those whom they represent. I appeal, if not with confidence at least with earnestness, to the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill whether it is yet too late to adopt this suggestion? As a member of the Episcopal Bench, I feel it would be almost criminal in me to remain silent on this question. It is not a mere question of police, it is not a mere question of licensing, it is not a mere question of adulteration; it is a matter of deep principle which lies very near to the hearts of the great masses of our fellow-countrymen. When you lay your finger on this question you are touching the hearts of the people, and bringing yourselves still closer into relations with the great masses of our population. Nothing, I am persuaded, my Lords, would do more to win their hearts to the cause of law and order than that they should see your Lordships earnestly and deeply considering how far you can not merely repress intemperance and cheek the evils arising out of it, but doing this in a manner to satisfy them that the highest interests of the working classes of the country will be duly and fairly considered.
    THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought the present Bill a more practicable measure than the Bill brought forward last Session by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—that was a most unfortunate scheme. The proposal now under consideration he regarded more favourably; but it would hardly meet the requirements of the case, unless it were subjected to the consideration of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. There were so many points of detail in the measure that it would be almost impossible to deal with them otherwise. He did not find that the selling of spirits by grocers was brought under the operation of the Bill, and he thought that the placing public-houses under control and leaving grocers' shops uncontrolled, would be a mode of proceeding which would be fatal to success. They ought both to be brought under one principle. Again, he was surprised to find that the Bill did contain any provisions in reference to the granting of retail licenses for the sale of wines and spirits, to be held in conjunction with wholesale licenses. This, he thought, was a very bad principle. He would not go into details; but he would point out that, though the Bill would diminish the number of public-houses, the provisions relating to the hours of closing would create a feeling throughout the country against the Bill. The noble Earl, in bringing forward the measure, had referred to the large number of licenses at present existing; but he did not state what licenses would be continued under the present Bill; nor did he say whether the sale of spirits would be under the same regulations as the sale of other drinks. While on some points the stringency of the Bill might be relaxed, there were other points in respect to which its stringency should be increased. He had witnessed many instances of the evils of the existing system. When he was at the Admiralty he went to see Haslar Hospital, where he found several men, from 20 to 26 years of age, suffering from delirium, tremens, and it appeared that many of these young men, on landing, received from £20 to £40, which they spent all in drink; and he constantly received letters stating that the Saturday half-holiday was frequently a greater harm than benefit, because much of the holiday time was spent in drinking. He

    89
    believed that the country was quite prepared for some measure like that before the House, and he was glad the noble Earl had taken the matter in hand; but the Bill could not be made efficient unless it was sent to a Committee upstairs for consideration.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after the very eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), I desire to say a few words on behalf of that much-abused body, the magistrates of the county, as the licensing authority. You must remember that you have got not merely to satisfy the noisy agitators who attend public meetings and speak from public platforms upon this subject, but you have to provide for the discharge of what is a most important administrative duty, affecting the social life and condition of all classes of the community. The great object which you have to attain is to place what is a most invidious power in the hands of persons who are sufficiently independent to secure that they shall not be open to suspicion in the exercise of it. Suppose you place, as has been suggested, the power of granting and refusing licenses in the hands of persons elected by the ratepayers—the persons elected will be tradesmen of the same class as those from whom the guardians of country unions are drawn, and consequently of the same class as the keepers of public-houses themselves. How much ill-feeling, envy, bitterness, and suspicion would you give rise to, even if these representatives exercised their power in a prudent manner; and you would be exposed always to the danger that local feuds would find their expression in the refusal of a license to a person who had taken one side or the other. It seems to me of far more importance that the licensing authority should be free from any suspicion of being influenced by impure motives in granting the license than that you should satisfy a small body of ratepayers who desire to have a share in the licensing authority. I must say that a rather Utopian view of the English ratepayer seems to exist in some minds. There seems to be a notion that the ratepayer is careful for nothing but the moral and social advancement of his kind; that he takes an active interest in all political and social questions; and that the one object of his
    90
