Sitting of 8 March 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Mid-Somerset, v. Ralph Neville-Grenville, esquire, Manor of Northstead; for Hereford City, v. Evan Pateshall, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
PRIVATE BILL—Second Reading —London and North Western Railway (Reddish to Leeds), discharged.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (REDDISH TO LEEDS) BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERmoved that the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill be postponed until Tuesday the 12th instant.
    MR. RAIKES: Before this Bill is postponed, I wish to mention one circumstance in regard to it, which I think it is my duty to state to the House. In the course of last week, having received a communication from the Board of Trade, stating that in the public interest it was desirable that the Bill should be postponed until Tuesday next, I sent to the Parliamentary agents in charge of the Bill, requesting them to take that course. They, however, thought it proper to decline to accede to my suggestion, and caused the Bill to be put down for second reading to-day. I have thought it right to call the attention of the House to the circumstance, because I believe it is the first instance on record of any Parliamentary agent having disregarded any suggestion regarding the conduct of Parliamentary Business that came from the Ways and Means Office, and it is undesirable on that ground that it should be passed over altogether without notice. I do not wish on this occasion to take any further steps in the matter, particularly as the course which I suggested has now been adopted, and the Bill has been postponed; but, at the same time, I must say that it would only have been respectful to this House on the part of the agents if they had sent an intimation to the Ways and Means Office, that they intended to act in conformity with the direction of its officers.
    Motion agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  TRAMWAYS (USE OF MECHANICAL POWER) BILLS.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills to consider under what conditions (if at all) the use of steam or
  972
  other Mechanical Power may be authorised upon Tramways during the present Session, and to take evidence thereon if they shall think fit.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE KAFFIR OUTBREAK.— QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWEN(for Mr. BURT) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state when the Papers relating to the Kaffir War will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The Papers relating to South Africa are rather voluminous, and hence there has been some delay in their production. I hope the first portion will be in the hands of hon. Members by the end of next week, and the remainder I expect to be ready by the end of this month.

  VENTILATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS —VENTILATION OF POLICE COURTS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL(for Mr. FORSYTH) asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the sitting magistrate of the Marylebone Police Court, published in the "Daily Telegraph" of the 4th instant, in which blame is thrown on the Office of Works with respect to the ventilation of the Court?
    MR. GERARD NOEL: I read with much regret the remarks made by the sitting magistrate at the Marylebone Police Court, reflecting, as they did, upon the Office of Works, more especially as all the complaints which have been made from that court have been invariably attended to, and it was only in October last we were led to infer that there was no fault to find with the ventilation. Having read the magistrate's statement in the papers on Tuesday, I went to the court, with the Secretary and the Surveyor of the Board of Works, on Wednesday to inspect it, and found the ventilators, which were constructed on the principle of the Tobin's pipes and equally effective, all hermeti-

    973
    cally sealed, and when the court got crowded and hot the windows were opened, thereby causing a down draught towards the fire-places in the court, which explained at once the misery and discomfort complained of by the solicitors and reporters. I requested that the ventilators might be opened on the following morning, and the Secretary attended with the Surveyor, and I was informed that the ventilation was all that could be desired. I cannot conclude without remarking that it was hardly fair or just on the part of the sitting magistrate, after the attention which has been invariably paid to his complaints, and after the neglect paid to the ventilation of the court by his own officials, to make the sweeping charges he did against the Department. I can only say that any complaint coming from the Marylebone Police Court or any other court shall always receive immediate attention.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HOPWOODasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Department was in a position, on the 1st of February, to give notice to terminate the Mail Contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Shipping Company; whether such notice has been given; and, whether notices inviting tenders are likely to be issued, and when?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that, in December last, the notice to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was given to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Shipping Company to terminate the contract in February, 1880, and the question of calling for fresh tenders was now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  VACCINATION ACTS.—QUESTIONS.
  Mr. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that Charles Washington Nye, of Chatham, having lost two children, as he believes through vaccination, for refusing to vaccinate his other children since, has been prosecuted eight times (between October 1869 and December 1877), and endured various terms of imprisonment amounting to a total of six months and three weeks in Canterbury and Maidstone Gaols; whe-
  974
  ther it is true that the clerk to the guardians has urged that he be again prosecuted; and, whether, in view of this and other like cases, the Government will support the Bill of the hon. Member for South Durham or propose some other remedy?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: It is true that Mr. Nye, who is said to be a secretary of the Anti-Vaccination Society, has, unfortunately, lost two children; but not from vaccination, as the medical certificates—one of which was the result of a coroner's inquest—show the cause of death to have been cholera. I do not know how many times he has been imprisoned; but in the Medway Union, to which place my inquiries have been restricted, I find he has been imprisoned three times since August, 1871, for refusing to have two of his children vaccinated, one of the prosecutions having been a second one in respect of the same child. The clerk to the Guardians denies that he advised this prosecution. What he did was to state, in reply to a question, that it would be legal to prosecute twice for the same child, and he quoted, in support of that view, the judgment of the Queen's Bench, delivered in December last, in the case "Tedd- v. Jones." No alteration of the law is, in my opinion, required, if the local authorities will only exercise a reasonable discretion as to the cases in which they cause proceedings to be taken. The objectionable character of the publications circulated by the Anti-Vaccination Society renders it extremely difficult to support legislation of a mitigating character as regards repeated prosecutions.
  EARL PERCYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact that between the years 1847 and 1851 the deaths from small-pox in England and Wales were 27,438; between 1852 and 1856, 18,081; between 1857 and 1861, 18,313; between 1862 and 1866, 24,716; between 1867 and 1871, 31,876; and between 1872 and 1876, 26,988; and, if so, to what he attributes the increase in this source of mortality; and, whether he contemplates taking any fresh steps to arrest it? Also, whether the inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman said last year were being prosecuted by the medical officers of the Board last year had been attended by any result?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The figures are correctly stated by my noble Friend; but, as arranged in the quinquennial periods, might lead to erroneous inferences without a few words of explanation. The increase in small-pox mortality which they exhibit during the 10 years, 1867–1876, was entirely due to the epidemic which occurred in 1871 and 1872; for, in the remaining eight years of the decennial period, the mortality was much below the average. That epidemic was of a very malignant character, and prevailed throughout the whole of Europe, and, indeed, throughout the world; but in no country, so far as we know, except Denmark, was the mortality from it so low as in England. A full account of it is given in the Report of the Medical Inspector for 1874. Since that time the mortality has been below that of all previous experience, having in the five years, 1873–7, been little over 2,400 a-year. In the last quarter of 1877 it was only 405, including316 deaths in London, and thus leaving 89 only in the rest of the country. It must be remembered that the present Vaccination Act did not come into force till 1872. We have every reason to be satisfied with its success, generally; but, of course, there are places—amongothers, parts of the metropolis—where it has been less completely worked. The only measure at present called for seems to be greater activity among the local authorities of these places. But I know that my noble Friend is interested in the question of vaccination from the calf. The inquiries in Belgium and elsewhere, to which he alludes, were interrupted by the illness of the medical officer; but it will be satisfactory to him to learn that I have caused a portion of the Grant for scientific investigations this year to be employed in experiments on the subject, which are now in progress.

  LICENSING—LICENSED HOUSES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return relating to Licensed Houses, which was laid upon the Table on the 14th August last, and ordered to be printed, may be expected to be in the hands of Members?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that 956 circulars had been sent out;
    976
    but the Department had to write twice and sometimes five times before getting an answer, and some of the answers had to be sent back again for revision. But though the Returns relating to licensed houses were not yet complete, he hoped they would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. COOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to state on what day he intends to introduce his annual Financial Statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope to introduce the Financial Statement in the first week in April. I am unable at present to say whether it will be on the Monday or on the Thursday.

  CATTLE PLAGUE—OUTBREAK IN LINCOLNSHIRE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHAPLINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state to the House whether it is true, as reported, that there has recently been an outbreak of Cattle Plague at Rigsly, in Lincolnshire; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, for its suppression?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This afternoon I received a note from the Department of my noble Friend (Viscount Sandon), which I will read to the House. It says—
  "No information has been received by the Government of any outbreak of cattle plague in Lincolnshire or elsewhere; but it is known that a fatal disease, which is believed to be splenis apoplexy, appeared among some cattle on a farm at Rigsly, near Alford, in Lincolnshire, on the 23rd of February last. Forty-eight cattle died in the course of a few days. Information of a second appearance of the disease on the same farm was telegraphed to the Lord President yesterday, and the Chief Inspector of the Veterinary Department was immediately instructed to proceed to the place for the purpose of making inquiries."
  Since that note was written a telegram has been received from the Chief Inspector stating that only one animal has died in the last outbreak, but that four others show signs of illness. It may be interesting to the House that I should read a letter from a gentleman well known in connection with this question—

  977
  "The Brown Institution, March 8.
  "Sir—I observe that Mr. Chaplin gave Notice last night that he was about to ask a Question of the Vice President of the Council or of yourself as to the recent outbreak of 'cattle plague' in Lincolnshire. Being at present engaged in an inquiry on the subject which has been set on foot by the Royal Agricultural Society, I take the liberty of sending you some information on the subject.
  "As soon as I heard of the outbreak, I requested Mr. Duguid, veterinary surgeon of the Brown Institution, to investigate on the spot. He has made two journeys for the purpose, from the second of which he has not yet returned. The following are the most important results of his inquiries:—1. The disease is not 'cattle plague,' but 'splenic fever.' It is not a new disease in England, although outbreaks of so alarming a character as the present one have seldom occurred. From what is known as to its nature and causes it is not likely to spread. At the next meeting of the Agricultural Society, I hope to communicate facts which will tend to throw light on its mode of origin in the particular instance now in question.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "J. BURDON SANDERSON, M.D.,
  "Superintendent of the Brown Institution.
  "The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer."

  NAVY—TORPEDO BOATS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. JAMES STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the present depressed condition of the Shipbuilding Trade throughout the Country, he will give an opportunity to private firms to tender for the Torpedo Boats which it is reported that the Government require?
    MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that the torpedo boats now in course of construction were being built under contract by private firms; and if it should be necessary to increase the number, and it should be for the convenience of the public service, the same course would be followed. He could not say anything more on the subject.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONGRESS OR CONFERENCE.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: When I gave private Notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I
    978
    should ask a Question about the Congress, I did not observe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had on the Paper a Question on the same subject to be put on going into Committee of Supply. As it may be doubtful at what hour the hon. Gentleman may be able to put his Question, it may be for the convenience of the House that I should take this opportunity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to give any information as to the meeting of the Conference or Congress?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot give any information as to the time of the meeting of the Conference or Congress. But I may state this—that originally the invitation to Her Majesty's Government, which came from the Government of Austria, was to attend a Conference to be held at Vienna, and that place was afterwards changed to Baden-Baden. Her Majesty's Government accepted that invitation, and designated Lord Lyons, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, to be our Plenipotentiary. Quite recently, yesterday—I think yesterday afternoon —another communication was made by the Austro-Hungarian Government, proposing that the Conference should be held at Berlin. Her Majesty's Government had no objection to the change of place, and I believe that the answer has been by this time given accepting that change. Lord Lyons has been for some little time designated as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, and has been for some days in England in conference with Her Majesty's Government on the subject, and he will remain, no doubt, the Plenipotentiary who will represent this Government at the Conference. I mention that because that is a Question of which my hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has given Notice.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the reason he had put his Question on the Paper was because he wanted a discussion as to the propriety of going into the Congress at all.

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

  REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BLENNERHASSETT,in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the whole electoral body should be enabled to enjoy that direct representation which is at present confined to majorities; that no effectual security exists for the due representation of minorities; and that, as far as possible, all opinions should have an opportunity of being represented in direct proportion to the number of electors by whom they are held,"
    said: In asking the House to consider the question before us, I am deeply conscious of the magnitude and difficulty of the task I undertake. Nothing but the strong conviction I entertain of the paramount importance of the subject could induce me to place myself in a position where the personal insignificance of the Mover so strongly contrasts with the ambitious nature of the Motion. I am not unmindful, either, how various and how important are the considerations involved in any interference with the electoral machine; and I am fully, and even painfully, conscious of the difficulty I shall have in placing clearly and with sufficient brevity before the House the nature of a scheme which has yet hardly been admitted into the arena of Parliamentary discussion; and which, at the same time, involves considerations extending far and wide over the field of political speculation. I would be glad, indeed, that this proposal had the advantage of being introduced by someone whose experience and position in the House would secure for it an attentive hearing, and, in this hope, I have let four Sessions of the present Parliament pass by in silence. Impressed, however, as I am with the belief that no question more important, nor any involving graver and deeper issues, could be submitted to Parliament, I have felt that I ought not to allow any personal reluctance to prevent my using the opportunity which we all enjoy to secure the discussion of those subjects in which we are most deeply interested. I rely with confidence on the forbearance of the House towards, I may almost say, a silent Member; and I am encouraged by the recollection that most of the great changes which have taken place in our political system have been, in the first instance, advocated by private persons with but little support and
    980
    on their own responsibility. Although the question of Proportional Representation cannot yet be said to have attained general popularity, it has occupied the attention, and received the approval, of many of the greatest political minds in our own and in foreign countries. I am glad to take refuge under the shelter of such great reputations. Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography, says that, having become acquainted with Mr. Hare's system of Personal Representation, he saw in that great practical and philosophical idea the greatest improvement of which the system of representative government was susceptible. He says—
    "This great discovery in the political art inspired me—as I believe it has inspired all thoughtful persons who have adopted it—with new and more sanguine hopes respecting the prospects of human society, by freeing the form of political institution towards which the whole civilized world is manifestly and irresistibly tending, from the chief part of what seemed to qualify or render doubtful its ultimate benefits."
    M. Prevost Paradol has said—
    "Proportional Representation is, to my mind, as evident and almost as important an improvement upon the majority system of representative government now in vogue as the application of steam was to industrial pursuits."
    I could quote the opinions of eminent public men in almost every country of Europe, and in the United States of America, who have spoken in the same spirit of enthusiastic approval. It is, surely, not reasonable to regard an idea which has recommended itself so thoroughly to some, of the highest political intelligence of the age, as a mere theoretical subtlety or crotchet unworthy the attention of practical men. Nor can we be surprised at the enthusiasm which the idea of a scientific system of representation has evoked when we consider the defects and the injustice of the existing system of mere majority representation. When Mr. Mill brought, forward a proposal to introduce the principle of minority representation into the Reform Bill of 1867, the present Secretary of State for India—then a Member of this House—made a remarkable speech, in which, though he did not accept the proposals of Mr. Mill, he admitted that the evil against which those proposals were intended to provide was a real evil. He said we were in danger of the introduction into our political sys-

