Sitting of 20 March 1873

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Tyrone County, v. the Right hon. Henry Thomas Lowry Corry, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors* [66].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Thames Embankment (Land)* [65].
Committee—Juries* [35]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Salmon Fisheries Commissioners* [85]; Fires* [31]; Public Worship Facilities* [27].
Report—Union of Benefices* [28–92].

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.

  MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker— I am now able to acquaint the House that I and those who were my Colleagues in the Cabinet until the vote of Wednesday morning last have consented, and have received Her Majesty's gracious permission, to resume the administration of the offices which they respectively held, and that we are prepared to carry on the work of the Government as before. But, Sir, a desire was naturally felt and expressed in many quarters,

  1925
  after the very succinct statements which were made to the House by myself, and subsequently by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for some further information as to the manner in which the time was occupied between Thursday afternoon in last week, when the right hon. Gentleman, as he has stated, declined to undertake the formation of a Government, and Sunday evening, when I felt it my duty to place any services I could render at the disposal of Her Majesty. I will endeavour, very succinctly, but, I hope, very clearly, to explain both the facts and the causes connected with that lapse of time. On Friday morning I had the honour to receive from Her Majesty, in writing, the reply which had been submitted to Her Majesty by the right hon. Gentleman; and Her Majesty was pleased to ask for my advice thereupon. On examination of that reply, I doubted whether I could collect its effect with all the precision which was obviously requisite before I could proceed to tender advice to Her Majesty founded upon it. I therefore answered Her Majesty's reference to the effect that I did not feel quite certain as to the purport of that reply. On Friday evening I received a communication from Her Majesty, which, as I stated on Monday, completely put an end to any doubt I might have entertained, and satisfied me that that reply was an unconditional refusal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to take office. Thereupon, I thought it my duty to submit a statement to Her Majesty, the nature of which I will presently explain. That statement I prepared on Friday evening, and sent to Her Majesty on Saturday, and it was made known by Her Majesty to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Her Majesty received the reply of the right hon. Gentleman at Windsor early in the evening of Sunday, and at 10 o'clock on the same evening, Her Majesty transmitted to me that reply, together with Her Majesty's inquiry, whether I was prepared to resume my office in the Government. Having read the reply, I believed its nature to be perfectly unequivocal. It removed from my mind the last vestige of expectation I had entertained that a Government might be formed by the efforts of the party opposite; and therefore, without any delay whatever, on the same evening, I returned an answer to Her
  1926
  Majesty to the effect that I would endeavour to arrange for the re-construction or the resumption of office by the Government which had previously served Her Majesty. That task I undertook on Monday, and it has now been completed. I have given thus far merely what I may term the chronology of the case. I have stated that, on learning that the reply tendered by the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday amounted to an unconditional negative, I felt it my duty to prepare and submit to Her Majesty a statement upon that subject. There was a difference of opinion, in truth, between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to the precise measure of what might be expected from a party in Opposition under the circumstances in which the overthrow of the Government had occurred. I do not consider that I am here to assert the correctness of my own view of the case or to enter into any discussion whatever with regard to it. It may be a perfectly proper and legitimate subject for the consideration of Parliament should Parliament be disposed to take it into consideration. But my duty on the present occasion is simply historical, and I do not wish, so far as it depends upon me, to say anything which can by possibility lead to controversy on this occasion. I will, therefore, state the opinion I entertain, which differs from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, simply by reading, with Her Majesty's permission, an extract from the statement which, as I have said, I submitted to Her Majesty on Saturday. The statement contained a rather lengthened reference to what had occurred on the occasions of previous changes of Government. To all those references I shall now make no allusion, but shall read the passage in which the view I took of the ease is set out—
  "It is in Mr. Gladstone's view of the utmost importance to the public welfare that the nation should be constantly aware that the Parliamentary action certain or likely to take effect in the overthrow of a Government, the reception and treatment of a summons from your Majesty to meet the necessity which such action has powerfully aided in creating, and again the resumption of office by those who have deliberately laid it down, are uniformly viewed as matters of the utmost gravity, requiring time, counsel, and. deliberation among those who are parties to them, and attended with serious responsibilities. Mr. Gladstone will not and does not suppose that the efforts of the Opposition to defeat the Government on Wednesday morning were made with a previously formed intention on their part

  1927
  to refuse any aid to your Majesty, if the need should arise, in providing for the Government of the country; and the summary refusal, which is the only fact before him, he takes to be not in full correspondence, either with the exigencies of the case or, as he has shown, with Parliamentary usage. In humbly submitting this representation to your Majesty, Mr. Gladstone's wish is to point out the difficulties in which he would find himself placed were he to ask your Majesty for authority to inquire from his late colleagues whether they, or any of them, were prepared if your Majesty should call on them to resume their offices, for they would certainly, he is persuaded, call on him for their own honour, and in order to the usefulness of their further service if it should be rendered, to prove to them that according to usage every means had been exhausted on the part of the Opposition for providing for the Government of the country, or, at least, that nothing more was to be expected from that quarter."
  Sir, the conclusion to which I arrived on Sunday evening was distinctly and definitely this—that nothing more was to be expected from that quarter, and consequently I thought the time had arrived when it was my duty unequivocally, and at once to tender to Her Majesty my humble services. It has been remarked by many, and probably by impartial observers, that the delay which occurred between Thursday and Sunday was due to my reluctance to resume office. Sir, I can only say it was not consciously due to such reluctance. I should never think that a sentiment of this kind, whatever might be its value, was a reason for delay in settling a question material to the interests of the country. At the same time I do not disguise the fact that I felt reluctance, and I may have been unconsciously influenced by that feeling. I felt it, Sir, personally, from a desire for rest, the title to which had possibly been in some degree earned, so far as it can be earned by labour. I felt this reluctance also, politically, because I do not think that, as a general rule, the experience we have had in former years of what may be called returning or resuming Governments has been very favourable in its character. There was a case in 1832 when the Government of Lord Grey, after a crisis in the House of Lords, returned to office, and returned even with augmented vigour, to pursue their task. But that was a case in which the Government returned to take up again the Bill upon which the crisis had occurred and to carry it to a successful conclusion. Since that time there had been similar cases in which Govern-
  1928
  ments after resigning have returned to office. I do not wish to refer to them in particular, but I think that the subsequent fortunes of such Governments lead to the belief that, upon the whole, though such a return may be the lesser of two evils, yet it is not a thing in itself to be desired. It reminds me of that which was described by the Roman General according to a noble ode of Horace—
  "Neque amissos colores
  Lana refert, medicata fuco:
  Nec vera virtus, cum semel excidit,
  Curat reponi deterioribus."
  And I am bound to say that there is a special consideration which likewise aided to inspire and strengthen the same feeling in my mind on the present occasion, because we must all feel that the relations of the party in Opposition to the party in Office, after what has occurred, and after the negative answer given to Her Majesty—I am not now insinuating any opinion as to the propriety of the negative, but am simply referring to the fact—the position even of the Opposition itself relatively to the Government is to some extent modified; and I greatly doubt whether that modification is of a character likely to contribute to the efficient and satisfactory working of our system of Parliamentary Government. Such, Sir, are the views which undoubtedly I entertain, and which possibly may have influenced my conduct in a manner more decided than I have been myself aware of. But, Sir, we have resumed our offices, and, having resumed our offices, we shall endeavour fully and honourably to discharge the duties appertaining to them. We have resumed our offices with the belief that there is nothing in the events which occurred last week to warrant us in arriving at any conclusion whatever—any special conclusion whatever—with regard to the duration of the existence of the present Parliament, as connected with any particular course of business or any particular limit of time. In that respect we stand now, as we stood before, prepared to abide the course of events and to act as they may require. But I have felt it my duty to say this much upon the subject, because nothing can be more inconvenient and more injurious to the country than the prevalence of a floating, indefinite opinion of an intention—not avowed by the Government, yet not