    desire is to be allowed to occupy a position by which he can force his brother ratepayers to be sober. Now, the real state of the case is that if the average ratepayer is sober himself, that is all he can reasonably hope to attain to. I am not particularly fond of household suffrage; but by the use of household suffrage we ascertain what the housekeepers, the ratepayers, think; and when I am told that the ratepayers desire to have a power of depriving me of the power of granting licenses to public-houses, I am inclined to look at recent elections, and ask if such is the ease. I have not found in the authorized expression of opinion any intimation of such being their desire. I am afraid a belief is prevalent that the advancement of morality is due to the action of Government authority. If so, we are in danger of abandoning the highest standard of morality, that of Christianity, and of seeking another in Acts of Parliament and regulations of police. Is there any country in the world in which the action of the Legislature has been able to supply the calls of the moralist and the teacher? 150 years ago the upper and middle classes of this country were as bad with regard to drunkenness as the lower classes are now. People did not then trust to legislative action, they resorted to civilization and religion. They trusted to allegiance to a principle, and in the upper and middle classes of this country at present drunkenness is not a prevailing vice. Why, then, not believe that the influences which had been so powerful with the upper and middle classes will be equally operative with the lower? I trust that in any measures your Lordships may be asked to pass, you will shrink from attempting a task which it is impossible for any Legislature to perform—namely, by the action of Government to insure morality among the people.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, there is much in the remarks of the right rev. Prelate behind me (the Bishop of Peterborough) and of the noble Marquess which is worthy of consideration. This Bill, however, I think they will admit, does not err in the way of introducing a new element of control on the part of the ratepayers. I wish also to point out to the noble Marquess that the demand for the interference of the ratepayers comes

    91
    from the lower classes themselves, and, be it wise or unwise, I do not think those who make that demand are open to the reproach which has been cast against them—of seeking to legislate for the rich to the prejudice of the poor. I will go further, and say that I am perfectly persuaded—so great is my confidence in all classes in the country—that if the absence of regulations likely to affect the rich were the only bar to the passing of this Bill, we should have little or no difficulty in doing that which we believe to be necessary to promote the welfare of the people at large. But, at the same time, I am not one of those who would wish to go too far in the endeavour to make men sober. There is, I admit, a great tendency to apply on every occasion to the Executive Government to remedy evils which I am satisfied cannot be remedied either by the police or by a still higher authority. Any attempt, in my opinion, by means of such measures to put down evils which we may all deplore would not only result in throwing upon the Executive Government burdens heavier than they could well bear and responsibilities which they could not discharge, but would produce other evils greater than those which it is sought to remove. All such measures must therefore be dealt with with the utmost caution—for it is idle to say that we can by such means alone succeed in making a nation moral. Having made these few general remarks, I shall proceed to deal with the criticisms which have been passed on the details of the Bill—especially by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond). I had the advantage of hearing some of those criticisms before, because a deputation of licensed victuallers waited on me the other day, and pointed out a great many objections to which, in their opinion, the measure as it stands is open. It would be strange, indeed, if it were not liable to some objection, because a Bill of this kind is essentially one of details, in dealing with which we had frequently only a choice of difficulties. Some of the objections which have been advanced by the noble Duke I can, however, I think, show to be unfounded. He, in the first place, referred to what he regarded as an omission in the Bill, and gave us an account of what he supposed had passed in the Cabinet on the subject—but it is clear that account must be based on his
    92
    experience of previous Cabinets. He said—and the objection was a very natural one—that although there was a clause in the Bill relating to the repeal of a great number of Acts, those Acts were not specified. That, however, is not due to any oversight on the part of the Government, because we have been assured by the drawer of the Bill that the proper time to supply the omission is when the Bill has passed through Committee, following the course which was pursued in the case of another important measure—the Bankruptcy Act. That is the simple reason why the Bill is in its present shape. The noble Duke also urged it as an objection against the Bill that it is not a Consolidating Bill, and I admit at once that it only consolidates the police regulations, which is, I may add, a very considerable work in itself. If your Lordships should adopt the clauses of the Bill, with such Amendments as you may deem desirable, I think we should, as regards the police regulations, accompanied by the repeal of such Acts as it may be necessary to repeal, have a complete code of such regulations. The noble Duke went on to comment on the 4th clause—and it is one, I freely admit, which deserves careful consideration. I am alluding to the clause which provides, in the case of certain offences on a license being recorded, that certain consequences shall follow without any discretion being left to any authority in the matter. The noble Duke pointed out that in certain eases such a provision might work hardly on the owners of houses, and the suggestion is one which is, in my opinion, worthy of attention. I would, however, remind the noble Duke that a similar provision exists in the Prevention of Crime Act, which provides for an absolute disqualification in the case of criminals after a certain number of offences—so that the principle is not a new one. It is, however, perhaps, desirable that the clause in the present Bill should be further guarded, and I will see whether it may not be possible to give the owner, in the case of a second conviction, the power of terminating the agreement with the occupier, so that his interests might be protected. I am, however, perfectly certain that without some stringent clause such as this you will be able to effect no really considerable reform of public-houses. The noble Duke, again,

    93