    981
    tem of the hard machinery of local Party organization, conducted by Party managers, not always men of the purest motives or highest character, and he feared the result would be that persons who were unwilling to shape their every idea and feeling by the test of Party—to put their consciences wholly into the keeping of local Party leaders —would be entirely excluded from the House of Commons. But the exclusion of original and independent thinkers from Parliament is not the only evil of our imperfect representative system. The necessary effect of that system is to exclude altogether from representation, and to deprive of all share of political power, an enormous number of persons, who, as duly qualified electors, are nominally within the pale of the Constitution, and whose right to be represented is indisputable. These persons, consisting during each Parliament of the aggregate of the minorities in all contested elections, together with the minorities, often considerable, in those constituencies which from various causes have not been contested, may be fairly assumed to vary from a-third to something under a-half of the whole electoral body. At the last General Election the unsuccessful candidates received 891,836 votes; the House of Commons, as it then stood, being elected by 1,593,347 votes. The fact, therefore, is that in every Parliament, out of a total of not much more than 2,500,000, at least 1,000,000 electors are unrepresented, and of these a considerable number — namely, all those whose Party is in a permanent minority in their constituencies, are never directly represented in the whole course of their lives. It is evident that the effect of thus, as it were, cutting off in detail all local minorities, is that in divisions of this House the majority of Members may represent only a minority of the electoral body; for, of course, a majority of a majority may be but a minority of the whole. Our anomalous representative system, however, not only fails to provide that the majority of the electoral body shall command a majority in the House—it does not even secure to the majority of the directly represented electors a preponderating influence in our divisions. The unequal distribution of electoral power, which gives electors in small and unimportant constituencies 100 or even 150 times more voice
    982
    in the selection of a Member than electors in the great constituencies, sometimes leads to the defeat even of the actual electoral majority. As a matter of fact, important divisions have recently taken place, in which the minority of Members has represented a far greater number of electors, and more important political interests, than the majority. The existing state of things cannot be defended even on the ground of justice to the majority. Considering, therefore, the evil of the exclusion of able and independent men from Parliament, the practical disfranchisement of a large portion of the electoral body, the loss to the State of the wholesome influence of local minorities, and the liability of the opinions even of the represented majority to be falsified, is not any plan by which these evils may be remedied, and the opinions of the people truly represented, at least worthy of attention? So, we may be sure, would have thought that great master of political wisdom who said—
    "The virtue, spirit, and essence of a House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feelings of a nation."
    How much stronger is the case if it can be shown that all this can be done, not by any violent breaking away from the old principles which have guided the government of the country, but by carrying those principles to their natural and reasonable conclusion, by imposing on the individual elector no duty which the simplest can fail to understand, and by the aid of no machinery except that which would be easily worked and is always ready to hand. It is only those, I think, who have never taken the slightest trouble to understand the nature of this proposal who will venture to describe it as complicated and impracticable. I believe I shall be able to prove that all the conditions I have mentioned are fulfilled in the system of personal Proportional Representation on which my Motion is founded. A few words will be sufficient to indicate the leading features of that system. Every elector, wherever he resides, should have one vote. There is no adequate reason for giving an elector, because he happens to live in a particular place, the right to vote for three or four Members, while other electors, with precisely the same qualification, are only allowed to vote for one Member. Large and im-

    983
    portant constituencies are, no doubt, entitled to a greater amount of representation than others; but the real measure of political power is not the number of Members for whom an individual elector may vote, but the number of votes necessary to return a Member. The existing inequality in this respect, which gives a few hundred electors in some little place as much influence as many thousand electors elsewhere, is a distinction out of harmony with the feelings of the time, and cannot much longer be maintained. Every elector, therefore, should have only one vote; but he should be allowed to make the freest possible use of that vote by giving it to the candidate whom, of all candidates in the country, he thinks will best and most truly represent him. For this purpose, votes should be received in every locality for others as well as for the local candidates. An elector who does not feel that any of his local candidates are persons in whom he can put his trust, or with whose opinions he can agree, should not be condemned to choose between disagreeable alternatives—as Hortensio says—"There's small choice in rotten apples"—or else to refrain from voting altogether; but should be allowed to exercise his political rights with the utmost liberty, by giving his support to any candidate elsewhere by whom he may prefer to be represented. Every candidate for whom a proper number of votes have been recorded should be elected. The number of voters who may fairly claim the right to return a Member depends on the number of Members to be returned, as compared with the total number of electors, or of actual voters in the country. Suppose, for example, we find by dividing the total number of voters by the total number of Members, that there is one Member to every, let us say, 4,000 voters, then every candidate who receives that number of votes, which has been called "the unit of representation," should be entitled to a seat. If, however, 4,000 votes be considered sufficient to elect a Member, no greater number should be counted for any candidate; otherwise the names of a few well-known and popular public men would obtain an enormous and unnecessary number of votes. If the superfluous voting papers were entirely rejected, these votes would be lost; to avoid this, the elector should
    984
    be allowed to put on his voting paper some other names of candidates for whom his vote could be counted in the order in which they came, if it were not needed to make up the requisite quota for the first name. By these means every vote would be effective, and every elector, having his due share of political power, would be able to contribute to the election of the candidate of his choice. No one would any longer be nominally represented by a Member against whom he had voted, and from whose opinions he differed; all constituencies would be unanimous, and every minority worth taking into account would be represented in due proportion to its numbers. To secure all these advantages, the only thing the elector would have to do would be to put on his voting paper the name of his local candidate, or anyone else he pleased, and some other names in the order of preference to be used in case those at the head of the list did not require his aid. This is absolutely all the voter would have to do; and to speak of this as beyond the powers of the average British elector implies an estimate of his capacity not very flattering to the national intelligence. The only remaining process would be the sorting of the voting papers, and assigning each to the name written upon it, for which it ought to be counted. It does not require any extraordinary intelligence to understand that every voting paper is to be counted for the name first written upon it until the necessary quota of votes has been made up for that candidate, and he is elected; and that then a similar process is to be gone through for the other names in succession, until the election is completed. The duty of the scrutineers, in doing this, would, in fact, be a simple mechanical process far less difficult than what is done every day with accuracy and ease in the Post Office, the Banker's Clearing House, and a thousand places of business. This is substantially the whole of the proposal which Mr. Mill endeavoured to engraft on the Reform Bill of 1867, and a modified form of which was brought before the last Parliament embodied in the provisions of a Bill introduced by Mr. Walter Morrison. Every point of detail is entered into, and, I think, satisfactorily dealt with by Mr. Hare in his famous work on The Election of Representatives. I have simply tried to give a

    985
    general outline of the proposal; but, in Mr. Hare's draft of an electoral law, the minutest particulars are carefully provided for. It is, however, by no means necessary to commit ourselves to the details of Mr. Hare's or any other plan. If the principle of independent Personal Representation were once accepted, it would be easy to appoint a Committee to inquire into and ascertain the manner in which it could most perfectly be applied. Those who assert that such a system is unworkable, have to encounter the simple fact that it has been actually tried, and found to work extremely well. This identical method was adopted so long ago as 1855, in the elections to the Danish Rigsraad, and the present Viceroy of India, who was then one of the Secretaries of Legation at Copenhagen, in his official Report of that date, bears conclusive testimony to the simple and satisfactory working of the electoral machinery. Since that time the same method of voting has been extended to all Parliamentary, municipal, and ecclesiastical elections in the Kingdom of Denmark. Unless, on the assumption of the very superior intelligence of Danes as compared with Englishmen, this evidence is really conclusive as regards the practical working of the system. Whenever the experiment has been tried, it has succeeded. In the election of the Governing Body in the Orange Society of New Jersey, in the nomination of the Board of Overseers, at Harvard University, at the Co-operative Congress at Bolton in 1872, where its adoption was suggested by Mr. Morrison; wherever, in fact, the system has had a trial, it has been found to work easily, expeditiously, and without the slightest hitch or difficulty of any kind. Apart from this positive evidence, which will have to be disposed of before the charge of impracticability can be maintained, I have no doubt that anyone who, with an unprejudiced mind, will take the trouble of going into the matter, and of examining the nature of the proposed process, will feel obliged to admit that if it should seem desirable on other grounds to adopt this plan, there would not be any practical difficulty in getting it to work. Should, however, any doubt of this kind remain, it could easily be solved by trying the system experimentally on any large city or group, of boroughs. The objection will probably be raised,
    986
    that to provide for the direct representation of minorities is unnecessary; because the representation of their opinions is indirectly but still effectually secured by the representation of those holding similar opinions elsewhere. The minority in a particular constituency, it may be said, may not enjoy direct representation; but their opinions are represented in other places where their Party is in a majority and is able to return the Member. This argument is based on the assumption that the number of localities in which any given opinions prevail is proportioned to the general prevalence of those opinions throughout the country. That this is not the case with anything approaching to completeness, the slightest reflection will show. And even if it were true, it would not do away with the evil of local minorities being without direct political power. It is not the fact that the opinions suppressed in one constituency are expressed in another. There might be some truth in this if nothing was to be thought of in public life but Party, and if all considerations of variety of opinion, of individual preference and personal feeling were to go for nothing, and Members were to be elected simply, so to speak, on one ticket or another, constituents being nothing but mere mechanical puppets worked by the machinery of hard Party organization. This view is certainly consistent with the choice of delegates for an American Presidential Election; but anything more oppposed to the free, ancient, and honourable character of the British House of Commons, it is impossible to imagine. By the exclusion of local minorities, we lose an important and useful element in our political system. Minorities in England are mainly composed of country Liberals and urban Conservatives—two classes which embrace some of the healthiest and most intelligent elements of their respective Parties—while they are conspicuously free from the extravagances of either. While the county elections that take place from time to time show how considerable in those constituencies is the Liberal minority, there are but, I think, 27 Liberals to 145 Conservatives among the 172 English County Members. The Liberals, who in most of the English counties are, practically, as completely excluded from representation as if they

    987
    were altogether outside the pale of the Constitution, are not compensated for their condition of political nullity by the fact that large bodies of Conservatives in many towns are in a position of similar disadvantage. Two wrongs do not make a right; and those who argue as if they did, must suffer from the same confusion of ideas as the old gentleman who derived so much comfort from the reflection that in our Courts of Law justice must be fairly done on the whole; because, though a great many people who ought to be acquitted are found guilty, still a great many who ought to be found guilty are acquitted. Our country has need of all the varied elements of her national life, and the exclusion of any one of them is an evil. The true and generous policy is not to balance one evil against another; but, by a broad and just reform, to remove them both. Another objection urged against Personal Representation is, that it would destroy the local character of our electoral system. It is said, that if electors were allowed to vote outside their own constituencies, the special representation of places would be interfered with. I think it can be shown, that so far from being incompatible with our traditional method of local representation, the proportional system would carefully preserve everything that is good in it, giving the freest scope to all local feelings and interests, and providing the most effectual security for the due representation of the opinions of every locality. While, however, I fully admit that the distinctive features of local representation should be preserved, localism in politics is a principle which may easily be carried too far. Those who are acquainted with the internal politics of the United States are aware that extreme localism is one of the main causes of the inferiority of the House of Representatives in that country as compared with the Senate, the Members of which are elected from the area of a whole State. It is not the theory of our Constitution that Members are elected to represent merely the particular county or borough for which they take their seats. On the contrary, the principle that each Member of the House of Commons is deputed to serve not only for his constituents, but for the whole Kingdom, has been successfully asserted so far back as the reign of Elizabeth; and
    988
    mark the distinction between our English Parliament and such deputations of the estates as were assembled in several Continental Kingdoms. Hallam says—
    "It is a principle to which the House of Commons is indebted for its weight and dignity, as well as its beneficial efficiency, and which none but the most servile worshippers of the populace are ever found to gainsay."
    The local principle, to be healthy, should be liberal and elastic—it should not be an unnecessary restriction on electoral freedom. The individual independence of electors is perfectly consistent with the preservation of everything valuable in local representation; but the fetters of a rigidly local system are incompatible with freedom of personal action. When, by a perfectly free system, you allow the representation of all feelings and opinions, you effectually secure due weight for those local attachments and interests which are so strong a feature in the national character. Nothing could destroy the significance and efface the traditions of local representation so completely as the introduction of the American plan of equal and variable electoral districts, and in no way can the tendency of recent changes in the direction of electoral districts be so effectually counteracted as by the adoption of the proportional system. As a matter of fact, local majorities would generally, no doubt, prefer to vote for their local candidates; while the fact of their not being constrained to do so would produce greater care by Party managers in the selection of the best men as candidates. Local minorities, instead of being altogether excluded from political influence, would be able to contribute elsewhere to the election of Representatives after their own heart. Minority representation, it has also been said, would lead to the election of a number of persons representing special interests and peculiar opinions, and would interfere with legislation on broad principles for the general good. I am not aware that our present system has the effect of excluding persons afflicted with crotchets from the House. And, moreover, crotchets, provided they are held by a sufficient number of persons, ought to be represented. All new opinions are at first held by a minority, and are liable to be considered crotchets—for instance, such was for many years the fate of vote by Ballot. All new opinions should