  1929
  distinctly disavowed—to bring the present Parliament as soon as possible to a conclusion. Such an intention is, I trust, now distinctly disavowed, but of course I need not say that we retain the liberty which is at all times essential to the discharge of the functions of a Government. We shall endeavour to proceed, both with respect to legislation and administration, in the same manner and upon the same principles as those which have heretofore governed our conduct, and we shall address ourselves to the discharge of our arduous public duties, relying steadfastly upon the continued confidence and support of the House of Commons.
  MR. DISRAELI:* Mr. Speaker, before I refer to the allusions which the right Eon. Gentleman has made to some controversial elements which during the last few days may have arisen between him and myself with respect either to the conduct of this side of the House in reference to the recent vote or my own in declining the high responsibility which Her Majesty graciously suggested to me to undertake, I think it may be convenient that I should as clearly as I can place before the House exactly what part I have taken in these recent transactions, and give fully the reasons for the counsel which I presumed to offer Her Majesty under the circumstances. It was on this day week, when I was about to enter the House of Commons, that I had the honour of receiving a letter from the Queen informing me that Mr. Gladstone—I am correct in mentioning the right hon. Gentleman's name—had just then quitted the Palace, having offered his own resignation and that of his Colleagues to Her Majesty in consequence of the vote at which the House of Commons arrived on the preceding Tuesday, and that Her Majesty had accepted those resignations. The Queen inquired from me whether I would undertake to form a Government, and commanded my attendance at the Palace. When I was in audience I inquired of Her Majesty whether she wished that I should give a categorical answer to the question asked in Her Majesty's letter, or whether she desired that I should enter fully into the political situation. Her Majesty was graciously pleased to say that she should like to have an answer to that question, and that afterwards she wished me fully
  1930
  and freely to speak upon the present condition of affairs. The question being whether I would undertake to form a Government, I at once said that I believed I should have no material difficulty in forming an Administration which could carry on the affairs of this country with efficiency, and be entitled to Her Majesty's confidence, but that I could not undertake to conduct Her Majesty's affairs in the present House of Commons. After that I proceeded—with Her Majesty's permission—to lay before the Queen the reasons which had induced me to arrive at this conclusion; and I will now, in as succinct a manner as I can, give these reasons to the House. I called Her Majesty's attention to the fact that although the course of the public elections during the last two years had shown, in a manner which I think must be acknowledged by all impartial persons, that there was a change, and even a considerable change, in public opinion and in favour of the party with whom I have the honour to act in Parliament, still it was a fact which ought to be placed clearly before Her Majesty that the right hon. Gentleman opposite—notwithstanding all these gains by the Conservative party—was supported by a very large majority, and that I could not place that majority at a figure which could be accurately expressed unless I stated that it approached more nearly to 90 than 80. I believe I was correct in saying the majority of the right hon. Gentleman was 88. Then I called the attention of the Queen to the fact that the recent division indicated no elements to which I could look with any confidence to obtain subsidiary or extraneous aid which would in any considerable degree—or perhaps in any degree whatever—modify the numerical position of the right hon. Gentleman; that the discomfiture of the Government was caused, and the majority against them created, by the vote of a considerable section of the Liberal party, consisting of Irish Members, who might fairly be described as representing the Roman Catholic interest, and that there was no common bond of union between myself and that party. I stated that they would act—and most honourably act—with a view to effect the object which they wish to accomplish—namely, the establishment of a Roman Catholic University; that, in my opinion, that ques-

  1931
  tion had been definitely decided by the nation at the last General Election; but that, totally irrespective of that national decision, events had occurred in Parliament since which rendered it quite impossible for me to listen to any suggestions of the kind, because, since the last General Election, the endowments of the Protestant Church of Ireland had been taken away from it—a policy which I entirely disapproved, which I had resisted, and which they had suported, and which, having been carried into effect, offered in my mind a permanent and insurmountable barrier to the policy which they wished to see pursued. Under these circumstances, I had to place before Her Majesty that I, with my Colleagues should have to conduct Her affairs in a House of Commons with a most powerful majority arrayed against us. I had to point out to Her Majesty that this was a position of affairs of which I had some personal experience; that I believed it to be one detrimental to the public interest; that it permitted abstract Resolutions on political affairs to be brought forward by persons who had no political responsibility, and that those Resolutions were referred to afterwards, and precipitated the solution of great public questions which were not ripe for settlement. I represented to Her Majesty that this was a state of affairs which diminished authority, weakened government, certainly added no lustre to the Crown, but, above all, destroyed that general public confidence which is the most vigorous and legitimate source of power. Under these circumstances I felt it my duty to ask Her Majesty graciously to relieve me from the task which she had suggested to my consideration.
  Now, Sir, it will be asked, and has been asked, no doubt, in every street and every chamber in this town, why, when being able to form an efficient Administration, and having been summoned to the Councils of Her Majesty deprived of the assistance of her previous Advisers, the only obstacle before me being that I had to encounter a hostile majority in the House of Commons—it will be asked, I say, why, under these circumstances, I did not advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. To that point, with the permission of the House, I will now address myself. Sir, a Dissolution of Parliament is a political function re-
  1932
  specting which considerable misconception exists. It is supposed to be an act which can be performed with great promptitude, and which is a resource to which a Minister may recur with the utmost facility. But the fact is that great mistakes prevail respecting this important exercise of the Prerogative. A Dissolution of Parliament is a very different instrument in different hands. It is an instrument of which a Minister in office, with his Government established, can avail himself with a facility of which a Minister who is only going to accede to office is deprived. A Minister in office, having his Government formed, with many indications, probably of the critical circumstances which may render it imperative on him to advise the Sovereign to exercise this Prerogative, has the opportunity of disposing of the Public Business preparatory to the act which he advises. But the position of a Minister who is only going to accede to office is, in this respect, very different. In the first place, he has to form his Administration, and that is a work of great time, of great labour, and of great responsibility. It is not confined merely to the construction of a Cabinet, which, when you are honoured by the confidence of many companions in public life is often the least difficult part of the task; but it requires communication with probably more than 50 individuals, all of them persons of consideration with whom you must personally confer. The construction of a Ministry falls entirely on the individual intrusted with its formation. It is a duty which can be delegated to no one. All the correspondence and all the interviews must be conducted by himself; and, without dwelling on the sense of responsibility involved, the perception of fitness requisite; and the severe impartiality necessary in deciding on contending claims, the mere physical effort is not slight; and two-thirds of the new Ministers also must appeal for re-election to their constituents. As a matter of time that materially affects the position of the Government. Now, in the present case, it would not have been possible for me to have formed a Government, and to have placed it on that bench and in the other House, in working gear, until Easter. Well, the holidays would have intervened. After the holidays it might have been possible, by having re-