    objects to the veto which is given by the Bill to the Secretary of State. It is, he says, extraordinary that such a provision should be introduced into it by the Government, inasmuch as no such provision was introduced by the Home Secretary into the Bill of last year. But I will remind the noble Duke that the principle has been since introduced in the Suspensory Bill, and that it has been found to work very well: it is, therefore, that it has been embodied in the present measure. The Bill will, no doubt, throw considerable impediments in the way of the granting of licenses. My Lords, I think that that is a very important object. It will require the concurrence of three separate authorities before any new license can be granted, and if there is to be uniformity of practice throughout the country, this veto of the Secretary of State is, I think, most desirable. But, at the same time, should the other authorities exercise the power vested in them prudently and wisely, so that there shall arise throughout the country a regularity and uniformity in the granting of licenses, the veto lodged with the Secretary of State becomes of very little importance. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) went on to find fault with the provision which establishes a special system of inspection on the ground that it would throw an additional burden on the local rates. Now, I am aware that this question of the adjustment of local and Imperial taxation is one of the utmost importance; but I ask the House whether it is possible to delay every measure of public utility until a controversy so extremely difficult is settled? Under the Bill we make use of the existing machinery in the case of the constabulary; and one of the duties of the constabulary now is to see that the public-houses are properly regulated, and all that is now proposed is to give the Secretary of State special power to see that proper officers are selected from the constabulary force generally who shall carry into effect the inspection of licensed houses. Without some such power it has been shown in practice that, whatever laws you pass, the inspection by the constabulary is to a very great extent a mere name, and nothing more. It is true the Bill gives special powers to the Secretary of State to see that this inspection is adequately carried out and
    94
    to disallow the proportion of police expenses now contributed by the Treasury if those provisions are not complied with; but these provisions are absolutely necessary. The noble Duke referred to one omission from the Bill which had astonished him—the provision as to the removal of licenses. No doubt a provision on this subject was contained in the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend, as well as in the Suspensory Act of last year. But the subject has since been fully and carefully considered by the Government. Something may, doubtless, be said in favour of a system of removal of licenses; but it seemed to us that the objections predominated. The original intention was to forbid the grant of new licenses altogether, and only allow licenses to be removed from one district where they were in excess of the wants of the population to another district where more were required. That would have been an exceedingly stringent provision. It might have recommended itself on its merits as far as removals were concerned; but if you allow the grant of new licenses, the result of permitting also the removal of licenses would be to incur great risk of perpetuating existing licenses, and of strengthening the proprietary right which the owners of them are assumed to possess. By such a system you make the license, as it were, a marketable commodity which may be conveyed from one part of the country to another; and our object in reducing the number of public-houses would be to a great extent defeated by allowing the abandonment of such houses in one district and the transfer of the licenses to another. We, therefore, thought that, upon the whole, it was better in the public interest not to introduce the principle of removals. Another point to which the noble Duke referred was the absence of minimum penalties in the Bill. Now, the existence of minimum penalties has been found in practice to work great hardship, and unless you entirely distrust the discretion of magistrates, it is far better to provide merely maximum penalties, leaving it to the magistrate to say how much of these penalties he will inflict according to his view of the gravity of the offence. Then the noble Duke alluded to what he seemed to think the almost diabolical invention of the placard system.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I did not charge you with diabolical intentions.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No—the noble Duke was, of course, referring to the clauses of the Bill. He seemed to think I had adopted it from some knowledge I had of the existence of a similar law in New Zealand. Now, I am ashamed to say that I was entirely ignorant of the existence of any such law in New Zealand; but I am glad to hear from the noble Duke that our fellow-countrymen in that colony have adopted so sensible a provision. The offence for which this punishment is prescribed is that of adulterating liquor with the articles mentioned in the Schedule. They are coculus indicus, copperas, opium, Indian hemp, strychnine, tobacco, darnel seed, extract of logwood, salts of zinc or lead, alum, and any extract or compound of any of the above ingredients. I think if a man commits an offence so grave as that of mixing drugs directly deleterious to health with the liquor he sells, it is a most appropriate punishment to enact that every person who goes to his house should know he has been guilty of that which really amounts to a crime. If it had been proposed that a publican should be obliged to expose such a placard if he supplied liquor to a drunken man or allowed drunkenness in his house, I should have said the regulation was an unfair one; but when applied to an offence, which, as I am assured, the publicans themselves regard as most grave—an offence which no respectable man would commit—I think it may be properly met by the punishment provided in the Bill. The noble Duke says that punishment is novel and un-English. My Lords, I cannot help thinking we should make it an English punishment and embody it in our law. The noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Somerset), while he thought that the measure was on the whole a good one, expressed surprise that it did not apply to retail licenses for selling spirits and wine held in conjunction with wholesale licenses. The exemption of these licenses from the provisions of a Licensing Bill is, however, no new principle, and I am prepared to maintain that the exemption is wise and proper. We are dealing here with a class of licensed houses which are found to be subject to great abuses.