    989
    have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in Parliament; if they are absurd there is no place where their absurdity can more effectually be demonstrated. If they are new truths, their recognition as such, will be an advantage to society. Electoral independence also holds out the utmost inducement to persons who are so strongly possessed with one idea, that they are willing to devote all their political influence to its support, to look out for the best and ablest advocates for their views, and such men, as regards other questions, are likely to be above the average and to make generally useful Members. Then the proportional system would be a valuable guide in estimating the force and direction of opinion throughout the country. Petitions are notoriously a very imperfect index of public opinion; and, indeed, except on main Party issues, it is impossible to gauge accurately the state of the popular mind on any subject. A few voluble advocates in Parliament, and some noisy adherents out-of-doors, may give an entirely fictitious importance and an unreal appearance of popularity to some notion to which the common sense of the great majority of the nation is utterly opposed. It is necessary, as Burke says, to distinguish between the noisy and permanent forces of public opinion—
    "Because a few grasshoppers on a summers' day make the field ring with their importunate chirp, while great cattle chew the cud, and are silent, pray do not think that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number, or that, after all, they are more than the insignificant, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour."
    A scientific system of representation would not only be the best means of estimating the actual amount of support any question receives, it would also be a safeguard against those sudden and violent changes in the Parliamentary position of questions which occasionally take place without any corresponding alteration in the feeling of the country regarding them. The political position of every question would vary, not by leaps and bounds, but in direct proportion to the growth or decline of public opinion. I have attempted to meet by anticipation the objections which appeared to me most likely to be raised to my proposal, and I shall now state, as briefly as possible, the positive grounds
    990
    on which I ask the support of the House. I appeal to those who hold the democratic theory of representation to support this Motion as a legitimate and necessary deduction from their own principles. The true principle of democracy is the government of the people by the whole people equally represented, not the government of the people by a majority of the people exclusively represented. The tyranny of a majority may be just as adverse to freedom as the tyranny of an individual or of an oligarchy. No one but a demagogue of the lowest type could wish to place all power in the hands of one class, however numerous its members might be, and to deprive all other classes of even the power of making their opinions heard; yet this, as I shall presently show, will be the inevitable consequence of mere majority representation, combined with the changes in our political system which have either actually taken place, or are looming in the not distant future. It is not, however, by theoretical considerations that we are generally influenced in modifying our institutions, and it is not on such grounds that I wish to appeal to the House. We are, wisely as I admit, not given to troubling ourselves much about the theoretical perfection of our institutions provided they do well the work for which we intend them. The words used by Lord Russell 30 years ago still express the general feeling on this point. That eminent statesman said—
    "In my opinion, that which not only every man of full ago, but the whole population of the Kingdom, have a right to, is the best government and the best kind of representation which it is possible for legislation to give them. The main object of our institutions is good government and the welfare of the people, and we ought not, for the sake of some abstract principle, to lose sight of that great object."
    It is not as an attempt to re-model our Representative system on the basis of a theoretical perfection that I hope to commend my proposal to the favour of the House, although I am able to claim for it the unquestionable advantage of an almost ideal degree of theoretic completeness; but I urge it as a practical effort to improve our electoral machinery, to widen the influence and raise the character of Parliament, and to create a safeguard against dangers attendant upon the changes, both actual and imminent, in the political condition

    991
    of the country. Who can tell how long it may be possible to provide such a safeguard? The change that has taken place of late years in our political system is a great fact, and the consequences likely to follow from that change deserve the most serious consideration. An exclusive devotion to theory is, no doubt, an evil; but, on the other hand, there is such a thing as being too completely engrossed with the present to look far enough a-head and to make adequate provision for the future. Let us beware lest there be some truth in those "famous prophetic pictures," spoken of by Stillingfleet, "which represent the fate of England by a mole, a creature blind and busy, continually working underground." An eminent writer of the day has spoken of what he calls "The Revolution of 1867." I do not adopt all the conclusions, or share to the full extent the gloomy forebodings, of the modern Cassandra; but the wisdom of her lesson cannot be disputed—that, having left the old paths, we are bound to look carefully before us, and to take every possible precaution in the untried and perilous ways we have to tread. The revolution alluded to is the transfer of electoral preponderance, or, in other words, of supreme political power from capital to labour, from the propertied to the wage-receiving class. That this transfer has potentially, if not actually, taken place, hardly anyone, I imagine, will venture to deny. The establishment of household suffrage in boroughs has, as a matter of fact, actually placed the supreme control of the borough representation of England and Scotland in the hands of the class of persons who depend on manual labour for their daily bread. The adoption of secret voting has put an end—justly and properly, as I think—to any control which might formerly have been exercised over these persons by landlords or employers. More than this, the establishment of household franchise in counties is, I think I may venture to say, felt to be only a question of time. This question, which we have recently discussed, is one to which I shall make the barest allusion in passing, and only in so far as is strictly necessary for the purposes of my argument, and I shall avoid, of course, all reference to the recent debate. I may, however, be permitted to say that, in my opinion, it is perfectly evident that
    992
    it will not be possible much longer to maintain an arbitrary distinction founded on no difference of circumstances, position, or intelligence; but depending merely on the artificial boundaries of existing constituencies. No class of householders—perhaps I might say of the population—will consent to remain permanently outside the pale of the Constitution. The forces which are working for their admission are too strong to be resisted. Many of us must remember the remarkable speech made three or four years ago by one whose observations on the subject had all the authority of special knowledge. I am speaking of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who told us that he had heard a great deal about the danger of admitting so large a number of comparatively uneducated men to the franchise; but that he believed the greater danger lay in excluding them, and that nothing was doing more to alienate the sympathies and the affections of the best and most intelligent of the working classes than those invidious and unnecessary distinctions founded on no principle of reason or common sense. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; but it does not follow that because I recognize with him the danger and the difficulty—I will even say the impossibility—of maintaining a restricted and unequal franchise, I should be blind to the evils which may—and, if we do not guard against them, assuredly will— result from the extension of the suffrage. We must remember, also, that all these changes are no mere experiments. Every step we take in the direction of a more popular franchise is absolutely irrevocable. I do not think there is any instance in history where political power has been given to the masses, and afterwards taken away from them, without violence and revolution. The democratic extension of the franchise must go on; there is no power in the country that can stop it now. We have admitted the petty shopkeepers, the tradesmen, and the artizans in the Parliamentary boroughs. How can we keep out the large mass of precisely similar population which happens to reside beyond the existing borough boundaries? We shall have to admit in their thousands—
    "Those who toil in mines, and never see the sun."
    My hon. Friend the Member for the

    993
    Border Boroughs (Mr. Trevelyan) pleads annually for the hedger, the shepherd, and the ploughman. The agricultural population, described a few years ago By Mr. Cobden, as that mute and helpless multitude who have never made their voices heard in the din of politics, or their presence felt in any social movement, are already clamouring to be let in. In a few years all these persons will possess the suffrage; and, for my part, I think it is a grand thing to establish our institutions on as broad a basis of popular consent as possible, and to exclude no class of our countrymen from a voice in the government of their country. But are we not in danger, as we are going on at present, of doing something more than this — of doing something, in fact, altogether different? Are we not in danger of giving to the previously-excluded classes not merely a voice in the Government, but the absolute and and exclusive control of the Government —so far, at all events, as complete possession of the House of Commons would give that control? This matter is as simple as it is serious. It has been estimated with, at all events, sufficient accuracy for our purpose, that there are in the United Kingdom about 8,000,000 of persons who hold realized property of some sort, and 24,000,000 who possess no property, but subsist by manual labour. Taking the householders among the 8,000,000 at one in four, and the householders among the 24,000,000 at one in five, an assimilated franchise would give us about 5,000,000 of poor electors as compared with 2,000,000 of well-to-do electors. But our present system of majority representation would not only give the 5,000,000 poor electors a proportionate majority of representation; but would shut out every other class altogether, and put the whole representation practically and virtually into the hands of the numerical majority. Nothing could prevent this but the want of combination among the poorer electors, and the anomalous character of the present distribution of electoral power. Who can say how soon some class question of a social nature may not unite these scattered ranks? Some think they can discover already on the distant horizon the little cloud no bigger than a man's hand which for bodes such a combination. As regards the inequalities in the electoral system, it is easy to see that
    994
    they cannot be permanent. Already they are felt to be out of harmony with the spirit of the time, and the next extension of the franchise will necessarily be accompanied by a wide measure of re-distribution of seats. For several Sessions past both these questions have been made the subject of a common Motion, and been largely supported. While the heterogeneous nature of our electoral distribution cannot be maintained, with it will disappear the last security for the varied character of our Representative system. The present Prime Minister, in, I think, his last speech on the subject of representation in this House, said that all our late legislation for the last 40 years, with respect to Parliamentary Reform, has been leading to electoral districts. It is impossible, he told us, not to see that with the re-distribution of political power we must, to a great extent, be approaching electoral districts. Now, electoral districts would utterly destroy that variety which is one of the best features of our political system, and which all our greatest statesmen have been anxious to maintain. Everything would be reduced to a dead level—a dull uniformity—and what sort of uniformity would it be? With equal electoral districts, unaccompanied by any protection for the rights of minorities, the poorest and least educated portion of the electoral body, being the numerical majority in every constituency, would be able to return all the Members, and absolutely to exclude those who differed from them from any share in the representation. Their power to do this would be undoubted—their exercise of the power would be only a question of time and accident. The fact is, we are called upon to adapt our political methods to a state of things entirely different from what has ever before existed in the history of the country. Formerly, political power was in the hands of the aristocracy; then it was in the hands of the middle and upper classes—it soon will be altogether, and for the first time, in the hands of the masses. As an eminent Member of the House, whom I am glad to see in his place, has said—"We cannot prevent numbers ruling, we can only hope to persuade them to rule well." There is no graver political problem than how this can best be done. In such circumstances as these, what can be more unreasonable than summarily to

    995
    reject a proposition because it is new, or because it is said to be un-English, whatever that expression may mean. Why, the circumstances with which we have to deal are altogether new, and our whole political condition may be called un-English, if by that be meant, previously unknown in the history and experience of the English people. The words of old Sergeant Maynard were not more applicable 200 years ago than they are now—
    "We are at this moment out of the beaten path. If, therefore, we are determined to move only in that path, we cannot move at all. A man in a revolution, resolving to do nothing which is not strictly according to established form, resembles a man who has lost himself in the wilderness, and who stands crying—' Where is the King's highway? I will walk nowhere but on the King's highway.' In a wilderness a man should take the track which will carry him home. In a revolution we must have regard to the highest law, the safety of the State.…The old order changeth, giving place to new."
    Everything around us has altered. Toryism itself has been defined "an adaptation of dynasticism, privilege, and orthodoxy to the spirit of the age." The true test to apply to any proposal is, does it suit the conditions of the time, will it help us to avert or mitigate the dangers, or to enjoy more fully the benefits, of the circumstances which surround us? It is not the least of the advantages of Proportional Representation, that while there is nothing of a reactionary character about it, it is peculiarly calculated to mitigate the evils, and to counteract the dangers, attendant upon a wide and indiscriminate extension of the franchise. The evils of an extremely democratic franchise are of two kinds—the danger of a low grade of intelligence in the electoral body, and, consequently, in the Representatives chosen by them, and the danger of class legislation, the Legislature being altogether in the hands of one class— that, namely, which is lowest in the social scale. As regards the second of these perils, the will of the majority must, no doubt, in a popular Government, ultimately prevail; but the minority should not be condemned to obliteration—they are, at least, entitled to influence in proportion to their numbers, and their opinions should be heard in the Councils of the Nation. These rights can only be secured to them by some form of minority representation. The
    996
    "restricted vote," originally proposed by Lord Russell in 1854, and introduced by the House of Lords into the Reform Act of 1867, is a step in this direction. The area of its operation, however, is very partial, and even in the few "three-cornered" constituencies it has given us, I am told that a skilful organization of the majority may deprive of representation a minority considerably more in number than a third of the electors. Then there is the cumulative vote, of which we have so much experience in school board elections; and which, I believe, has been found to work well on the whole, though it is said to be susceptible of organization, and open to considerable uncertainty and waste of electoral energy. Both these devices for securing the representation of minorities have been well described as empirical, as compared with the scientific or proportional system. This last is, in fact, the only method by which the rights of minorities can be effectually secured, and their due share of electoral influence preserved upon grounds absolutely unassailable on even the most democratic theory of government. The tendency of the extension of the franchise to lower the average intelligence of constituencies is indisputable. Every fresh Reform Bill admits a number of persons who are, from the necessity of their position, less educated and with fewer means of acquiring information than the old electors, whose influence is swamped by their numbers. I am far from questioning the patriotism, or the intelligence, or the virtues, of the working classes. I believe there are many men amongst them who belong to the finest type of humanity; but there can be no doubt that, as a general rule, men who are employed at hard manual labour constantly from morning till night, cannot have the same knowledge and acquaintance with affairs as those who have leisure for reading and reflection, who enjoy varied social intercourse, and whose general occupations are of an intellectual character. Still, it is to those who, by no fault indeed of their own, but from the very nature of the case, have the least amount of political information, as well as the smallest degree of social influence, that we are about to entrust the power of electing, not merely the majority, but practically the whole body, of the House of Commons—the great