  1933
  course to methods I greatly disapprove—namely, provisional finance, by Votes of Credit, or rather Votes on Account, and by taking a step which, for reasons I will afterwards give, I highly reprobate—namely, accepting the Estimates of our predecessors—itmighthavebeen possible to have dissolved Parliament in the early part of the month of May. But when the month of May arrived, this question would occur—what are you going to dissolve Parliament about? There was no particular issue before the country—at least, it cannot be pretended for a moment that there was any one of those issues before the country that have previously justified extraordinary dissolutions of Parliament—questions which the country wished passionately to decide, and when in a political exigency of that kind a Minister is perfectly justified in having recourse to provisional finance, or any other means by which he can obtain the earliest decision of the country. I wish the House for a moment to consider impartially what was the real position of affairs. Her Majesty's Ministers had resigned. Her Majesty had called on the leader of the Opposition to form a Ministry, while he had nearly a majority of 90 arrayed against him. It was, in his opinion, necessary of course, in the circumstances, to appeal to the country, in order that that majority might be changed, probably into one—though, perhaps, not of that amount—in his favour. But if that be the real state of the case—if there were no issue before the country—for I do not suppose anyone would maintain that the Irish University Bill was a question on which we could dissolve—the right hon. Gentleman by dissolving might have wished to punish those who voted against him—but I could not take that course, for I was one of the criminals—if the case be as I state, that we could not carry on affairs without an appeal to the country upon grounds which would justify the constituencies in giving us a majority, is it not quite clear that we could not appeal to the country without having a matured and complete policy? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh at the word "policy;" but I would suggest that it is impossible for those who sit on the Opposition bench suddenly to have a matured policy to present to the people of this country in case Parliament is dissolved. An Opposition, of whatever
  1934
  party it may be formed, is essentially a critical body; it is not a constructive one, and it cannot be. Upon all the great subjects of the day, no doubt—Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House have certain views and principles which guide them in dealing with the circumstances and measures before Parliament; but they must know that on all these questions they cannot for a moment rival the information possessed by a Government. However they may wish to do their duty to this House and offer their views and arguments for discussion, there is a degree of information which it is impossible to obtain by any but a Minister. Take a case illustrative of this. There is the question of our relations at this moment with Central Asia. No one will deny for a moment that this is a question of the highest importance; it is one in some degree of instant interest, but still more grave from its ultimate consequences. If there was a discussion of the Central Asian question, I myself, or my Friends around me, might presume to offer our opinions to the House; but, so far as I am concerned, I shall speak, as I trust I do on all matters of foreign policy, with reserve and unaffected diffidence, because I know very well that were I to cross the floor of this House and enter the archives of Downing Street, I should find information there which I do not now possess, which might modify, nay, entirely change my views, which might render it even necessary that, after much deliberation, we should place ourselves in communication with agents and authorities, and that we might even have to shape a particular course. All this cannot be done in a moment. And yet, how could we dissolve Parliament, and appeal to the country for its confidence, without guiding it on a subject which, although the English people are not fanatically anxious to interfere in foreign affairs, unquestionably much occupies the public mind, and especially of those thoughtful classes who influence opinion. And yet until we were in Office, and had the means of considering and maturing our policy on the subject, the House must feel that would have been impossible. We should have had to go on that and other matters with a blank sheet of paper to the constituencies. Would that, I ask, have been an appeal becoming us to make to a sensible people like the English nation?

  1935
  Take another question. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) has given Notice of a Motion upon a subject infinitely more important than any Irish University question—which concerns the highest interests of the country—one on which it is, in my opinion, the duty of a Minister to take a decided course, and arrive at a precise resolution—I speak of those Three Rules which Her Majesty' s Government are attempting to introduce into international law, which touch most intimately the rights of neutrals, and if misinterpreted must injuriously affect this country. How would it be possible to appeal to the people of England so to exercise their suffrages that they should convert the large majority of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite into a majority in favour of those who sit on this side of the House if we blinked giving our opinion on that vast question? They would say, you appeal to the country, you ask for our confidence—what do you mean to do about that mysterious and perplexing question of the Three New Rules proposed to be introduced into international law which affect all the rights of neutrals, and on which the position of this country may ultimately depend? It is clear that on such a matter we must speak with decision and act with energy. How are we to do that unless we have the opportunity of investigating affairs with the information which is only at the command of a Minister who can then come forward with a policy for which he is ready to be responsible? I do not wish to push the case with regard to Foreign Affairs farther, but I would remind the House that there is also the question of the mode of payment of the compensation money awarded by the Tribunal of Geneva. That also is a question in which the country wants to be guided and instructed by a Ministry. There is, however, one other point I cannot help noticing, and that is the French Treaty of Commerce. I have endeavoured to follow the negotiations with respect to that Treaty, but I confess I feel somewhat at sea with regard to them. I really do not know the engagements into which the Government are about to enter, but it is a subject of vast interest to the country. Judging from the communications made to me within the last week from the great seats of industry, no Minister could dissolve with-
  1936
  out speaking on that subject in a precise and definite manner.
  I mentioned to the House just now the necessity, in case we dissolved Parliament in the month of May—which would be the earliest possible period—of accepting the Estimates of our predecessors, which are on the Table. As a general rule, and at all times, I highly reprobate that course. Nothing but a political exigency, nothing but the existence of a question on which the country is passionately determined to have an instant decision, can justify a Minister in taking that course. But look to our particular position with respect to this subject? You must remember that at the last General Election the country was particularly appealed to on the head of Expenditure. The Expenditure of the Government of which I was the head was denounced as "profligate;" and the manner in which it was so held up to the people of this country greatly influenced the Elections—quite as much as the question of that unfortunate institution, the Irish Church, the spoliation of which, I believe, is not now so popular as it was at that time. I speak with due diffidence on the point; there are alterations made in the mode of keeping the accounts since the election of 1868; but, making all the deductions I can on this head, it does not appear to me that the expenditure of the country at the present moment is less than it was when it was denounced at the Election of 1868. I certainly do not wish on this occasion to make any charge against the present Government; but this. I may say, it is a subject most important and interesting to the people of England, and one which, if I were a responsible Minister tomorrow, it would be my first task and effort to scrutinize with a view to find out whether there was any ground for the denunciation of the expenditure of 1868, and whether there are adequate grounds for the expenditure which at present prevails. This is a most grave business, which cannot be done in a moment. The Estimates of this country cannot and ought not to be settled by a few Treasury clerks. I have endeavoured to impress upon the House more than once—and generally speaking the principle has been accepted—that expenditure depends upon policy; and, therefore, before we could decide what was

  1937
  the fitting expenditure of the country, especially in armaments, we must be minutely and accurately informed what are our engagements and relations with the various Powers of the world. If it be true that expenditure depends upon policy, I beg the House to remember that, since I was at the head of public affairs, the greatest Revolution has happened in Europe since the first great French Revolution at the end of the last century. Much greater changes have occurred in Europe since the Government of 1868 than were effected by the Congress and the Treaty of Vienna. The Congress and Treaty of Vienna left the boundaries of France untouched; they left Germany divided among a variety of Princes and Potentates; they left a divided Italy; and they left Rome in the possession of the Pope. All these conditions have changed; and many of the most important considerations that the Government of the day had to enter into when they decided upon our armaments in 1867 and 1868 are entirely changed. I do not mean to say there may not be new quarters in which it may be necessary to take precautions; but the House will, I think, on reflection, agree with me that all the data upon which the expenditure for our armaments was calculated in 1868 are entirely changed. The consideration of these subjects would be a task which a new Government must enter into heartily, sincerely, and thoroughly. It would be impossible to go to the country, especially upon this subject of expenditure, in perfect silence, and offer only a blank sheet. It is quite clear, if that be the case, we have first of all to consider the engagements and relations of this country with foreign Powers; secondly, whether our armaments are efficient and sufficient for the purpose; and thirdly, whether that efficiency and sufficiency have been attained in the most economical manner. Is this an affair that can be accomplished with the facility with which, sitting on an Opposition bench, you can write an address to your constituents? The House will see that, before making an appeal to the country, it would be necessary that we should encounter preliminary duties of the gravest responsibility. I go further on this head. However anxious a Government may be, in the contemplation of a Dissolution of Parliament, to wind up public affairs, however anxious
  1938
  they may be to discharge only those duties which seem absolutely necessary for carrying on the public service, I have observed that there is always some large question which cannot be shelved or shunted, either from the peculiar interest which the country takes in it or the engagements of successive Ministers, and sometimes, and not uncommonly, from its indirect influence upon Imperial finance; and there is one of those questions now—there is the question of Local Taxation. It would be impossible for a Ministry formed from the benches on either side, certainly from these benches, to go to the country and to be silent on the question of Local Taxation. It is no light matter to grapple with. It is possible, I give no opinion on that head now, that in attempting to settle it you may have to interfere with your Imperial finance, and that a Budget may be affected by it. Well, what is the upshot? The upshot is that if we had accepted office we should have had to conduct the affairs of Her Majesty's Government in Parliament for the whole Session, and for a Session of no ordinary length, and I was not prepared to take a step of that kind. I know from experience, as I mentioned before, what is the consequence to a party and to the public interests of endeavouring to carry on the Government of the country in a House in which a large majority is arrayed against you. I am not referring to the period when I had the honour to introduce and conduct through the House a Bill to amend the Representation of the People. I said then, and I say now, I think that the conduct of the House to Her Majesty's Ministers was independent, generous, and spirited. To that Bill the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as the leader of the Opposition, offered an uncompromising opposition. I had the asssistance of the House, and that Bill was triumphantly read a second time; and after the Easter holidays, when the right hon. Gentleman rallied his forces and himself brought forward a Motion which, if carried, would have been fatal to it, the right hon. Gentleman was signally defeated. Therefore, it is a perversion of terms to say that at that time we were carrying on the Government with a minority, because on critical occasions we had a majority and the leader of the Opposition was defeated. But, Sir, I