    96
    It has not been found that the sale by wholesale dealers of wines and spirits in small quantities under their retail licenses has been a cause of abuse. I know there has been a strong movement on the part of the publicans to obtain these restrictions, and I see clearly why they desire them—the sale by wholesale dealers of liquor in small quantities interferes with the publican's monopoly, and therefore the publicans want to drive people into their own houses by means of restrictions which would make the holding of a retail license by a wholesale dealer impossible. Now, for my part, I think the present monopoly of the publicans is quite as great as it need be and ought to be, and therefore I think it would be undesirable to interfere with the retail licenses of wholesale dealers, and place them under these restrictions. On this ground I can hold out no expectation that we shall deal with these licenses in the way which the publicans desire. A great number of details have been alluded to, but most of them were minute, and I shall not weary your Lordships by commenting on them at this stage of the Bill: in Committee, however, I hope to make such explanations as will prove that the clauses have been well weighed, and are not proposed without reason. I may say, however, that in the clause to which the noble Duke refers, he will find the local authority duly defined. The Bill contains so many details that I fear it may present itself to many persons in an uninteresting light. But I agree with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) that important questions are involved in the Bill; it is a matter which deeply concerns the morals and health of the population as well as very large interests throughout the country. Your Lordships must not forget that, while we cannot but deplore the grievous effects that may be produced upon the people by the sale of intoxicating drinks, we are dealing with a trade of great magnitude. It may be the right course to maintain the sale of liquors as a monopoly, or it may be wiser to adopt the opposite course, and throw open the trade as the other trades of the country; but a monopoly we have to deal with, and whilst the Legislature ought not to press unduly and unfairly upon its present possessors, I hope your Lordships will sustain me in maintaining the right of Parliament

    97
    to control and regulate the monopoly, and in protesting against the attempt of any one class in the country to prevent the Government from carrying into effect legislation in the interest of the public at large which is required for the welfare of the nation.
    LORD KESTEVENsaid, that a measure of this character was very generally required. In Peterborough, for instance, the number of public-houses was greatly in excess of the population. One-half of the licensed houses were opened for the sale of beer only; and as these licenses were granted, not by the magistrates, but by the Excise, at the request of the ratepayers living in the locality, it was singular that the right rev. Prelate should call upon the ratepayers to suppress an evil which they had themselves created.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHexplained that he did not propose that the ratepayers should act alone, but that they should merely assist the magistrates in granting licenses.
    LORD KESTEVENsaid, that whenever the magistrates and the police had endeavoured to restrict the number of public-houses and beershops in Peterborough by refusing to renew the license of any house, a large body of neighbouring ratepayers were sure to come forward and say that the House was conducted with the greatest order and propriety. The consequence was, that the action of the magistrates became futile by the very acts of the body which the right rev. Prelate wished to be incorporated with the magistrates. He ventured to think, then, that if such a body were incorporated with the magistrates they would neutralize the action of a much more independent body than themselves, and so perpetuate the evils that were deplored.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday, the 10 th instant.
    House adjourned at a quarter-past Seven 'clock,' till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.