    997
    centre of Legislative authority, and the ultimate resort of the Executive Government of the Empire. Those who differ from the majority will not have even an opportunity of stating their opinions. What security have we that those to whom we are giving this tremendous power will know how to use it well? The task of government has been truly said to need the best wisdom and the best virtue of the nation. Can we depend upon the least informed, the most poorly instructed, of our people to be always able to discern, and willing to prefer this best wisdom and best virtue? Education can only reach the masses slowly and imperfectly at best. Is there no danger that ignorant and toiling men will sometimes fail to rightly estimate even the main and broad issues submitted to their decision? Can we expect them to be always able to separate the statesman from the demagogue, and to distinguish the wisdom which would remedy evils at their source from the folly which wastes itself in vain contention with mere external symptoms? Is there no fear that in the hard struggle of life, with the pressure of common needs and cares constantly upon them they will sometimes prefer immediate and individual advantage to remote and general good? Is there no danger that the stern and salutary teaching of economic science will have less attraction in their eyes than the tawdry and deceptive glitter of a sentimental philanthropy? The fact is notorious that the working men of America permit the maintenance of protective duties, which impose an enormous tax upon consumers and greatly add to the expense of living, in order that their employers may be able to pay them higher wages. Is there no reason to apprehend that the working classes in this country might adopt theories of taxation which would soon make the commercial and manufacturing supremacy of England a thing of the past; or to fear that uneducated men, failing to solve that most difficult and delicate of political problems—to draw correctly the line which divides those cases where it is the duty of the State to interfere from those cases where State interference could only aggravate the evils it attempted to remedy—might insist on a prying and meddlesome system of government, which would cramp and fetter the freedom of individual action;
    998
    and in the effort to remove evils and hardships, grievous indeed, and hard to bear, but beyond the reach of Legislation, strike a fatal blow at the prosperity of the country which would fall, in the end, with unsparing severity on none more heavily than on the working classes themselves? Might it not come to pass that those who foresaw these things, and, seeking the good of the country by adherence to sound and wholesome principles, refused to captivate the ignorant and discontented by showy arts and reckless promises, would find themselves at the tribunal of popular election in the position of Socrates brought to trial before the Athenians?—"like a physician arraigned by the maker of sweetmeats before a jury of children." How, then, would the adoption of personal representation affect this state of things? It would not, indeed, deprive the majority of the electoral body of their right to a majority of the representation; but it would make it impossible for anyone class to monopolize the representation, and it would effectually protect the cultivated and educated minority from the danger of exclusion. The better opinion would always be able to make itself heard, and every crude and mischievous theory would be submitted to the independent examination and criticism of competent minds. Fair discussion would be guaranteed, and for the rest we would have to rely—as I believe we might rely with confidence and security-—on the fundamental good sense of the nation. It is one thing to allow the will of the majority of Parliament, carefully formed and clearly expressed, after full and fair discussion, to decide the fate of measures —it is a very different thing to allow the numerical majority of electors in every district to silence all opposition at the polling-booths, and to exclude those who differ from them from having any voice in the National Legislature. It is not amid the clamour of a fierce agitation for the extension of the franchise, or in the din of Party warfare, that a proposal like this, which appeals not to political passion or partizan zeal, but to the calm and deliberate judgment of sober-minded men, can be expected to prevail or even to obtain a hearing. Exclusive representation given to the numerical majority can never be taken away after they have once learned to use its power. It is still possible to temper our reforms with in-

    999
    telligence. Who can tell how brief the opportunity may be? We are floating calmly at this moment in a local back-stream of Conservative re-action; but active and permanent forces in the life of the nation are constantly at work, which ere long will bear us onwards more rapidly than ever towards the ultimate triumph of democratic principles. Surely it is our duty now, using wisely the present interval of comparative calm, to consider and to apply, while yet there is time, the best safeguards which prudence and wisdom can suggest. I have not treated this proposal as a Party question, but I have endeavoured to show that it is consistent with everything that is best in both Parties. It is a legitimate and necessary deduction from the fundamental principles of Liberalism which demand the fair and equal representation of the whole people. It provides the most thorough and practicable remedy for those evils which Conservatism especially dreads—the extinction of variety in the representation, the exclusion of rank, wealth, and culture from public life, and the absolute supremacy of the most numerous class. There is another ground on which I can appeal with equal confidence to Conservatives and to Liberals; it is that the adoption of this system would tend to maintain and promote the dignity, honour, and influence of the House of Commons. The more perfectly the House is felt to be a true reflex and mirror of the nation, the greater will be its weight and authority. Proportional Representation would not only enable a much larger number of electors to be directly represented, but all electors would be represented with an accuracy and fidelity absolutely impossible at present. Every Member would be in a position to speak for a body of independent and unanimous electors, who had chosen him, above all others, to represent them. Every electoral body would be a combination of persons really united in sympathy and opinion; where union would be a living and active bond, not "the forced and outward harmony of cold, neutral, and inwardly-divided minds." No writer of the future would venture to compare "the independent constituency," where every man's action depends, not upon himself, but of tenest on those to whom of all others he would be least
    1000
    willing to trust either his honour or his property, with that sad sight called "the happy family," exhibited by the showman in the street, where every free-born instinct is quelled, and nothing is left but the melancholy spectacle of subdued and torpid natures. Then, again, the inevitable tendency of a lowering of the average knowledge and intelligence of the electoral body to lower the average wisdom and character of the Representatives that body will return, would be counteracted by the power given to cultivated and enlightened minorities all over the country to combine and elect the best men they could find. It may not be desirable that the House should be composed altogether of philosophers, or, as it might be put, that everyone should be excluded who is not sufficiently learned to have lost his common sense; but still, it would be a great misfortune if the more original and independent minds in the country were to find no place amongst us. The iron weight of Party crushing out individuality of thought and independence of action keeps them away, so also does the growing influence of local wealth and popularity, making it almost impossible for men of intellect and culture without these adventitious aids to get seats. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) has recently said that, in considering the qualifications which attract the favour of constituencies, the two circumstances which strike him most forcibly and most painfully are—first, the rapid and constant advance of the money power; secondly, the reduction almost to zero of the chances of entrance in Parliament for men who have nothing to rely upon but their talent and their character—nothing, that is to say, but the two qualities which, certainly, stand before all others in the capacity of rendering service to the country. It is a serious thing to find a man of the high order of intellect of Mr. Goldwin Smith calmly writing—
    "Those who wish to deal frankly and fearlessly with the great political problems which are looming in the immediate future will probably, for the most part, find a more appropriate sphere outside the House of Commons. In the House itself it is hardly possible at best to secure a seat without compliances and compromises very adverse to freedom of speculation, besides the difficulty of contending against the

    1001
    tremendous power which wealth and social influence can bring to bear on the constituencies once in every seven years."
    If you make it next to impossible for the highest talent of the country to get into the House, the inevitable result will be the decadence of the House itself. Already there are not wanting indications that less interest is taken in our proceedings than formerly. Newspapers, whose business it is to understand and gratify the popular taste, give every year more scanty reports of our debates. Notwithstanding the greater breadth of its electoral basis, I am afraid it cannot be denied that the position of the House—I do not speak of it as a Legislative machine, but as an exponent and guide of public opinion— is not what it once has been. If its position be further weakened by the exclusion of fresh and original thought, and the consequent low level of our discussions, as contrasted with the widening influence of periodical literature and the growth of a sort of extra-Parliamentary statesmanship, the result cannot fail to be highly injurious to the prestige and dignity of the House, and, in the end, to the welfare of the nation. I can conceive no way of preventing this more likely to be effectual than by enabling a number of men of more than local eminence, but without the aid of local wealth and connection, to be returned to Parliament, independently of mere local or Party considerations, by the aid of those with whom they have intellectual and political sympathy. The freedom and independence of public men would also, by these means, be promoted. The country would no longer be in danger of being deprived of the services of an eminent statesman by the prejudice of a single constituency or the jealousy of a local faction. Every tried and well-known man would be able to appeal to a wider circle outside the limits of a particular county or borough; continuance in public life being thus practically certain for everyone who had made his mark, a political career would hold out far greater inducements to men of talent, and political training would become more careful and definite. What we have to do is to follow the wisdom of our ancestors, and, as they did, to adapt and modify our political system according to the circumstances of the time. To assume that the electoral system, which
    1002
    was suitable before the first Reform Bill, is necessarily suitable now, when our political condition has been completely changed, is not more reasonable than to conclude that the complicated processes of manufacture which modern science has introduced do not require more elaborate machinery than the simple methods of by-gone days. Except on the ground of personal deficiency, I do not feel that I have any apology to make for bringing forward this question. Believing, as I do, that this is the greatest improvement which our Representative system is capable of receiving, I cannot feel that any other subject is more worthy to occupy the attention of the House. Much of our time is taken up in the discussion of trivial and petty matters. This, at all events, is a question of high policy, involving considerations of national importance. It is an effort, however humble, to contribute to the solution of the great problem— how to reconcile the rapid and resistless advance of democratic principles, with the preservation of the rights and liberties of every class of the people. I advocate this proposal as a measure of justice to all, and especially to those who are weak and in danger of being overborne. A safeguard equally against popular passion and oligarchic re-action, I believe it would make this House, in the truest sense, representative of the national intelligence. Whatever may be the fate of my Motion to-night, I shall still cherish the hope that the country which justly bears the proud title of "The Mother of Parliaments," will yet place this crowning pinnacle on the glorious edifice she has raised; and that we shall hand down to future times, with its ancient dignity unimpaired, its basis of popular assent enlarged and perfected, its Constitution renewed with fresh life and vigour; that noble creation of the spirit of liberty—the type and model of all the Representative institutions now meeting in the Old World and in the New—the Free Parliament of England.
    MR. COURTNEYseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the whole electoral body should be enabled

    1003
    to enjoy that direct representation which is at present confined to majorities:
    "That no effectual security exists for the due representation of minorities:
    "And that, as far as possible, all opinions should have an opportunity of being represented in direct proportion to the number of electors by whom they are held,"—(Mr. Blennerhassett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BALFOURsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had submitted to the House an abstract Resolution as to the manner in which a measure of reform should be carried out. Well, his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs (Mr. Trevelyan) had brought in a Reform Bill the other day, and it was thrown out by a large majority. They were, therefore, in this position — that immediately after the House had decided not to do anything at all in the way of reform, the hon. Member told them how it ought to be done. They had hardly refused the poison when the hon. Member suggested an antidote. If he were asked whether he thought the time would never come when the question of reform would be brought forward with a prospect of its being carried, he should be far from saying that such was his opinion; but he hoped the day would be a distant one, and the chances of a future Reform Bill scarcely justified the introduction, at this moment, of the question raised by the hon. Member. He must say, however, he sympathized with a good deal the hon. Member had said, although he dealt a good deal with the abstract arguments which were the bane of all discussions on the subject of reform. The hon. Member said that minorities as well as majorities had a right to be represented, and that that right could only be secured to them by the scheme which he advocated. Well, he could not but think that "rights" was an expression belonging to a terminology which ought to be excluded from reform debates. It was not a question of right, but rather one of expediency they were considering. The question was how best they could get good and efficient machinery for the carrying on of the legislative and executive Business of the House of Commons; and in that
    1004
    view he saw something to recommend— not the scheme of Mr. Hare, but some modification of it. It was clear that by the representation of minorities certain dangers would be avoided which arose from the fact that it occasionally happened that some wave of opinion tended to move the majorities in all the constituencies violently in one direction at the same time. There were many such cases in history. The result would be that this House would not only represent the majority in the country, but represent the majority in a very aggravated form. If the House were to carry a large measure of reform, such as was contemplated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was a danger that the General Election might turn on some question on which there was a difference of opinion between the educated and the uneducated classes of the community. The former would vote one way in such a case and the latter the other; and it was obvious that, without minority representation, the educated, and, therefore, the most valuable portion of the constituencies, would have no voice in the House of Commons. Again, constituencies were subject to waves of popular passion and feeling, and that would be more and more the case as the suffrage was extended; and that passion or feeling was not confined to one class, but was to be found in all classes. The minority, under these circumstances, would not be the educated as against the uneducated, but the people who kept their heads as against those who did not keep their heads. Well, in such a case it was but right that those cool and calm people should be able to express their opinions in the country and in the House. Another advantage he saw arising from some kind of minority representation arose from the difficulty that was felt in getting efficient and desirable persons into the House unless they were favoured by circumstances. It could not be denied that the persons most likely to be effective in their debates were not always the persons most likely to sit there. It might be that a man, from some fault of manner, or because some prominent opinion of his happened to be unpopular, but who had nevertheless been respected in the House, and who had justly had weight and authority there, would not be able to find a constituency willing to accept him. It

    1005
    would assuredly be an advantage if some means could be devised to secure that he should not be excluded from the House. He had pointed out the chief reasons which induced him to look favourably on the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman; but he trusted the hon. Member would content himself with the discussion which he had raised; and he assured him that when the time arrived for the consideration of the question of reform, if he brought forward a scheme for the representation of minorities, it should receive his support; though he earnestly hoped that the time when such support would be necessary was very far off indeed.
    MR. COURTNEYsupported the Resolution of his hon. Friend, because it could be demonstrated that our system of representation as it existed was full of defects which they ought to be able to remove. A great defect of the present machinery was that it failed to answer the first use to which they designed to put it. They could not arrive with certainty at a conclusion as to the opinion of the country even on a single issue placed before it. A General Election, he ventured to say, did not give them any sure answer to an appeal so made. If they had a certain number of electors throughout the Kingdom, and appealed to them by the plebiscite of French experience on a certain issue, they might get an answer in one way; while, if the appeal was made to divided constituencies, the answer might be the other way. They had, thus far, no security that by an appeal to the constituencies they would obtain the answer of the nation. Suppose there were 10 constituencies of 1,000 electors each, there would be 10,000 electors to consult. If they appealed to them as one constituency of 10,000, they might have 6,000 one way and 4,000 the other as the result. If they divided them into separate constituencies, the result could easily be very different. Out of the minority of 1,000 there might be found 550 in each of seven constituencies, and the remaining 150 in the remaining three; so that the minority could secure seven seats out of 10. As an illustration of practical importance bearing on this question, he would take the county of Lancaster, which, at the General Election of 1868, returned 22 Conservative and only 11 Liberal Members. Yet, on that occasion,
    1006
    104,000 Liberal electors recorded their votes in Lancashire constituencies, while the number of Conservative electors who went to the poll was only 102,000. There was an example in point. Although Lancashire was a Liberal county, the result of the Election was that the Conservatives had a large majority of Members. That arose greatly from the congestion of Liberal electors in one constituency—namely, Manchester; and it was obvious that a similar failure to obtain the real opinion of the electorate might happen on an appeal to the constituencies of the Kingdom. The next fault of the present electoral system was that the number of Members elected was almost always disproportioned to the actual opinions of the country. If, for example, in the supposed case of 10 constituencies, each with 1,000 electors, the majority were equally diffused throughout them, the result of an election would show 10 Members on one side and none on the other. Another difficulty in their electoral system was this—that since those elected represented the majority only of the country, and the governing power in Parliament was exercised by a majority of those elected, this governing power was exercised by the majority of a majority, which would represent only the minority in the country. Their system failed again in the exclusion of large classes, who were unrepresented. The present Prime Minister, once introducing a Reform Bill, alluded to the fact that a large and influential body in England, Wales, and Scotland were unrepresented, except by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, who had since disappeared because the borough of Arundel had disappeared. The right hon. Gentleman was referring, of course, to the Roman Catholics, who, although they were 1,000,000 and upwards in number, could not get—and could not hope to get—a single seat in England, Wales, or Scotland. They were driven to Ireland, where they obtained Parliamentary representation; but there were differences between Irish and English Roman Catholics, and he should like to see the latter directly represented in that House. Again, the working classes par excellence had for a long time no representation in that House, and even now they only had a small, though it was a most excellent, representation.