  1939
  have had some experience of conducting the Government really in a minority. I take the case of the Government of 1852. It is well known that Lord Derby was most disinclined to take office. He had declined it in 1851 under circumstances most painful to himself. The Queen was left for 48 hours without a Government. In 1852 Lord Derby was obliged to take office; yet before he took it he made overtures to Lord Palmerston to construct a Government with him; and Lord Palmerston, who seemed not unwilling to assist my noble Friend, declined on the ground that he had no friends. A man whom we all remember as the most popular Minister in England gravely, and I believe sincerely, gave that as his reason. I believe Lord Derby on that occasion made overtures also to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] At all events, he spared no pains, and I know that to many Gentlemen who were not in political association with him he made overtures. Lord Derby was obliged to take the reins of Government. He formed a Cabinet of individuals who had never been in office; and the leadership of this House, for the only time, I believe, since the days of Lord Shelburne, was intrusted to an individual who had not the slightest official experience. If ever there was an occasion, one would think, for generous treatment on the part of the House of Commons, however great the majority might be, that was the instance. But what happened? The moment he took office the Supplies were voted for six months only, forcing him to call Parliament together in November, when he was obliged to bring forward remedial measures essentially financial, and when the permanent officers of the Government declared that the Estimates could only be imaginary. I know well—and those who are around me know well—what will occur when a Ministry takes office and attempts to carry on the Government with a minority during the Session, with the view of ultimately appealing to the people. We should have what is called "fair play." That is to say no Vote of Want of Confidence should be proposed, and chiefly because it would be of no use. There would be no wholesale censure, but retail humiliation. A right hon. Gentleman will come down here, he will arrange his thumb-screws and other instruments
  1940
  of torture on this Table—we shall never ask for a Vote without a lecture; we shall never perform the most ordinary routine office of Government without there being annexed to it some pedantic and ignominious condition. ["No, no!"] I wish to express nothing but what I know from painful personal experience. No expression of the kind I have just encountered could divest me of the painful memory; I wish it could. I wish it was not my duty to take this view of the case. In a certain time we should enter into the Paradise of Abstract Resolutions. One day hon. Gentlemen cannot withstand the golden opportunity of asking the House to affirm that the Income Tax should no longer form one of the features of our Ways and Means. Of course, a proposition of that kind would be scouted by the right hon. Gentleman and all his Colleagues; but then they might dine out that day, and the Resolution might be carried, as Resolutions of that kind have been. Then another hon. Gentleman, distinguished for his knowledge of men and things would move that the Diplomatic Service be abolished. While hon. Gentlemen opposite were laughing in their sleeves at the mover, they would vote for the Motion in order to put the Government into a minority, For this reason:—"Why should men," they would say, "govern the country who are in a minority?" totally forgetting that we acceded to office in the spirit of the Constitution, quite oblivious of the fountain and origin of the position we occupied. And it would go very hard if on some sultry afternoon some hon. Member should not "rush in where angels fear to tread," and successfully assimilate the borough and the county franchise. And so things would go on until the bitter end—until at last even the Appropriation Bill has passed, Parliament is dissolved, and we appeal to those millions who perhaps six months before might have looked upon us as the vindicators of intolerable grievances, but who now receive us as a defeated, discredited, and degraded Ministry whose services can be neither of value to the Crown nor a credit to the nation. Well, Sir, with these views, I think the House cannot be surprised that I should have felt it my duty, in concurrence with all those with whom I have acted in public life, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that I did not think it would be for the public advantage or

  1941
  for the honour of the Crown that under such circumstances—namely, the existence of a powerful majority against us—we should attempt to conduct Her Majesty's affairs.
  Having announced that, I did not feel it my duty to recommend Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. I might, so far as Parliamentary precedent is concerned, here drop this subject; but there have been misconceptions on this head which I wish to remove, and therefore I may be allowed to say that Her Majesty on this occasion—with that judicial impartiality which she displays to all who serve her—when, after the enumeration of these difficulties, I hesitated in accepting the offer that was so graciously made to me, did impress upon me that if I undertook the task I might count upon her most cordial support, and that if a dissolution could at all assist me I might depend upon the exercise of the Royal Prerogative for that result. However, I was obliged to represent to Her Majesty, by means of the details which I have given you, though not, perhaps, at so much technical length, that a Dissolution of Parliament would not remove the obstacles to which I have referred.
  I ought not to pass unnoticed the observations with which the right hon. Gentleman commenced his address. The right hon. Gentleman has with candour and temper referred to the delay which elapsed between Thursday and Sunday in forming a Cabinet, and I think the House will agree with me that he has acquitted me—at least I understood him to do so—of being the cause of that delay. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have misapprehended the decision which, on my part, I thought was singularly precise and definite. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a controversy between us which has not appeared before the House, on the conduct of the Opposition in the course which they took on the Motion for the second reading of the University Bill. I have no wish to enter into any discussion on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that in my letter to Her Majesty I at least did not shrink from arguing the question and vindicating on constitutional grounds the course which we took. I refrain from further alluding to this subject, but I must say, in passing, I thought it
  1942
  was a most gracious condescension on the part of Her Majesty, to deign to become the medium of communication in order, to use Her Majesty's language "to prevent, if possible, misconceptions." As to the charge against myself that I did not take sufficient pains or exhaust the means of forming a Cabinet on the occasion, and which appears to have been the cause of the hesitation in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman has read a passage on that head, I may also read a passage from my letter to Her Majesty on the subject. In it I say—
  "The charge against the Leader of the Opposition personally, that by 'his summary refusal' to undertake your Majesty's Government he was failing in his duty to your Majesty and the country is founded altogether on a gratuitous assumption by Mr. Gladstone, which pervades his letter, that the means of Mr. Disraeli to carry on the Government were not 'exhausted.' A brief statement of facts will at once dispose of this charge. Before Mr. Disraeli, with due deference, offered his decision to your Majesty, he had enjoyed the opportunity of consulting those gentlemen with whom he acts in public life, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country for a Conservative Administration to attempt to conduct your Majesty's affairs in the present House of Commons. What other means were at Mr. Disraeli's disposal? Was he to open negotiations with a section of the late Ministry, and waste days in barren interviews, vain applications, and the device of impossible combinations? Was he to make overtures to the considerable section of the Liberal party who had voted against the Government—namely, the Irish Roman Catholic Gentlemen? Surely, Mr. Gladstone could not seriously contemplate this? Impressed from experience, obtained in the very instances to which Mr. Gladstone refers, of the detrimental influence upon Government of a crisis unnecessarily prolonged by hollow negotiations, Mr. Disraeli humbly conceived that he was taking a course at once advantageous to the public interests, and tending to spare your Majesty unnecessary anxiety by at once laying before your Majesty the real position of affairs."
  I spoke particularly from the experience which I, then myself inexperienced in public affairs, obtained when acting with Lord Derby and witnessing the course he took with reference to the Government of 1852; and if it be, as I hold, one of the greatest disadvantages of these political crises that so much public time should be wasted, that Parliament should become dislocated, that Public Business should be postponed or measures given up, and that the public mind should be disturbed, I consider I