    1007
    Among the working classes in recent times no man had been more popular than the late George Odger, who was unable to get a majority of the voters in any constituency to return him, although a large majority of the working men throughout the country would gladly have sent him to speak for them in the House of Commons. Take, again, the case of the late Mr. John Stuart Mill. There were in the country large numbers of persons who would have been glad to see him in the House, and yet, after he lost his seat for Westminster, there was not one constituency which Mr. Mill could have canvassed with any chance of success. [Major NOLAN: Tipperary.] Possibly Mr. Mill might have been returned for Tipperary if he had pledged himself to denominational education, to which, as everybody knew, he was altogether opposed. There was another class of men who were excluded from the House under the present system. His hon. Friend had spoken of the large number of Conservatives and the small number of Liberal Members who sat for counties. He had always regretted that, in the discussions on the Reform Bill in 1867, so many of our counties were trisected, in order to supplement the county representation by the addition of Members for certain divisions. Great uncertainty prevailed as to the consequences of that step; but the additions to these electoral divisions had turned out to be strongly Conservative. What was the result? In the 10 counties so divided there were— Cheshire, six Conservatives; Derbyshire, three, and three Liberals; Devon, five, and one Liberal; Essex, six; Kent, six; Lincolnshire, six; Lancashire, eight; Norfolk, six; Surrey, six; Somerset, six; Stafford, five, and one Liberal; and the West Riding, four, and two Liberals; making an aggregate of 67 Conservatives and seven Liberals. If they had gone on the three-cornered plan, the result would still have been two to one; but that would have been a fair representation of the minorities, and, in his opinion, a course far preferable to the one adopted. He referred to this subject as showing the danger, by the course we had hitherto followed, of excluding from the House the Liberal county gentlemen, a class of the highest importance. By suppressing county Liberals in the House, they did not suppress such Liberals in
    1008
    the county; but they lost in the House the best conceivable connecting link between the extreme and the moderate Liberal sections. If this House were to go on acting with dignity, knowledge, and good fellowship between its different Members, they would avoid, above all things, the division of. the House into two hostile camps such as they saw in France, and should endeavour to carry out the system of gradually filing off from the extreme Left to the extreme Right. Another way in which their system worked injuriously was that it did not provide sufficiently for divisions of Party. On the Liberal side there were, perhaps, divisions enough, but that was not the case on the other side; and although there were many forms of Conservatism in the country, these differences were not manifested, and were not represented in the House of Commons. He would best explain his meaning by an historical illustration. It was now confessed that Conservatism had no necessary connection with the doctrines of Protection; in fact, in some of their Colonies the doctrines of Protection were part of the Liberal creed. At the time the question was agitated, there were Conservatives opposed to Protection in the country; but no county would return them to the House. The present system affected the character of the House and also of the people outside it. When a candidate contested a popular constituency, the greatest art was required not to offend anybody by some chance expression of opinion. The best candidate was the man least encumbered by independent opinions—the man who had no genius, no originality, no force of character. The best candidate was a Liberal gentleman, who had made himself rich in the pursuit of commerce and had lived a life of good repute among his neighbours. Hence the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) recently complained of the tendency of the House of Commons to plutocracy and gerontocracy. The more they turned the constituencies of England into large and populous constituencies the more they increased this danger. Hence it was that they found what was so much to be deplored—that young men full of enthusiasm in the beginning of public life became in the end alienated from public life altogether.

    1009
    The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) had explained the particular principle on which he would have the representation of the country mended. For himself, he might look forward to the hon. Gentleman's scheme as a thing to he realized in the far distant future; he had no idea that anything of the kind could be submitted as a practical proposal in the present generation. But things could be done in a near and proximate time which might remove many of the present defects, and pave the way to larger schemes hereafter. They had seen the introduction of means to secure the representation of minorities in the Bill of 1867. The aim to which they should direct their attention was to give the minority in a constituency, if of sufficient importance, power to club their votes together so as to have a direct Representative. Thus, if they had a constituency with five or six Representatives, a fifth or a sixth of the constituency might be able to club their votes for a Representative of their own. In that way, the want of men of genius which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich so much lamented would be repaired. In connection with the discussion which had lately arisen between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, someone had advised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London not to repeat the error of 1867, but to use all his energies to get minorities represented. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that it was useless to do anything; that in 1867 he proposed the adoption of the cumulative vote, and it was rejected; that they were going to enthrone democracy; and that it would sweep away any such plan when it had the power. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was too despondent. It was quite true that in 1867 the cumulative vote was rejected; but did the right hon. Gentleman fail after all? Not at all. When the Reform Bill went up to the other House, the restrictive vote was introduced into it by the present Lord Chancellor, who made use, in support of it, of the very arguments which had been employed in support of the cumulative vote. True, the cumulative vote was lost; but the restrictive vote was passed by the House of Lords and accepted by that House,
    1010
    mainly through the effect of the discussions that had been previously raised on the cumulative vote, and the right hon. Member for the University of London might say—"Alone I did it." That was not all. When the Reformed Parliament met, what happened? One of the very first things that occurred was the attempt to repeal the clause restricting votes in the three-cornered constituencies. The Government of the day used its influence as much as it could to get it repealed; but even the reformed House refused to repeal it. More than that; in the reformed House one of the first things it did was to pass an Education Act. It became necessary to create school boards, and it was resolved in Committee that in the election of members of school boards the cumulative vote should be adopted. Again, he said the success of that proposal was due entirely to what had been done by his right hon Friend. The next year, when the Scotch Bill was introduced, the cumulative vote was part of the Bill itself; so that year after year their efforts had succeeded, and he was now full of hope that when a Reform Bill again came before the House something in the shape of the representation of minorities would form part of it. Of all the provisions of the Education Act, the adoption of the cumulative vote was the one that could not be reversed. Nor did he think that democracy so enthroned would repeal what had been done. The House within itself was a pure democracy. Every man in the House was as good as any other man. Where were there such protections to minority? Where were the provisions for the protection of minorities so jealously protected? It was quite true that the Birmingham Confederation had agreed to a resolution condemning all modes of securing the representation of minorities; but they were wise in their generation, for they knew perfectly well that that principle would eventually be accepted, and that it would entirely destroy their power; and, for his part, he would greatly rejoice if it did limit and destroy the power of the Birmingham Confederation. He could not conceive how any person who had any knowledge of the caucus system in the United States could look at the growth of that Confederation with any other feelings than those of apprehension. Its object was to repress local feeling,

    1011
    local energy, and independence; and it sent forth its orders over the land by means of a great machinery and organization of the most frightful and alarming character. But he was satisfied those who wore in favour of the representation of minorities would win. There was one other argument to which he would refer. Hitherto his illustrations had been derived, as far as possible, from the past; but the experience of the last few years, and especially of the last two years, seemed to deserve some comment. They were often told that the tide of democracy would ere long come upon them; but it had already come, and they were floundering in the middle of it. What had been the history of legislation and of public opinion during the last few years but the history of government by impulsive, varying, unsteady opinion? Ever since this Parliament had been called together they had had, time after time, exhibitions of currents of opinion running now in one direction, now in another; not in consequence of the dictates of prudence and reason, but because some sentiment, feeling, or passion had for the moment taken possession of the public mind. They all remembered the exhibition made in that House by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), who wa3 excited by the failure of a particular Bill. Great public meetings were held; the Bill, which had been withdrawn, was re-introduced in a modified form, and the Prime Minister at the Mansion House gloried in the excitement, saying it was the very thing the Government desired in order to stimulate the passing of the measure. It was certainly rather portentous when the legislation of that House could be acted upon in that way. Next year there was again considerable excitement and alarm out-of-doors that the Government was going to uphold slavery throughout the world. The Government had not really altered the policy of the country—it had only issued a Slave Circular, identical with the Instructions which had for many years been issued to naval officers on foreign service; but the Circular was condemned at public meetings, and it had to be withdrawn; a second Circular was issued, and also withdrawn. He did not say whether the action which had ultimately been taken was right or wrong; but that action should be taken
    1012
    in that way did show danger against which they ought to guard. Again, within the last 18 months—he spoke only of facts—they had seen the people inflamed with feeling on one side of the Eastern Question, and the Government, feeling themselves in a minority, changed their action. They had since seen the people inflamed with another opinion, and again the Government action was moved thereby. There had been deputations to Members of that House; but he wanted to know what was the difference between the deputation headed by Mr. De Morgan, which waited on the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) on behalf of the Claimant, and that which came to the Prime Minister, though headed by the Lord Mayor? The influence of the democracy of the present moment, therefore, should make people reflect; and when he looked back upon what had happened in the last 18 months, he felt thankful, indeed, that all danger of war seemed to have passed away. The Government would have entered into war with an outburst of popular enthusiasm; but they would have been exceedingly lucky if, at the end of 12 months, they had not found themselves the subjects of distrust and scorn. Looking at the past perturbations of popular passion, who could say what next would be assailed and who could foretell the result? In supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend, he thought, at all events, they were free from the imputation of not dealing with something real, solid, and substantial. The object of the Motion was to make the House a more, and not less, faithful reflection of the people of the country, by retaining within it men the tenure of whose seats should not depend upon the fluctuating views of chance constituencies; it was to secure that there, at all events, should be a refuge for truth, where a man might speak what he thought, let a thousand or ten thousand withstand him; it was to secure that the Government of this country should be stable and orderly, while reconciling complete emancipation with the conservation of all that had made the country great, noble, and dignified in the past. It was in a Conservative as well as a Liberal spirit they desired to see all persons identified with the Government; and it was only by thus clinging to the tradi-

    1013
    tions of the past that they might look forward with hope to the future.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would only trouble the House with a few remarks; and he should not have risen but that he felt there were some fallacies in the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney), as to which he should like to say a few words. It was suggested that the House under this system would not be subject to the influence of those gusts of passion which occasionally ran through the country, and to which the House was said to be liable under their present system of representation, or quasi-representation. Did his hon. Friend for one moment suppose that if there did spread through the country such bursts of passion as those to which he had referred, a House of 658 Members, however elected, would be able to withstand the impulse of those passions, or the demands of the majority of the people of this country? He had only risen because he felt that his hon. Friend had, with much eloquence and ingenuity, built up a pack of cards which could be cut down by two or three very practical and common-sense considerations. The first was, that by no system possible to be devised could they secure the actual representation of every minority. Where was the line to be drawn? How large a minority was it that should be represented? Of course, the theoretical basis of the argument was that it was an injustice if any minority whatever was excluded. Now, a minority might be a very small one in numbers, and yet a very large and important minority in politics. What provision, then, could they make?—what provision could the ingenuity of the most philosophical Member of that House suggest or devise, by which all the minorities of the country should be adequately, thoroughly, and justly represented? That was a common-sense consideration which appeared to strike at the very root of this proposal. When they were driven to look at it simply as a practical question, practically there was a representation of minorities, and this was one of the fallacies which lay at the root of all these arguments by Mr. Mill and by Mr. Hare when they contended that minorities were excluded from representation. How could they exclude minorities from representation? It was said that they were excluded from representation; but
    1014
    he denied that, and maintained that it was impossible, if a minority deserved to be represented, for it to be excluded. His hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) referred to the case of the Roman Catholics of England, and said that they could not obtain representation in that House. But was there any practical injustice worked by that? Was it true that Catholic opinion had no adequate representation? Could they say at that moment that the million of Catholics had not an adequate and proportionate representation? Was it necessary to establish a new and doubtful and a theoretical system for the purpose of obtaining the same end as that to which they had already attained? It was a fallacy that lay at the root and base of these arguments to say that any minority which ought to be represented had not either directly or indirectly obtained representation. Then there came in another question. There were minorities which they might say ought not to be represented, and which they would rather not see represented in that House, and which would be a nuisance to the House supposing they were represented. At Elections there was a sifting of candidates by public opinion, and the public opinion and the common-sense of the country excluded a number of people who practically represented no valuable opinion at all. Looking at the question from the historical, the political, or any other point of view, they must conclude that there was no opinion worthy of attention which did not receive representation within that House, either directly or indirectly. It was impossible that he should go through all the arguments against this Motion, and he did not think it was necessary, from the way in which the arguments of his hon. Friend had been received by the House. What did they find was the case in America? There was a great demoralization of politics, rich minorities were content to abstain from politics; and, as a result, they had an ignorant majority acquiring a power which was too great for them, a power which his hon. Friends proposed to check by an elaborate machinery. Was it possible that this could be worked? He thought it was not; and, for his part, he preferred to throw on the minority the responsibility of working for their views, and pressing them on the attention of the larger

    1015
    majorities until they had converted a sufficient number to change them into a minority. He had far more faith in that than in a machinery of this kind, however ingeniously contrived, and however delicately adjusted, invented for the purpose of protecting people against their own faults. He felt that these reasons cut through the position of his hon. Friend; and, therefore, he should feel bound to oppose this mere philosophical craze, and to vote against this Motion if it went to a division.
    MR. HEYGATEadmitted that it was impossible to secure the representation of every minority, however small; but it was not necessary to define the precise minority which was entitled to representation. He questioned whether the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), as a Liberal, would be satisfied, if he were a Lancashire man, with 22 Conservatives to 8 Liberal Members. When anomalies were shown to exist, it was usual to seek a remedy, and three-cornered constituencies were evidence of the disposition of the House to correct them. He (Mr. Heygate) had always supported the principle of the representation of minorities, and he, therefore, should vote for these Resolutions, which he presumed were practically embodied in the third, which declared that—
    "All opinions should have an opportunity of being represented in direct proportion to the number of Electors by whom they were held."
    This was a simple but a very important truism. He regretted to find that the Liberal Party had, for the first time, embraced the idea of the equalization of the franchise as being the guiding rule for the next Reform Bill. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) had dwelt on the danger of class legislation, and there could be no doubt that there would be great danger in the fact of the whole of the constituencies being controlled by the voters belonging to the manual labour classes. Up to this time legislation of that kind had been prevented by the more or less restricted nature of the franchise and by the great variety in the character and circumstances of the constituencies. If they adopted one franchise in counties and boroughs, the reasons in favour of the proposition for minority representation became absolutely unanswerable. It was said that minorities ought to yield
    1016
    to majorities; but he saw nothing in that sentiment inconsistent with this proposition. The majority would continue to be the majority; but there was a great difference between erecting a minority to a position of equality with the majority and leaving it absolutely blotted out. He regarded it as of even more importance that minorities should be represented in local and municipal elections than in Imperial matters. It was said that this notion was newfangled; but people considered it to be so simply because they would not attempt to think for themselves. He doubted very much whether even Birmingham would desire to change the triangular system. They had, no doubt, in that town contrived, in the case of the first school board election, to transform the majority into the minority; but a little experience enabled them to put the majority in the position to which it was entitled. He thought that Mr. Hare's plan was too difficult to be carried out; but if there was any large distribution of political power, there should be a large adoption of triangular constituencies.
    Sir GEORGE BOWYERfelt bound to differ from the conclusions of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), though he admired the cleverness and ingenuity of his speech. Until they had perfectly equal electoral constituencies all over the country, it would inevitably happen that Members would not be returned by the aggregate majority. The minority in a constituency of 150,000, for instance, might often exceed the majority in a constituency of 6,000; but as all attempts to form equal electoral bodies had hitherto failed, he saw no remedy for that evil. He was not prepared to go further in the direction of representing minorities than the three-cornered constituencies, which, he believed, had worked satisfactorily; for Parliamentary government was government by Parties, which was government by majorities, and once the principle of the representation of minorities was admitted, they would have great difficulty in drawing the line at which to stop; and even if they did succeed in doing so, they would, in many cases, destroy the whole system of Party government in this country by placing parties on an equilibrium. It was to be regretted that considerable minorities like the Roman

    1017
    Catholics of Great Britain, who numbered 1,000,000, should not be represented in that House. He thought it showed that the people of England were unable to appreciate the patriotism and public spirit of those opposed to them in religious opinion. A man might be a Catholic and at the same time be as patriotic an Englishman, and equally alive to the interests of his own country, and capable of sitting in that House as an English Representative, just as well as if he was a Protestant. He did not, at the same time, desire Catholics to be brought into the House by any contrivance such as the representation of minorities; but he asserted that religious opinion ought not to debar a man from political and public functions, and he hoped that that improvement in public opinion in this respect, which was inevitable, would very speedily take place. It had been stated that a tide of democracy was sweeping over them, and that they were struggling in the midst of it. For his own part, he did not anticipate any danger from the supposed torrent. Popular influence was a necessary condition of a Parliamentary system of government like theirs; and he was not aware that since the last General Election it had been unduly felt, or felt in a greater degree, than at any previous period since the passing of the Reform Bill.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he thought the House had to thank the Mover and Seconder of the Resolutions for an interesting discussion. At the same time, he hoped it would not be pushed to a division, or it would put hon. Members into the difficulty in which they were frequently placed by an abstract Resolution. In that case, they must look carefully at the wording of the Motion, and must ask whether it referred to electors for the Imperial Parliament only, or included also municipal and school board electors. Then, as to the second Resolution— that no effectual security existed for the due representation of minorities—did that apply to elections for school boards? For if it did, he should not be prepared to affirm that no such security existed. On the contrary, he thought that the security given by the cumulative vote, whether perfect or not, was at least effectual; and would meet with more approval as its working became better understood. The hon.
    1018
    Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), in moving his Resolutions, appeared to have in view especially what was so well-known as "Mr. Hare's system" for the representation of minorities, and he had very clearly expounded that system to the House. He (Mr. Parker) should in no way be prepared to give in his adhesion to any attempt to introduce that system into this country, and he believed it would be impossible to do so. On the other hand, a great deal of what the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) said with respect to safeguards against the evils to which we were exposed more and more by the democratic character of our extended franchise deserved the best attention of the House. He (Mr. Parker) had been struck particularly by the instance given of the division of counties. It was in the power of the House, at the last re-distribution of seats, to divide certain counties into two parts, each returning three Members, instead of into three parts, each returning two Members; and the hon. Gentleman showed that if they had made "three-cornered constituencies" in a larger number of counties, it would have materially altered the representation, and considerably diminished the majority in that House. Although at present this result might be more pleasing to the Liberal side of the House, yet in future it might be to the advantage of the Conservative side. When they came to another re-distribution, which was supposed not to be very far distant, he trusted the opportunity would be taken to divide constituencies so as to give three Members each to more of them. There was another instance, which had not yet been mentioned, of minorities being unrepresented in that House. He referred to the ease of the Universities. It was well known that there were strong Liberal minorities there. Yet Oxford University was represented by two Conservatives, Cambridge University by two Conservatives, Dublin University by two Conservatives, and the Scottish Universities were also represented by Conservatives, with one exception—that of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) who represented the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews. He thought, however, that in this case they had a Liberal Member representing a Conservative majority, owing to the great respect enter-

    1019
    tained for him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would long continue to represent those Universities; but the prevalent belief was that if he were to vacate the seat, it would probably be filled by a Conservative. They had one eminent instance of a Liberal representing an English University; But the London University was as different from other Universities — being merely an Examining Board — as its right hon. Member (Mr. Lowe) was different from other Liberals. He thought that at a time when such questions as the reconstruction of county government, both in England and Ireland, and the franchise in Ireland, both political and municipal, were under discussion, and when they had also in prospect the lowering of the county franchise throughout the United Kingdom, the House might well give some of its attention to the abstract principle of the representation of minorities. A good deal had been said of the public excitement which showed itself, under our present franchise, and of the effect of that excitement on the House. It was true that movements such as that occasioned by the inattention of the Government to the claims advocated by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), or those evolved by the stirring events in the East, would be felt strongly in that House, whatever was the mode of selecting Representatives. But these movements would be felt less strongly if minorities were better represented. One other point he wished to notice, and that was the tendency under the new democratic franchise to have a larger majority on the one side or on the other as the result of a General Election. They had only had experience of two General Elections under the new Reform Act; and, therefore, it might be an accidental circumstance that the pendulum had swung so far in one direction and then so far in the other. But to all appearance this was the natural result of admitting great numbers of new voters, less educated, and, therefore, more liable to be swayed in their opinions by passing events; and, if so, it was unfortunate that new constituencies should be so arranged as to give full effect to this tendency, rather than to counteract it. But if the calculations of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) were correct, that a large alteration of the majorities in
    1020
    the House would have been made by the one arrangement of dividing county constituencies differently—if it were true that attention to that one point would have made a difference of something like 40 votes, it might be ascribed partly to the non-representation of minorities that they had in that House, first so large a majority of Liberals, and then so large a majority of Conservatives. He thought it would be the general feeling of the House that such large majorities were not to be desired. A very large majority was not always satisfactory even to those who enjoyed the advantage of it. The late Prime Minister had not reason to be content with his large majority, because, like most large majorities, it was not docile; and he would rather have had a smaller majority that would have held better together. Perhaps it was too soon yet to detect symptoms of anything similar on the other side of the House; but there had been some indications that the large Conservative majority was also inclined to be rebellious. At all events, he would express the opinion that it would tend more to the public benefit, more to the careful transaction of Business in the House, that the Party in power, instead of having a very large majority, should have a moderate majority at its back, for then it was likely that more Members of that majority would be present in debate to hear the arguments, and that the votes arrived at would be more the expression of deliberate opinion after discussion, and less the registration of a foregone conclusion of the Leaders.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Eight o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000) *; Public Baths and Washhouses * (39).
Committee — Territorial Waters Jurisdiction (23–38).

THE EASTERN QUESTION — RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE TREATY OF PEACE—THE CONGRESS.

  QUESTIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to ask my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether the noble Earl is in a position to give your Lordships any information as to when a Copy of the Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey is likely to be laid on the Table?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I told my noble Friend, when he gave me private Notice of his Question, that I had no objection to his putting the Question; but I added—what I now repeat—that I am afraid I am not in a position to give him any information on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I also wish to ask the noble Earl a Question of which I have given him private Notice—though I am not sure that he will be able to give any satisfactory answer to it. It is, Whether he can give the House any information as regards the place of meeting of the proposed Conference?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, when last I answered a Question in this House on the subject of the proposed Congress—or Conference, as it was then entitled—I stated there was an agreement among the Powers concerned that the meeting should be held at Baden. Since then communications have passed between some of the Powers, and the result of those communications has been that the place of meeting has been changed from Baden to Berlin. Her Majesty's Government have offered no objection to the change, and, as far as we are concerned, it can make no difference; but I am not able to state with any certainty at what time the meeting will take place. There is another very
  950
  important question—namely, what, if any, shall be the bases on which the Congress or Conference shall meet? On that subject we are in communication with the other Powers—especially with Austria — the Austrian Government being the Government which initiated the matter. In a despatch, which has been already laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, we have stated that we are not prepared to recognize as valid any changes which may have been made in the arrangements of preceding European Treaties until those changes have received the consent of the Powers who were parties to those Treaties; and we have further stated our opinion that it would be desirable that not merely a part, but the whole of the Treaty arrangements concluded between Russia and Turkey should be submitted to the Congress.

RUSSIA AND PERSIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he likewise desired to ask a Question of the noble Earl of which he had given him private Notice. It was this—Whether the statement was correct which had appeared in one of the morning journals of that day—The Daily Telegraph —in the form of a telegram dated from Pera? —
  "That certain negotiations are proceeding between the Russians and Persians for the cession to the latter of part of the Bayazid district, in exchange for sundry places on the Caspian Sea."
  He had nothing to say as to the relative value of the two districts; but it seemed to him that the principle involved in the exchange was of some importance. Private arrangements between Russia and Turkey were not to be considered as accomplished facts until they were submitted to the Powers in European Conference; but if Russia were allowed to enter into possession of the territories which she claimed from Persia by exchange or otherwise, matters might be a good deal complicated at the Congress.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am aware that rumours have been floating about of some transactions of the nature referred to by the noble Earl. There was a rumour lately of a secret understanding between Persia and Russia for a cession to Russia of a dig-

  951
  trict on the Caspian coast. I thought it worth while to ascertain by telegraph what truth there might be in that report; and the Persian Government have absolutely denied that there is any truth in it. I am not in a position to afford information as to any other arrangements for the cession by Persia of any portion of its territory.

TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION BILL—(No. 23.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION BILL—(No. 23.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD HAMMONDsaid, that before the House resolved itself into Committee, he wished to call attention to a misapprehension which appeared to exist in Germany in regard to the purport and intent of the Bill. Their Lordships might have noticed certain articles in The North German Gazette, which were reproduced in The Times of March 2, and The Morning Post of March 7, the writer of which assumed—
  "That the English Government intends to claim jurisdiction over foreign vessels merely passing along the coast of England, and consequently over all those using that international waterway of commerce, the Straits of Dover."
  He certainly understood from the observations which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and also from the terms of the Bill itself, that it was not contemplated to advance or enforce any new claim in respect of the territorial waters washing the coasts of Her Majesty's Dominions. The object of the Bill, as he understood, was to remove the difficulties entertained by a majority of the Judges in regard to the manner in which jurisdiction might be exercised over the open seas adjacent to the coasts of Her Majesty's Dominions. The learned Judges, as he understood, did not express any doubt as to the existence of rightful jurisdiction on the part of Her Majesty within that distance of the coast of Her Majesty's Dominions—namely, three miles—which had always been accepted and recognized by the jurists of all countries as being within the territorial domain of the Sovereign of the adjacent coast—but merely doubted the Court and form of procedure by which such jurisdiction
  952
  could be enforced. It might not be matter of surprise that the intricacies and technicalities of British law and procedure should not be correctly apprehended in foreign countries; but, as it would seem desirable that any misapprehension in this respect should be authoritatively removed, he ventured to submit to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and perhaps even to other noble and learned Lords in the House, whether it might not be expedient, by some explicit statement as to the intent and purport of the Bill, to dispel the doubt which would seem to be entertained abroad with respect to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not myself aware of any doubt of importance being entertained as to the scope and object of the Bill. The noble Lord correctly understands what is its real object. It does not in any way go beyond what is the clear and well-established rule of law on the subject—a rule of law supported by the authority of the international writers and recognized by the maritime nations. When presenting the Bill I took the liberty of alluding to a recent judgment of one of our Courts, with the view of showing what that rule is; and the noble Lord is entirely right in thinking that the object of the Bill is to cure a defect discovered to exist in our own law. The Bill is not one which proposes to alter the international law, but one which makes provision for applying the machinery of our own municipal law so as to make it work in harmony with the international law. The noble Lord has referred to remarks on the subject made in a German paper. Now, my Lords, there can be no doubt as to what is the view of Germany, for I hold in my hand a copy of the German instructions issued to the commander of a gunboat stationed in the North Sea for the protection of the fisheries. This, my Lords, is an extract from those instructions—
  "That tract of the sea which extends to a distance of three sea miles from the extremest limit which the ebb leaves dry of the German North Sea coast, of the German islands or flats lying before it, as well as those bays and incurvations of the coast which are ten sea miles or less in breadth, reckoned from the extremest points of the land and the flats, must be considered as under the territorial sovereignty of the North German Confederation. So far as this territorial sovereignty extends, in accordance herewith, fishing is allowed exclusively to fishermen of German nationality, and to fishing boats be-

  953
  longing to North German subjects. Fishing within the aforesaid range is, therefore, forbidden to foreign fishing boats under any circumstances, neither must they resort there at all, unless it be that the wind, the current, seafaring wants, or some other cause entirely independent of the commander's will, should lead to the transgression of the limits, or that the boat is on its direct way to a port where its cargo is to be sold."
  Again, my Lords, those instructions state—
  "Foreign fishing boats which pass within the limits of territorial sovereignty described in No. 1 of their own free will, and not being on their direct way to a port for the sale of fish, are to be turned back. If the fishermen therein resist, or if they fish within the aforesaid territorial limits, they may be arrested and delivered over for judgment to the nearest local authority that is competent."
  My Lords, I do not think I need go further with the view of showing that the Bill does not go beyond a limit recognized by the German Government.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed as amended. (No. 38.)