  1943
  was doing my duty when I took every possible means to make the period during which the right hon. Gentleman was absent from office as short as possible. While upon this subject, I beg to say that, although I did not presume to give any advice to Her Majesty as to whom she should send for, as this is a peculiar right of the Crown with which no one ought to interfere, yet in speaking of the difficulties of the position in which Her Majesty was placed, I did give my opinion that I thought the cause for the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues was hardly adequate to the great event which had occurred. It appeared to me, that under the circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely justified in the course he pursued, because we must remember that the unfortunate University Bill had been unpopular in this House from the beginning, and that a large section of the Liberal party opposed it on the same grounds on which it was opposed by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House—namely, that it sacrificed the educational interests of Ireland to the claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. When we took that line in debate it was with a complete anticipation that every Gentleman connected with the Roman Catholic interest in Ireland would support Her Majesty's Ministers. But I said it was possible that the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence, I will not say of a hasty, but, as I think, of an unfortunate expression he used a month ago when he introduced the Bill, might feel his honour concerned so far as to be obliged to resign office. As regards his honour a statesman cannot be too nice and scrupulous; but I thought the right hon. Gentleman's honour was vindicated by the act of resignation, and that he might return to office without the slightest difficulty.
  I am quite aware that the counsel I humbly recommended to Her Majesty in these negotiations may have been disappointing to some of my supporters in this House, and to many of my supporters in the country; but I would fain believe that, when they have given a mature and an impartial consideration to all the circumstances, they will not visit my conduct with a verdict of unqualified condemnation. I believe that the Tory party at the present time
  1944
  ccupies the most satisfactory position which it has held since the days of its greatest statesmen, Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville. It has divested itself of those excrescences which are not indigenous to its native growth, but which in a time of long prosperity were the consequence partly of negligence, and partly, perhaps, in a certain degree, of ignorance of its traditions. We are now emerging from the fiscal period in which almost all the public men of this generation have been brought up. All the questions of Trade and Navigation, of the Incidence of Taxation and of Public Economy are settled. But there are other questions not less important, and of deeper and higher reach and range, which must soon engage the attention of the country. The attributes of a Constitutional Monarchy—whether the Aristocratic principle should be recognized in our Constitution, and if so in what form—whether the Commons of England shall remain an Estate of the Realm, numerous, but privileged and qualified, or whether they should degenerate into an indiscriminate multitude—whether a national Church shall be maintained, and if so, what shall be its rights and duties; the functions of Corporations, the sacredness of Endowments, the tenure of landed property, the free disposal and even the existence of any kind of property. All those institutions and all those principles, which have made this country free, and famous, and conspicuous for its union of order with liberty, are now impugned, and in due time will become great and "burning" questions. I think it is of the utmost importance that when that time—which may be nearer at hand than we imagine—arrives there shall be in this country a great Constitutional Party, distinguished for its intelligence as well as for its organization, which shall be competent to lead the people and direct the public mind. And, Sir, when that time arrives, and when they enter upon a career which must be noble, and which I hope and believe will be triumphant, I think they may perhaps remember, and not, perhaps, with unkindness, that I at least prevented one obstacle from being placed in their way, when as the trustee of their honour and their interests, I declined to form a weak and discredited Administration.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had touched upon one of the points which manifested the difficulty experienced by the party on his (Mr. Newdegate's) side of the House. He had indicated no positive policy on the part of those with whom he was connected, and his (Mr. Newdegate's) experience in that House was this, that the leader of a party, without a positive policy, must make up his mind to continue in a minority.
  MR. AGAR-ELLISrose to Order. He wished to ask what was the Question before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no question at present before the House. The House had just heard the Ministerial Explanations, but it would be irregular to continue the discussion without some Motion before the House, therefore, according to the ordinary practice, it would now be his duty to proceed with the Notices of Motion.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. J. LOWTHER,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Public Business sot down for to-morrow night would be quite sufficient to occupy the House. On Monday the Government proposed to go into Supply, in order to enable the First Lord of the Admiralty to bring forward the Navy Estimates. The course of business on the following Thursday would in some degree depend upon the progress made on Monday next, as it would not be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the Navy Estimates should be delayed longer than Thursday. It was hoped, however, that by the dinner-hour on Thursday the postponed Motions of private Members might conic on, and they would then, at all events, stand in a better position than when they came behind the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Crawford).
  MR. G. BENTINCKthought his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) was entitled to ask the Government to place him in a position to bring forward his Motion on the Public Parks on an early day. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would place him in a similar position to that which he occupied last Thursday in respect to his Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the best course to take would be to wait
  1946
  until Monday, in order to see what progress they then made with Public Business.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would inform him on Monday on what day he would redeem his pledge to give an opportunity to all those hon. Members whose motions had been postponed at his request, of bringing them forward.

UNIVERSITY TESTS (DUBLIN) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. DIXON,
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was his intention to bring on the second reading of this Bill on Wednesday, the 2nd of April, and he should also, if possible, press forward its subsequent stages. He regretted that the Bill had not yet been printed; but he hoped it would be delivered to-morrow or not later than Saturday. The delay had been caused by his anxiety to consider, and if possible to meet, the objections urged against his measure by the Primo Minister and others in the recent debate.

  MALT TAX.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, What course he intended to take with reference to his Motion on the Malt Tax, which stood on the Paper for to-morrow night?
  COLONEL BARTTELOT,in reply, said, that in the event of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) proceeding with his important Resolution with regard to the Three Rules, and in the event of Her Majesty's Government making no proposal with regard to that subject, and on a Division being taken on the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, he should not bring on the Resolution relating to the Malt Tax. Should, however, a proposal be made by Her Majesty's Government which would render it unnecessary that a Division should be taken on the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, he should bring the Question of the Malt Tax under the notice of the House.

  REGISTER FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTORS BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Hibbert.)

  [BILL 66.]—SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of this measure was to simplify the process of revision, and have but one register for Parliamentary and municipal voters in boroughs. At present the revision was separate, the qualifications were to some extent separate also, while the expense and inconvenience under the present system caused much dissatisfaction. The Bill left the county registration untouched, with the single exception that the revision for the counties and that for the boroughs should take place at the same time. The necessity for the alteration of the date was this. It was desirable that the various overseers who prepared the lists should do their work both for the Parliamentary and municipal boroughs, at the same time, and also that the Revising Barrister, to whom the duty of revision was to be in trusted for municipal as well as Parliamentary boroughs, should do his work at the same time and at the same expense. It was important that all the franchises—the borough franchise, the Parliamentary franchise in the borough, and the Parliamentary franchise in the county—should be dated on the same day. The voters in respect of the Parliamentary and municipal boroughs were not absolutely the same, though nearly so. By the earlier Reform Bill there were certain old Parliamentary franchises preserved which did not apply to boroughs as municipalities. The Bill now before the House still preserved those franchises. Therefore, a certain number of persons had votes for the Parliamentary borough who had none for the same borough as a municipality. On the other hand, there was an important addition made by Parliament to the municipal voters—namely, women, who had not a share in the Parliamentary franchise. Under these circumstances, it was of course absolutely necessary that two lists, one of the Parliamentary and the other of the municipal electors, should be made out, and in both cases the lists were prepared by the same officers. The date
  1948
  of the franchise, both Parliamentary and municipal, would be the same—namely, the 31st of July. There was a certain number of Forms and Notices prescribed by the Registration Act, the 6 & 7 Vict., c. 18, in the case of Parliamentary votes that were not required to be served in the preparation of municipal lists, while there were various lists, made by overseers of parishes and published for the Parliamentary voters, that were not to be prepared for municipal voters. Thus a list of freemen, the list of present voters, the list of new claims, and the list of objections had to be prepared, all of which related to the Parliamentary voters, while the burgess list, which related to the municipal voters only, had to be prepared by the overseers and delivered by them to the town clerk. The Parliamentary lists were dated the 29th of August and the municipal list on the 1st of September. Then the overseers had to publish the Parliamentary voters' list on the first two Sundays in August, while the town clerk had to publish the burgess list on the 15th of September. New Parliamentary claims to vote had to be made to the overseers before the 25th of August, and new municipal claims to vote had to be made to the town clerk before the 15th of September, and objections to such votes had to be made before those days respectively. At present all objectors to voters in boroughs were required to state some ground for their objections, while no such obligation was laid upon objectors to county voters, and it was the object of this Bill to remove that distinction, and to require all objectors to county voters to assign a reason for their objections. The result of all this was that for the Parliamentary borough as ninny as five lists had to be prepared—four by the overseers and one by the town clerk, and for the municipal boroughs but one list—namely, the burgess list, which the town clerk had to prepare. The revision of the lists of the Parliamentary voters for boroughs was in the hands of the Revising Barristers, who, on the whole, performed their duties most satisfactorily; but the duty of revising the municipal lists was discharged by the mayor and two assessors, who constituted, he thought, a very unsatisfactory tribunal for that purpose, inasmuch as the assessors in boroughs in which party politics ran