POOR LAW AND HIGHWAY BOARDS (UNION OF PARISHES).

  ADDRESS FOR RETURN.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE,in moving an Address for Return relating to the union of parishes and Poor Law and Highway Boards of all complaints made to any public offices of inconvenience arising from the union of parishes belonging to different counties in Poor Law or Highway Boards, said, that from practical experience he believed no inconvenience had arisen from a union composed of parishes situated in different counties. In the case of Highway Boards, it might not be desirable, in some cases, to have a very large district.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  Return of all complaints made to any public offices of inconvenience arising from the union of parishes belonging to different counties in Poor Law or Highway Boards.—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there was no objection to the granting of the Return, which would probably contain much useful information. He would defer any obser-
  954
  vations on the question of the union of parishes in different counties till the Return was on the Table.
  Address agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICES.

  ADDRESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, in moving the Address of which I have given Notice, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the law and existing practices as regards the patronage, sale, and exchange of ecclesiastical livings—to me a somewhat difficult and invidious task —I desire, at the outset, to state that I have not the slightest desire to do away with, or to diminish lay patronage, in the Church of England. The late liberality of the laity of the Church, and the fact that they have subscribed £300,000 as an addition to the £100,000 in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is a proof of the sincerity of their interest in the Church; and is in itself security that, as a rule, lay patrons are anxious that the best men should be appointed to the cure of souls. My Lords, in moving the appointment of a Royal Commission on a subject which your Lordships have had before you on a former occasion, I feel that I am bound to make out a case for withdrawing the question from your Lordships' House and consigning it to a Royal Commission. In 1874 my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Peterborough), in a remarkable speech, in which he put before you many instances of the breaches of the law of simony which took place day after day, moved the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject; and under the influence of the statements by my right rev. Friend, your Lordships agreed to the appointment of the Committee. The right rev. Prelate showed the House most clearly that there existed in this metropolis offices in which constant breaches of the law against simony were committed day by day. The Committee entered upon their inquiries immediately, and very shortly after presented their Report, in which they made certain recommendations; and in the following year a Bill based on these recommendations was presented by my right rev. Friend, and consisted of 28 clauses. The Committee had recommended that no clerk should be instituted unless he brought testi-

  955
  monials signed by there beneficed clergymen and the Bishop of the diocese from which the candidate had come. That recommendation was included in the Bill; but the provision was considerably modified by your Lordships; and as it left this House the signature of the Bishop was dispensed with, and only the signatures of three beneficed clergymen were required. Now, my Lords, in my opinion, the safeguard of the Bishop's signature is all important. A friend of mine once remarked to Mr. Justice Wightman that it was curious how experts, when examined in a law case, were found to give such contradictory opinions; when the learned Judge observed that often he should have liked to ask the party this question—"To how many experts had you to go before you could get the opinion you liked?" There were very few candidates for a benefice who, by going round, could not obtain the signatures in their favour of three good-natured clergymen. In the case of Mr. Voysey he had got three clergymen to testify to the soundness of his doctrine, and every one of those three clergymen afterwards volunteered to me, as Archbishop, the expression of their regret at having so rashly signed that document; but it took hundreds— I believe I might say thousands—of pounds to undo what had been done by means of their signatures. There was another case, in which three clergymen signed for a young clergyman, though then knowing of conduct on his part which subsequently led to his removal. In that case, also, great regret was expressed. I will not anticipate what the Royal Commission will do; but I think that it is desirable in all cases to retain the signature of the Bishop, or to require some form of testimony from him. The next recommendation of the Committee was that physical or mental incapacity should be a bar to induction. That recommendation, I am happy to say, was retained in the Bill. But it must be remembered that learning and other qualifications are requisite besides those which would come under the general head of moral and physical capacity. The third point was the recommendation of an amended process to try the validity of the Bishop's refusal to institute; but that recommendation was omitted from the Bill. Now, I would ask your Lordships to consider the position of the
  956
  Bishop in this matter. Of necessity he is the person who, in the first instance, stands in the gap. Under the old process, the Bishop was first judge and next defendant. If he refused what was asked, and proceedings were taken against him in a higher Court, he was bound to defend his position, and the process of reviewing his decision became extremely expensive and dilatory. I would suggest that, whatever the conditions imposed in connection with his action in such matters, the Bishop should be judge in the first instance, and that there should be only one appeal from his decision, which decision should be given in writing, the Bishop not being obliged to follow his judgment personally into the Court of Appeal; so that the case would be heard in his absence. That would relieve the Bishop from a process extremely tedious in its nature, and extremely costly and vexatious in its character. The next recommendation of the Select Committee was that a right of objection should be given to the parishioners. That was adopted in the draft Bill; but no provision was made as to what the Bishop was to do when he got the objection. The proposal, therefore, was open to the objection that if the Bishop did not do what he was called on to do, he would be accused of slighting the parishioners; whereas, if he did it, he might be doing what his own judgment did not approve. The adoption of such a proposal would put the Bishop in a false position towards the parishioners. The Select Committee recommended—I believe unanimously— that every clergyman should have had an experience in the ministry of three years as a curate before he would be eligible for appointment to the permanent cure of souls. The Bill did not contain that proposal. Again, the Committee recommended that no clerk over 70 years of age should be appointed to a cure of souls, and a clause to that effect was inserted in the Bill; but the House thought it right to rehabilitate reverend gentlemen from 70 to 75 years of age by fixing 75 as the age at which such disqualification should commence to operate. But few persons reached 75, and fewer still were the clergymen who before that time of life had not found a permanent cure of souls. There were stories told of the induction of venerable clergymen who, despite the administra-

  957
  tion of strengthening port, had not been able to get beyond the Seventeenth of the Thirty-nine Articles—but he had never met with such a case. At present the person concerned made a declaration that no contract was made by him or for him which, in his opinion, was simoniacal —the result of which was that the clergyman himself was made the judge of what was simoniacal. As his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Peterborough) said, that was a premium on ignorance on the point, because the less a man knew of simony the better for him. That was amended in the Bill by the introduction of a declaration against simony, contained in a Schedule which was afterwards struck out. In the matter of exchanges, no adequate provision was made to meet abuses of this description, which were almost as great as in the question of simony. I think some means ought to be taken to prevent misrepresentation and fraud in respect of them. In 1870 the present Home Secretary introduced a Bill in the other House prohibiting the sale of next presentations. The measure passed the other House without a division; but when it came up to their Lordships' House, after being read the second time without debate, the Order for Committee was discharged. The state of matters seemed to be this —that their Lordships did not appear to be at one with their own Select Committee, and were not in concert with the other House as to the fundamental principles which should guide an inquiry of this kind. Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that you may very well resort to a different mode of treatment altogether; that you may have a Royal Commission which, if Government would grant it and organize it properly, would reflect every shade of opinion in the Church. In that case, there is a reasonable hope that the recommendations which may come from thorn, if they are at all unanimous, will carry such weight in both Houses that they will lead to good legislation. The Subscription Commission is a case in point. It sat for a long time, it was extremely well arranged by the Government of the day, and it was impossible to say that any shade of thought was not represented. The Government adopted its recommendations, and I have never heard any complaint of what was done by it. I do not stand alone in this
  958
  matter. Since I put my Notice on the Paper, the Convocation of the Province of York has passed a unanimous resolution in favour of a Royal Commission; and from what I have heard I believe that the Convocation of Canterbury would pass a similar resolution if it were now sitting. It is not within the walls of this House that the feelings which are entertained on this subject can be understood. Abuses such as these would not be permitted to exist in secular matters. They are abhorrent to the minds of Englishmen—especially when they relate to holy things. It is not easy to catch those cases, but of their existence there can be no doubt. In a speech which has been made in "another place," it was stated that there was published a list of 94 advertisements for the sale of next presentations, and that in 57 cases of those 94 immediate possession was guaranteed. It was not too much to say that in almost every one of those 57 cases means were about to be adopted either to evade or break the law. Some years ago a gentleman was presented to a living in my own diocese. Among the papers forwarded there was a letter from the gentleman's "affectionate uncle" to myself, and it explained the mode of operation by which he was about to complete a clear act of simony. The price paid for it was £150, but the gentleman never became the vicar of the place; because the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was applied to to fill up the living on the ground that it was a ease of simony. This kind of thing was going on in hundreds of instances. Now, my Lords, the objection to a remedy of these abuses does not come from your Lordships' House—nor does it come from the other House of Parliament. Does it, then, come from the laity? Certainly not—the laity out-of-doors cannot understand how it is that these things are allowed to go on—they do not desire it —they feel that it brings the system of lay patronage into contempt; every layman who is worth anything would combine to effect a remedy for the existing state of things. Parliament, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Church of England are unanimously opposed to the continuance of those abuses; and in a spirit friendly to the Church, Dissenters have condemned them in the other House of Parliament. It is said that lay patron-

  959
  age is so intermixed with the question of Establishment that the one cannot be interfered with without injuring the other. Now I, for one, will never, even for a single day, consent to leave an abuse untouched upon the ground of some real or fancied harm that trying to remove it might do to the Established Church. I do not believe that abuses tend to strengthen the Church Establishment. I am also of opinion that the present problem, most difficult and intricate though it undoubtedly be, and though with respect to it any change is to be viewed with great jealousy, is one which it is most desirable should be solved. In the name, then, of the Clergy of every school of thought, who are of one mind on the subject; in the name of the Laity, who are constantly twitting the Church with a shocking scandal, I ask your Lordships to take the practical mode of dealing with a question which must sooner or later be dealt with.
  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the law and existing practice as to the patronage, sale, exchange, and resignation of ecclesiastical benefices, and to recommend remedies for abuses if any are found to exist.—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that he rose thus early to offer a few remarks, for the reason that he might not have another opportunity of addressing their Lordships on the subject, and that the same thing might occur as on the last evening, when the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary addressed a House of only eight Members. It was, in fact, almost impossible to conduct a debate of that importance to any satisfactory conclusion, notwithstanding all the amiable protests which were made the other evening upon the subject of time and empty benches. Although he felt unequal to meet the most rev. Prelate upon a question of this kind; yet he would endeavour to offer a few suggestions on some points which the most rev. Prelate had not so much left out as declined to bring forward. The most rev. Prelate had, as he understood, objected to the system of lay patronage; when it was through the great liberality of laymen that the Church had been built up, and might be said to be a large voluntary institution. The most rev. Prelate assumed a
  960
  scandal, and then proceeded to deal with it as if it really existed, which he (Lord Houghton) for one would venture to deny. The most rev. Prelate's speech was, in effect, an attack upon lay patronage. The most rev. Prelate objected to the sale of next presentations; but such sale was by law allowed. The advowsons were the property of the patrons, and next presentations were attached to that species of property—they were entitled to the full enjoyment of their proprietary rights, and if they took those rights away they would alter, or diminish, or change the value of that property. His most rev. Friend seemed to have been actuated by an undue deference to public opinion upon the subject, and he had hoard these sales denounced as a great abuse. That it was an abuse he assumed from the beginning to the end of his speech; but the question was whether there was an abuse, and, if so, whether any remedy could be found, and what course would be the most judicious in regard to the sale of next presentations? He did not think that it was for the members of the Church of England to be guided in this matter by the practices or opinions of the Nonconformists on the subject. He did not think that that amount of abuse existed which had been spoken of. He did not think the most rev. Prelate had made out any case for consigning the question to the inquiry of a Royal Commission. What was meant by appointing a Royal Commission? Why, the giving great and needless publicity to small abuses and exaggeration of evils in the Church of England. The Commissioners would not be able to conduct their inquiries secretly—the evidence would come before the public and be discussed; and he thought the very opening of the question would be equivalent to offering a reward for accusations. He did not think that it was a convenient course to discuss this question in the absence of the Lord Bishop of Peterborough, who had introduced a Bill upon the subject in 1875, and he did not see how it was logical that the most rev. Prelate should force on the Legislature a new edition of that Bill by means of an inquiry by an extraneous body, when the Legislature had already decided the question by the rejection of the right rev. Prelate's Bill. The livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor were, under the Act

  961
  passed by Lord Chancellor Westbury, sold under certain circumstances, and the greatest religious body, founded by the late Mr. Simeon, took advantage of that Act. The advertisements which had been referred to did not all relate to the sale of next presentations, but to advow-sons as well, and with as much pictures queness. He felt that, by passing the Bill for the abolition of lay patronage in Scotland, they had laid down a dangerous precedent in this matter. He objected to that Bill, and he did not hear that it had given much comfort or satisfaction to the people of Scotland. At the same time, the English question was larger and of very different proportions, and must, therefore, be dealt with differently. The main point he wished to urge on their Lordships was that it would be impossible for the Commission, if it were appointed, to deal satisfactorily with this question without dealing in some form with lay patronage; because, if the Report of the Commissioners were not to deal with that point, the evils would remain just as they were. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would agree that there was very little ground for his most rev. Friend asking for this Commission, which would be unable to make any Report either satisfactory to the Legislature of the country or beneficial to the Church of England.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and would not remark upon the question whether the audience of the preceding night had been large or small. He thought, however, that the source whence this Motion had come demanded for it the respectful consideration of the House, and that, whatever might be their individual opinions on the subject, the arguments of a high dignitary of the Church on such a subject deserved close attention. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) in his somewhat discursive remarks on the views entertained by the Nonconformists as to the subject matter of the Motion. The noble Lord had said it would be inconvenient to discuss the question in the absence of the Bishop of Peterborough; but, having said that, he had plunged into the subject at length, and gave them a long lecture on it. There was no doubt the question was
  962
  one of very great complexity, and the very fact that it had been the subject of attempted legislation in both Houses showed the very great difficulty attending upon its solution. He thought, therefore, that the course which Her Majesty's Government proposed to take was one that ought to commend itself to their Lordships' minds, and that course was to agree to the Motion. He did not propose to offer any opposition to the Address. He thought, after having said that, that he would be wanting in respect to their Lordships if he went into very knotty questions which required very careful consideration. There was one remark he would make upon a criticism of the noble Lord which related to the Scotch Patronage Bill, in which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) entirely disagreed. He had said that the Scotch Patronage Bill was a measure which had not commended itself to the people of Scotland. Now he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) knew quite as much of the opinions of the people of Scotland as the noble Lord, and he ventured to protest against the noble Lord's view being entertained.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that though he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion, he felt that there were many arguments against the reference of the question to a Royal Commission. His noble Friend (Lord Houghton) had not given the best of those reasons, and had misconceived the tenour of the speech of the most rev. Prelate — who had, indeed, guarded himself against the idea that he had intended to attack the system of lay patronage. If the abuses of which they had heard were at all characteristic of lay patronage, its days were numbered; the evidence produced before a recent Select Committee, on which he had had the honour to sit, went far to prove that those abuses were not underrated. But the fact of their not being very numerous was irrelevant, for the mischief created by these occurrences was not to be measured by their frequency—they acted like the splash of a pebble dropped into a still pool, the ripple of which went on extending in ever-widening circles—and the scandals resulting from them inflicted a considerable amount of humiliation on Churchmen. The most rev. Prelate had told them that the Commission would reflect every

  963
  shade of opinion in the Church of England. Now, it occurred to him that the calm deliberations of a Committee of their Lordships' House might be more effectual than the protracted and probably tempestuous discussions that would arise in a body in which every shade of opinion in the Church of England was represented. His principal objection to a Royal Commission was this—he understood that it was usual when a Royal Commission was appointed to undertake an inquiry of that kind that some attempt should be made to show that the subject of the inquiry was either too technical or too minute for convenient discussion by their Lordships' House. Now, as a matter of fact, that question had been discussed, and very fully discussed, by two Committees of that House; and although those Committees were not in all respects unanimous, there were many points on which they did agree very completely. The first of those Committees contained among its Members the most rev. Prelate himself, four Members of the Episcopal Bench, Lord Harrow by, and other lay Peers, and they took the evidence of one or two right rev. Prelates, the solicitors of Prelates, their secretaries, and other witnesses, and they produced a Bill to which reference had been made that evening. That Bill was referred to another Select Committee, than which no stronger Committee ever conducted an inquiry in that House. That Committee revived the Bill which was presented to their Lordships. It was true they made some Amendments in it; but, in the main, they agreed to accept a number of most important recommendations which proceeded from the first Committee. There were clauses with reference to donatives, bonds of resignation, and also a provision for registration by means of which publicity might be given to those transactions which were now so often conducted with secrecy. Now, the object of those clauses was limited to the creation of safeguards against the abuse by patrons of the right of presentation; but they did not attempt to take away from them the whole or any part of their right. Seventy-five per cent of the total value of an advowson was represented by the next presentation; and if an interest of that magnitude was to be dealt with by
  964
  Parliament, he could not well see how they could avoid giving some compensation to patrons for the interference with their vested interests. The clauses of the Bill to which he had referred were likely to mitigate the abuses of which complaint had been made, and he thought it was not unreasonable to ask that some trial should be given to them.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that he regretted the subject should be again submitted to further inquiry. The debates in this House, and the investigations of two Select Committees, had exhausted it. Nothing more was to be learned. They understood the nature and extent of that abuse; and they had learned the difficulty of applying a remedy without inciting greater evils. In the first place, they all admitted that private patronage ought not to be abolished. It must exist. The question was whether the power of sale was not a necessary incident. It certainly was, in one sense, a moral trust; but could they divest it of the incidents of property? Suppose sales to be prevented, and that it must remain in the hands in which it now rested, what security would that furnish for the exercise of the trust? Let it be attached to an estate. The estate was sold and broken up. To what portion of the estate was the advowson to be attached? Was it to be broken up with the estate? Into what hands would it fall? Conceive it either directed away wrong, or left in the hands of one, bankrupt and pauper, and sale forbidden, could they have worse security for the disposal of the trust? Was there any complaint made now of improper persons creeping into livings by sale? On the contrary, sale of presentations had introduced many most excellent servants of the Church, and connected it with other classes of the community, the most religious of the commercial classes, who would have no other means of access. The abuses arose from the abuse of the term of simony, and from the attempt to put down as a crime that which the moral sense did not acknowledge as such. Do away with the name altogether; recognize and. regulate the practice, and give to the Bishop increased power for rejecting unfitting persons.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, if he had had any doubt about the propriety of the course Her Majesty's

  965
  Government proposed to take on this matter, he should have been entirely converted by the speech of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne). Comparing the Bill which had been read three times in the House of Commons and twice in their Lordships' House—[A noble LORD: It passed this House.]—One Bill passed this House, and another in 1870 passed a second reading here, after having passed a third reading in the lower House of Parliament. Comparing what was actually agreed to by Parliament with what had been stated to-night, it appeared to him that there was great confusion on this subject, and that the Houses of Parliament did not clearly see their way in this matter. Therefore, it seemed only desirable that as much light as possible should be thrown on this question. He totally differed from his noble Friend on the other side (Lord Houghton), who desired to keep things in the dark. The more light there was thrown on an abuse in the Church, or any other of our institutions, the better, provided you did it in an honest spirit and with the view of getting rid of the abuse. He believed it was the opinion of all the best friends of the Church of England that whatever abuses there were in our system should as soon as possible be dragged to light in order that they might be removed. On that point he could not agree with his noble Friend, who seemed to think—first, that there were no abuses in this matter; and, secondly, that if there were any abuses it was very dangerous to expose them. And he seemed also to think that it was absolutely necessary, if we preserved lay patronage, that we should preserve it in the most objectionable form. We served the Church of England best by seeing that, as far as the law went, it was well administered, and if there was anything such as had been represented in the evidence brought before the late Committee on this subject —if there was anything which brought discredit on the Church and which was not a violation of the law—he thought it was our duty to improve our legislation. He was sorry to differ so much from his noble Friend, who complained that we too often listened to Dissenters on this matter. He did not wish to found his opinion of the Church of England on those who
  966
  were not its members; but if there were any abuses which they saw very clearly, he, for one, would be much obliged to them for drawing our attention to those matters; and he should not be deterred by the fact that those abuses were pointed out by persons who, though differing from ourselves, might co-operate with us in endeavouring to find a remedy for those abuses. With regard to the particular subject of the sale of next presentations, he felt that there was a marked difference between the sale of the next presentation and the sale of an advowson. It was pointed out by many witnesses who were examined in the Select Committee that the one case was the transfer of the responsibility of finding a fit person to be presented by him who became the possessor of the advowson; but all experience showed that in the other case the next presentation was purchased for some particular person. It was not the responsibility of selecting a fit person that was transferred; but the right of providing for some friend whom you wished to become the incumbent of the living. He had pointed out on a former occasion that past legislation had done very much to encourage that sort of view; and in one point he was fortunate enough to gain the support of the majority of the Select Committee to the proposition that an end should be put to what always appeared to him to be a very great evil in past legislation on the matter. He thought there were faults in the law, and especially in regard to the facilities offered for the evasion of the law. He thought that Parliament—at all events, since 1870—had been endeavouring to remedy these evils. He thought that there was a conflict of opinion between what was now apparently the general view of their Lordships tonight, and the opinion which they adopted in 1870 on the recommendation of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when a Bill passed the second reading for the abolition of the sale of next presentations. He thought, also, that there was a conflict of opinion between those who carried the Bishop of Peterborough's Bill in this House and those who allowed it drop in the other House of Parliament. He thought, also, that public attention was not sufficiently aroused on this important subject. If there was no other proof, it was sufficient

  967
  to point out that when so important a subject as this was discussed a very short time since "elsewhere," asufficient number of Members of Parliament were not found in "another place," to remain in their seats, and the discussion had to be closed because it did not command sufficient attention. Therefore, he thought that the appointment of a Royal Commission was a wise measure, which would tend to foster a proper public opinion on this subject, and to settle this question as soon as possible on a sound basis.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that, considering the fate of the proposals made in time past to settle this matter, he did not think the time had come when it would be wise to legislate without some further preliminary inquiry; but he had no hesitation in saying that if the sale of next presentations could be abolished, the gain would be very great to the Church of England, because the sale of next presentations was the root of all the other evils we wished to get rid of. The most rev. Prelate had said, that on a former occasion only five lay Peers had voted for a clause, intended to have that effect. It must not, however, be supposed that those were the only lay Peers in favour of the principle. The Bill then before the House had come recommended by a Select Committee, and it was thought wiser first to try the remedies which they had recommended. But there were great difficulties in the way. Before the House could satisfactorily seek to legislate with the view of abolishing the sale of next presentations, they should know whether such a a change would affect the market value of advowsons to a substantial extent; and, in the event of its being ascertained that the value of such property would be so affected by it, then they should consider whether this was a case in which compensation ought to be awarded to those patrons who might sustain loss in consequence of legislation upon this subject; and, if so, by what means that compensation might be provided? It was agreed on all hands that, for the reasons which had been well stated by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), advowsons must continue to be saleable; and it must be considered, on the one hand, whether any other means of preventing existing evils could be effectual, so long as next presentations were sold;
  968
  and, on the other, whether, if the direct sale of a next presentation were prohibited, it would not still be liable to take place indirectly under colour of the sale of an advowson. These were the difficulties of the question. The great evil was that cures of souls were, in practice, bought and sold, by or for particular clergymen. He confessed that it seemed to him to be utterly impossible to defend the purchase of a living by, or even for, the clergyman who was to be appointed to it; because this was trafficking in one of the most sacred trusts known to our law. The law would not permit the sale of any other position of trust— even commissions in the Army were no longer permitted to be bought and sold— and, therefore, he could not understand how anyone could venture to defend the system of purchase in the Church. It was not wonderful if, under such a system, clergymen held themselves entitled to introduce strange doctrines and practices into their parish churches against the law, and often against the wishes of their parishioners.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that there had already been four attempts to deal with this subject without success. He hoped that some promise would have been made that the subject would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, and that they would introduce a measure which would put the sale of livings and of advowsons upon a footing satisfactory to all parties; and he still hoped it would be possible to introduce a measure that would meet with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that in 1874, when there was a Committee on this subject, he received numerous letters suggesting that episcopal patronage should be made a matter of inquiry. He thought that if lay patronage was to be examined, public opinion would require that episcopal patronage should also be examined into. It appeared that they were to have a Commission representing all grades of opinion in the Church. If that were so, the Commission would be a very large one indeed. He should wait with some curiosity to see the names of the Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that it would be advisable to leave the word "patronage" out of the Motion, as the real object was to secure an inquiry into the sale of advowsons

  969
  and next presentations. With reference to the observation that had been made by several noble Lords and by the noble Duke who had just sat down, he must point out that although Her Majesty's Government assented to this Motion, they did not pledge themselves that every shade of opinion should be represented on the Commission. He quite agreed with the opinion expressed that it was inexpedient to have Royal Commissions on every occasion. They were very important organizations which ought not to be used too commonly. There was no doubt that the question of the sale of next presentations was a very difficult one, and if they reviewed the Acts passed with regard to simony, and those affecting the power of Prelates to admit to livings or refuse admission, they would find they had a mass of difficulty to deal with which was as great as that presented by any other subject. In 1875 a Bill was introduced by the right rev. Bench containing provisions of a stringent character. It was referred to a Select Committee, where its stringency was diminished, and the clauses reduced from 37 or 38 to 21. When, however, it came again to be discussed in their Lordships' House, it was found that the reduced Bill was even stronger than it had been before in that form, and commended itself to the majority of their Lordships' House. The Bill was further reduced to 17 clauses, and in that form it fairly represented the extent to which the House was prepared to go. He could not agree that the subject of next presentations was fully considered in the first instance. It was considered in the Select Committee, and there was introduced into the Bill a most useful and important clause, to the effect that the next presentation was never to be separated from the advowson. Several proposals were made in the House with reference to next presentations and other matters intended to make the Bill more stringent, and thus bring it back to its original form; and upon all those proposals the right rev. Bench were in antagonism to the other Members of their Lordships' House. That was not a satisfactory state of things. There were in the House a large number of Peers who were lay patrons; and where there was a difference of opinion between those lay Members and the right rev. Bench upon the sale, exchange, and
  970
  resignation of ecclesiastical benefices, the question could hardly be loft where it was, and must be made the subject of further consideration. Therefore, the case was exactly in the position in which it might well be referred to a Royal Commission in order that they might see whether some middle course could be made the subject of a Report to come before Parliament with a view to the removal of these difficulties. On the part of the Government, he was prepared to assent to the Motion if the reference to patronage was omitted from it, and the Motion was allowed to road as follows:—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the law and existing practice as to the sale, exchange, and resignation of ecclesiastical benefices, and to recommend remedies for abuses if any are found to exist."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKassented to this proposal, and after a few remarks in reply—
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the law and existing practice as to the admission to, and sale, exchange, and resignation of ecclesiastical benefices, and to recommend remedies for abuses if any are found to exist.—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.