  1949
  at all high were chosen from merely political considerations. It was now proposed that the Revising Barrister who went through the Parliamentary list should revise the borough list also. In the case of appeal the present law appeared to need amendment, since the decision of the Revising Barrister was conclusive, unless he chose to grant a case, and though he did not mean to hint that there had been any abuse of the power thus vested in the hands of the Revising Barrister, yet it was plain that such a thing might occur, and that under the Ballot Act his power had been largely increased. As matters at present stood, the appeal when the case was granted was to the Court of Common Pleas, which had performed its high functions not only without being open to the charge of any abuse, but with promptitude, appeals made in the Michaelmas Term after the revision being generally decided before Christmas. As to the mayor and assessors to whom he had just referred, the only means of correcting any mistake made by them was through the cumbrous machinery created by the 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vict., by a writ of mandamus of the Court of Queen's Bench. Since the passing of 7 Will. IV., the writ of mandamus had been made subject to an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and to the House of Lords. To show how the thing worked he might mention that he had been engaged in a case in which the contention on his side was that the mayor and one assessor had by a wrong decision disfranchised one-third of the voters in a borough in the South of England. It was sought by a writ of mandamus to replace those persons in the position to exercise their rights, and the matter was taken by appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and afterwards to the House of Lords, the result being that a final decision had not been given in the case until four years had elapsed and three revisions had been held, the costs incurred being enormous. Now, in order to remedy the evils of the existing system, it was proposed to make one register for the boroughs. On that register there would, for reasons which he had already laid before the House, be two lists; there would be one revision, and that revision it was proposed to in trust to the Revising Barristers, who would of course be selected as persons
  1950
  perfectly apart from all political considerations. As to the appeal, he proposed to keep it where it was in the case of the Parliamentary voter, and in the case of the municipal to give the same remedy, the appeal to be made to the Court of Common Pleas. Power was to be given to the Court to alter the municipal register, as it was now given in regard to the county and borough Parliamentary registers. He proposed further to give the Court of Common Pleas power in a short and summary way, on application to a Judge in Chambers, to compel a Revising Barrister to grant a case if the Judge was satisfied that he ought to do so. He thought there ought to be some such power, he had no fear that it would be greatly used; and its very existence perhaps, would prevent the necessity for its exercise. They proposed also to compel a statement of the grounds of objections in the ease of county voters as well as in the case of borough voters. He would for the present pass over many points of detail, as being essentially matters for discussion in Committee. In putting the revisions together it was necessary to alter the dates of the various notices and stages connected with the lists. They had substituted for the sake of convenience the 24th of June for the 31st of July. The proposed changes of dates appeared to be numerous, but they were all governed by one and the same rule—namely, to make the new dates bear exactly the same relation to the new point of departure, the 24th of June, as the old dates bore to the old point of departure, July 31. If they were to have one revision, and if the time for the election of town councillors and mayors—namely, early in November, was to remain unaltered, the revision would have to be fixed so as to give a reasonable time to enable the lists to be made out and the voting to be based upon them. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hunt) suggested that the election of town councillors should be held on the 1st of January, and then a great many of those changes of dates would be unnecessary. No Constitutional principle was involved in either of those dates; but at a meeting in London, at which more than 50 of the largest towns in England were represented, an unanimous opinion was expressed in favour of the dates contained in the Bill. They particularly objected

  1951
  to the elections taking place on the 1st of January, on the ground that that day was at present generally a day of rejoicing, and that, if the elections were to come off at that time, the whole of the Christmas week would be spent in canvassing. Independent of the respect which was due to the authority of these persons, the reasons which they gave seemed to him good, and the Bill was therefore drawn in accordance with their opinion. There was a certain number of non-Parliamentary boroughs in England—58, he believed, in number—and the question arose whether they should make the same rule for Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary boroughs. They thought that, on the whole, it would be better to have one rule for all. Non-Parliamentary boroughs were generally polling places, and the Revising Barrister being obliged to visit them for the revision of the county list, it would add little to his trouble to revise the municipal list at the same time. He hoped he had made it clear to the House what they intended to do by this Bill, and he begged now to move that it be read a second time.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that he had no objection to offer to the principle of this Bill. The change proposed by his hon. and learned Friend opposite was very desirable—namely, that the revision of the municipal lists should take place at the same time and under the same superintendence as the Parliamentary lists. He entirely disagreed, however, with the proposal of this Bill in reference to the period at which revision was to take place. His hon. and learned friend proposed that the revision for both boroughs and counties should take place at a time when, by the habits of this country, everybody who could leave home was away. The habits of the people of this country, as regarded locomotion and travel, depended very much on the sitting of Parliament and the holding of the Assizes. According to this arrangement, the work of revision would not commence until the professional gentlemen who were concerned in the revision were mostly away from home. The proposal of the Bill was that revision should take place between the 9th of August and the 24th of September. Parliament was generally prorogued about the 9th of August, and the summer Assizes generally came to an end about the same
  1952
  period. That was the very time when people went to the sea-side, to the Continent, or to the Highlands. It would thus frequently happen that a person's vote would be called in question in the Revision Court, and that he would not be able to sustain it because he was in Switzerland or Scotland. He would either have to run the risk of losing his vote, or he would have to return at great personal expense and inconvenience to defend it. It seemed to him that they ought to change the time of the municipal election rather than change the time of revision, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would re-consider the matter. The objection to the change was that Christmas would be spent in canvassing. He thought, however, that in these halcyon days of vote by Ballot they were to lose the benefits of canvassing. [Mr. COLLINS: No, no!] His hon. Friend the Member for Boston was not a member of the Committee which sat to inquire into the subject four years ago, and he (Mr. Hunt) was, and they were told that one of the great advantages of the Ballot was, that it would be able to dispense with canvassing, on account of the absence of any security for promises being redeemed. The most natural course would be to make the register come into force on the 1st of January. In the counties that was so now; and the time, he thought, should be the same for the boroughs. Moreover, there was frequently much drunkenness both at Christmas and at the time of elections, and the holding of municipal elections on the 1st of January would give one week's saturnalia instead of two, thereby improving the morality of the country. He hoped, on those grounds, that the present dates with regard to the Parliamentary register would be retained.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he was not going to criticize the Bill in a hostile spirit, but there were one or two suggestions which he wished to offer. He regretted that the Bill did not provide for the appointment of registration officers, to supersede the overseers in the preparation of the lists—a change recommended by the Committee of 1869. He had originally favoured the 1st of January as the date when the new Lists should come into operation, but on reflection he preferred the 25th of October, for the register having been made conclusive, and the

  1953
  registration being usually completed by the end of September, it was undesirable to have three months' interval, during which persons would lose their qualification and yet retain the right to vote. [Mr. HUNT remarked that the Register could not be printed by the 25th of October.] He believed this might with due diligence be effected. He regretted that no provision was made in this Bill with regard to the pressure which was put upon lodgers to prove their qualifications, because at present they had to show that their qualification was good at every registration. Things had come to such a point that it was necessary there should be some legislation. The measure would apparently check the evil of frivolous objections. In many boroughs the agents on both sides objected to working men, in the hope that they would not be able to attend, and even if they attended and substantiated their claim, the Revising Barrister, as the law now stood, seldom awarded them costs. He would suggest that the Barrister should be required, on the requisition of a certain number of the electors, to hold a Court after 6 or 7 at night, a point of greater importance than the keeping open of the poll to a later hour.
  MR. COLLINS,while approving the principle of one register for Parliamentary and municipal purposes, regretted that the Bill left unaltered two great inconveniences of the existing law. The overseer had to publish on the 1st of August a list of persons qualified on the previous day, a task obviously impossible, resulting in an imperfect list, and in unnecessarily numerous objections and claims. There ought to be a reasonable interval between the date of qualification and the issue of the list. There should also be an interval between the date for objections and that for claims, so as to allow persons whose qualification was objected to to put forward another, if they had one. At present an overseer might give notice to his political friends, which would enable this to be done on the same day that the objection was made, but might withhold such an intimation from the other side. He considered it a great boon that the revision of the municipal registration was to be taken out of the hands of partizan mayors and assessors, and also that the temptation to make frivolous objections was lessened. He could not regard the
  1954
  alteration proposed to be made in the Bill as to time an improvement. It would in practice be found a most inconvenient thing to turn the week intervening between Christmas and the 1st of January into a time of electioneering. It was a time when persons were, or ought to be, given up to charity and goodwill; but the prevalence of party politics would create, instead, feelings of bitterness and discord. He hoped that the middle of January or the middle of December would be substituted for the first day of the year. These were, however, matters of detail which could be discussed hereafter, and he hoped they would be considered without any party spirit.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he could not regard the Bill as being a very comprehensive measure. It did not attempt to consolidate any of the existing statutes; but it certainly did remedy one or two of the more glaring evils of the present system of registration. They should wait, for a further amendment of the law, until certain questions affecting local government had been settled. The Bill provided against frivolous objections being made to voters, but it did not provide for the efficient registration of those voters, for there was no method of correcting the list or filling up omissions therein. More time ought to be given to the overseers between the making up of the lists and the time of publication. The principle of the Bill was good so far as it went, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would press it forward with every possible celerity, in order that when amended it might come into operation at the next registration.
  MR. C. E. LEWISobserved that the object of the Bill, so far as the making of one list of Parliamentary and municipal voters was concerned, seemed to meet with the general concurrence of the House. He was, however, opposed to the suggestion that the list should, as to each class, come into operation on the same day. If it did, then the power of appeal, so far as regarded the municipal voters, would be taken away; because the municipal elections would be held on the 1st of November, and the earliest day on which the appeal could be heard was the 2nd of November, the first day of Michaelmas Term. With respect to boroughs, the Bill might very well provide that the list for muni-

  1955
  cipal purposes should come into operation on, say, the 1st of December, and with respect to Parliamentary elections in boroughs, and also in counties on the 1st of January. In some cases an appeal had the effect of deciding great numbers of cases, and he believed that one decision respecting a vote at White-haven affected between 300 and 400 votes, and he would therefore suggest the propriety of adopting a plan whereby the procedure could in this respect be simplified, and they could avoid the objections attaching to the suggestion that the municipal elections should take place on the 1st of January, and the consequent turmoil of elections at the period of Christmas. There were one or two subsidiary points on which he wished to remark. The 11th clause provided that
  "Where any objection was made to any person appearing on any list of voters for any county or borough, or to any person claiming to be on such list of voters, and the name of the person so objected to was retained on or inserted in the list by the revising barrister, the revising barrister should, unless for special reasons he otherwise determined, order costs to be paid to the person objected to."
  This might be very well in boroughs; but in counties, where the qualifications for voters were so numerous, intricate, and dissimilar, a provision such as he was now alluding to would enable persons who desired it, to stuff the registers with faggot votes, because no one would undertake the responsibility of objecting, and testing the qualification in the Revising Barristers' courts. One of the most important difficulties and infirmities which underlay the whole system of registration was the fact that a Revising Barrister's court was the only judicial court in the country in which there was no power to summon witnesses. That state of things had existed ever since the passing of the great Reform Bill in 1832. He had hoped that into any measure dealing with the subject there would have been introduced a proposal to remedy that. The present measure, however, not only failed to do this, but actually proposed to continue the existing practice. So infirm was the proceeding in the Registrar's Courts that although a person might know another who was not qualified to be on the register no compulsory evidence could be got at to decide the matter. While, on the one hand, it was the duty of Parliament to protect the voters
  1956
  from wholesale objections, it was incumbent upon them, on the other, to insist upon the purity of the register; but the operation of the provision to which he was now alluding would be to nullify all registration proceedings. With regard to the dates at which the registration courts were to sit he also wished to make a few remarks. At present the courts sat between the middle of September and the end of October. The Bill proposed that in future they should conclude their sittings by the 24th of September. But many hon. Members would know that the Assizes on two of the largest circuits very often lasted until the first week in September, and one result, therefore, of the proposal to alter the dates would be, in the case of Revising Barristers going either of those circuits, to drive over the sittings of the courts so late that the work would be done very hurriedly, and therefore imperfectly. Another result would be that the proceedings of the courts would take place during the time of harvest, which was the most awkward period of the year for the transaction of public acts in which farmers and other voters resident in the agricultural districts were concerned. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon this point when the Bill came to be considered in Committee, unless a modification of the clause was proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. On the general question, he wished to endorse the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Brand), that the measure was another instance of the tendency of the House, and those who regulated its proceedings, to go upon the patchwork system of legislating, instead of adopting the principle of consolidation. The present measure proposed to alter or partially repeal no less than 12 different Acts of Parliament, and he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would have done better to attempt a consolidation of the whole law relating to the registration of voters, instead of bringing in a patchwork Bill such as the one they were then considering. He should give his support to the measure, so far as it provided one system of registration for Parliamentary and municipal voters, but thought some serious evils might arise from passing the Bill in its present shape. There were two

  1957
  great dangers to be guarded against—one was the danger of persons really entitled to vote being objected to; but there was also the great danger of persons not entitled to vote being placed on the register.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the points which had been brought forward in the course of the discussion were principally matters of detail which did not affect the principle of the Bill. He agreed with the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), and he believed his hon. and learned Friend who had the charge of the Bill would be able to put off the publication of the list for at least six, and perhaps for 10 days. The Bill had two objects—first, to save expense, and secondly to prevent unnecessary annoyance to the voter. So far as expense was concerned, the printing of the register in a large borough cost a very large sum. In Liverpool last year it cost £1,135, in Manchester quite as much, and even in Oldham it was over £1,100—therefore, the House might well understand why the municipal authorities of the country were in favour of the Bill. In the interest of economy and as a means of getting a more perfect list, the Bill deserved the support of Parliament. It would deprive political agents of the power of annoying voters with notices of frivolous objections. At the last revision of the register for the borough which he represented (Oldham), 10,000 objections were made, the municipal list itself containing the names of only 14,000 voters. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. C. E. Lewis) that a Bill should be proposed for the consolidation of the Registration Acts in preference to a small amending Bill like this, he (Mr. Hibbert) would observe that the longer that hon. Member was in the House he would the better understand the difficulty of carrying a Consolidating Bill through the House. After this Bill passed it would be desirable that the task of consolidating the Registration Acts should be undertaken. As to the suggestion that municipal elections should be postponed from the 1st of November to the 1st of January, he would observe that the municipal authorities had by a strong resolution expressed their appreciation of the plan suggested by this Bill, and their objection to an alteration of the date of mu-
  1958
  nicipal elections. The agents in different parts of the country thought there would be no difficulty in having the registers printed early enough to come into operation on the 25th of October. His hon. and learned Friend would consider how he could meet the objection which had been made on the subject of appeal, and would also be glad to consider any Amendment which might be proposed in Committee to improve the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought the clauses which referred to frivolous objections were as valuable as any part of the Bill. Such objections were made by the thousand, and in many cases they were most frivolous and vexatious.
  MR. STEVENSONadvocated a careful classification of the lists by the overseers.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. C. E. Lewis), with reference to county elections was of considerable importance. Great reform was needed with respect to the making out of claims to be put on the county register. At the proper time he should be prepared to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration, together with a Bill which he had introduced on the same subject.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he hoped that greater facilities would be given to lodgers for putting themselves on the register. The greatest possible difficulty was now thrown in their way to prevent their getting on the register in the first instance, and to prevent their remaining on it afterwards.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSIONERS BILL.— [BILL 85.]—COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Winterbotham, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  MR. LIDDELL,without pre-judging the question whether this Commission was necessary or not, appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department to suspend further action in regard to this measure until the House had had an opportunity of considering the provisions of the Salmon Fisheries Bill of the hon. Member for

  1959
  Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). That Bill proposed to create certain important work in connection with the Salmon Fisheries, which could only be well done by these Commissioners, and until the House decided this point it would be premature to abolish the Commission.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he should be happy to accede to the request of his hon. Friend, were it not for this practical difficulty—that substantially the whole of the work which the Commissioners were appointed to do under the Act of 1865 had been completed, and accordingly in the Civil Service Estimates of the current financial year no provision was made for the continuance of the Commission after March 31. If it were hereafter found that new powers might be advantageously given to the Commissioners, it would be competent to the House to re-constitute the Commission.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.— [BILL 27.]—COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Salt, Mr. Cowper-Temple, Sir Smith Child, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Dimsdale.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Status of Ministers).
  MR. MONK,in page 3, line 13, to leave out the words "officiating minister," and insert the words "incumbent and churchwardens of the parish within which any such chapel is situated."
  MR. SALTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, as he intended to move that what ever money might be collected should be divided; and this would afford a rough kind of compromise, sufficient to meet the difficulty.
  Question put, "That the words 'officiating minister' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 18: Majority 16.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Harris, after the death of his father.
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.

  MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have to state to your Lordships, in addition to what I said on two previous occasions, that Mr. Gladstone and his Colleagues—having ascertained that Mr. Disraeli, although he felt himself able to form an efficient Government and one likely to command the confidence of Her
  1920
  Majesty, could not undertake to do so in. the present Parliament; and having further ascertained that it was not Mr. Disraeli's intention to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament—have carefully considered what it was their duty to do under these circumstances; and they have felt that there was no alternative open to them but to resume their offices. They will accordingly do so with every desire to perform their duty to the country, and in the hope that they will receive the support of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on the subject which the noble Earl has now brought under the notice of the House—namely, the resumption of office by Mr. Gladstone and his Colleagues in the Government. The noble Earl has correctly stated what took place on Thursday evening. Her Majesty wrote to Mr. Disraeli a letter informing him that Mr. Gladstone, in consequence of the Vote previously come to, had tendered his resignation and that of his Colleagues, and that Her Majesty had accepted those resignations; and, asking Mr. Disraeli whether he would undertake to form a Government. Her Majesty requested him to attend at Buckingham Palace that evening at 6 o'clock. Mr. Disraeli according waited on the Queen, and informed Her Majesty that, while he was ready to undertake to form a Government which should efficiently carry on the affairs of the country, and which he felt would deserve the confidence of Her Majesty, he was not prepared to do so in the present House of Commons. Her Majesty, acting as she always does on occasions of a similar character, made no obstacle whatever in the event of Mr. Disraeli wishing to advise Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament. But it must be perfectly obvious to all who look into this question that a dissolution of Parliament, such as that which Her Majesty would have undertaken, had Mr. Disraeli recommended it, would not have met the difficulty of the case in any way whatever. The state of Business in the other House is such that it would be quite impossible that the present Parliament could be dissolved before that period at which Parliament usually separates at the end of the Session. Measures of great importance would have had to be considered by Mr. Disraeli's Government; and they would have been

  1921
  exposed during the remainder of the Session to adverse Votes from various sections of the House of Commons; and they would have been liable to be placed in minorities on various questions which might be brought forward by the Liberal side of the House. Your Lordships will, I think, agree with me that for Mr. Disraeli to undertake the Government under such a condition of things would be detrimental to the Executive, prejudicial to the administration of affairs, and, I think, injurious to the Crown of this country. My Lords, such being the case, Mr. Disraeli respectfully declined to form a Government. I have heard it stated—my noble Friend (Earl Granville) has not asserted it now—but I have heard it stated—that unless Mr. Disraeli had been prepared to form an Administration he should not have put Her Majesty's Government in a minority on the Vote which was taken 10 days ago. To those who have advanced that proposition I venture to answer that the Vote come to on a recent occasion was the result of no combination whatever. At a very early stage of the debate Sir Michael Hicks-Beach distinctly stated the views of the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the Leader and their intention to vote against the Bill. Only at a late period of the debate was it known that any great body of Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies were likely to vote with the Opposition and so put Her Majesty's Government in a minority. For that, therefore, the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the head were in no way responsible. They felt bound to vote against a measure which in their consciences they believed would be very injurious to Ireland and to this country as well. My Lords, the theory that the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the head ought to carry on the Government even though they are in a minority is one of a very peculiar character; for it is perfectly evident that if it were carried out to its fullest extent the administration of public affairs in this country must come to a dead lock. I believe Mr. Disraeli has adopted the course which he ought to have taken, and that in future it will be said that the position he now occupies sheds additional lustre on his name as one of the greatest statesmen of the day.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to observe that in consequence of the statement of my
  1922
  noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) the other evening, that Mr. Disraeli would explain in the other House the communications which had taken place with Her Majesty, we thought it would be better that the public should know from Mr. Gladstone the exact details of what had occurred; and I therefore refrained from entering into the matter. With regard to the argument which my noble Friend has thought right to put forward, I am not aware that anyone has ever held the doctrine that no Opposition is at any time to put a Government in a minority unless it is prepared to undertake the Government. The question may have been raised whether the Ministry, having been put in a minority, and great pains having been taken to effect that result, it is not in accordance with all former precedents that some attempts should be made and some time taken by the Opposition with the view of forming a Government.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE PEERS GALLERY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to call the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a matter which interested most of their Lordships. There was a very general interest just at present with regard to what was going on in the House of Commons, and very many of their Lordships were desirous of availing themselves of the privilege which the Commons allowed them of being present at their debates. But on several occasions recently, and especially that afternoon, several of their Lordships were unable to find a place in the gallery of the House of Commons: the place which that House was kind enough to set apart for Peers being fully occupied by foreigners and other gentlemen who were not Peers. Their Lordships regarded the privilege of entering the House of Commons to hear the debates as a great one; and he thought it would be well if the Government endeavoured to come to some understanding with the authorities of that House in order that Peers might not meet with the obstacles to admission which they had been obliged to encounter for the last two or three years.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he need scarcely assure his noble Friend that he

  1923
  would be most anxious to in any way promote the convenience of their Lordships with regard to accommodation in the House of Commons; but at the time all the seats under the gallery except the back row were being taken into the House itself for the accommodation of the Members themselves, he had a conversation with the late Speaker on the subject. He told Lord Ossington that he did not think the accommodation for Peers would be sufficient; but Lord Ossington replied that it was sufficiently liberal as compared with that provided in their Lordships' House for the Members of the House of Commons. He was not convinced by that reply; but, as their Lordships knew, he had no power in the matter. He would, however, communicate on the subject with the present Speaker.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that the want of seats for Peers under the gallery in the House of Commons often proved a serious inconvenience. It was now almost impossible for Peers to communicate with Members of the House of Commons during the progress of business in that House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDremarked that his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had not touched on one of the points raised by his other noble Friend—namely, that the seats at present appropriated for Peers and the sons of Peers were taken up by gentlemen who were not Peers or the sons of Peers.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he thought it would be very unfortunate and very uncourteous to exclude foreigners and say they had no right to be admitted to the seats assigned for the accommodation of distinguished strangers. In other countries much courtesy was shown to foreigners who wished to be present at the debates of Legislative Assemblies. In all foreign Assemblies accommodation was provided for the Corps Diplomatique. The Corps Diplomatique was a very numerous body, and all the members of it could not be accommodated in the galleries of either House; but it would be very unfortunate not to find seats for some of them.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had no desire that the Corps Diplomatique should be excluded from either House, or that every courtesy should not be shown to strangers. When he said "foreigners and other gentlemen,"
  1924
  he was referring to persons who occupied seats which were supposed to be appropriated to Peers. All he desired was to have the Peers accommodated in the seats set apart for Peers.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the centre bench in the front of the gallery over the clock was set apart for the Royal Family and Foreign Ministers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the real difficulty was the question of economy. The fact was that the House of Commons was very much too small for its own Members, and that Assembly was therefore niggardly to those who wished to attend its proceedings. Until they were prepared to spend more money for their own accommodation, they were not likely to do so for the accommodation of others.
  EARL GRANVILLEdid not think that motives of economy prevailed in the matter; but rather a feeling that it was not desirable to have too large a House.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.