Sitting of 6 July 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Goole, Epworth, and Owston Railway, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Settlement and Removal Law Amendment [152], deferred.
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Sixteenth Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Companies (Colonial Registers) * [185–260].
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks) * [197].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNERDALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords],

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. E. S. HOWARD MR. E. S. HOWARD moved—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report whether the proposed Railway will interfere with the enjoyment of the public, who annually visit the Lake District, by injuriously affecting the scenery in that neighbourhood, or otherwise; and that they have power to receive Evidence upon the subject."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that on the part of the promoters of the Bill, he was authorized to state that they did not intend to offer any opposition to this Instruction; but he thought it was right that he should take advantage of

    597
    the opportunity to explain the circumstances in which he found himself yesterday. A most unusual course was then taken by several hon. Members. The case had been brought under his notice shortly before he entered the House, when he was informed that there would be no opposition to the Bill. He was, therefore, very much astonished to find that an opposition was raised by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), who had presented a Petition on his own account against the Bill. He held a copy of that Petition in his hand, and the grounds on which the hon. Member opposed the Bill were that the Railway would intercept his property in an injurious manner and impair its value, and also the value of the property of other proprietors in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member had further alleged that the Bill was not promoted for the public interest, but for the benefit of private individuals, and that the House ought to reject it.
    MR. SPEAKERwished to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was wandering from the point before the House. He must confine himself to the Instruction which had been moved.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was coming to that; but, unless he stated the circumstances, he did not see how he was to make the House comprehend the position in which the matter was placed. All he desired was that the House should know that the opposition to the Bill was merely a landowner's opposition. After the hon. Member for West Cumberland had addressed the House yesterday, up rose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who made another and an altogether different statement in regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said the proposed Railway would have the effect of spoiling one of the most beautiful pieces of scenery in the Kingdom; and the question before the House to decide on the second reading of the Bill was whether it would allow one of the most beautiful features of the Lake District to be spoilt without further inquiry? Now, that was a question to which the hon. Member for West Cumberland, in introducing his opposition to the Bill, had never referred in any way. The hon. Member himself had never suggested that the proposed line of
    598
    Railway would interfere in any respect whatever with the scenery of the district. That suggestion came entirely from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. Unfortunately, he (Mr. Bentinck) had exhausted his power of addressing the House yesterday; he was unable to say a word in explanation, and that was the reason why he desired to do so on this occasion. He totally denied the suggestion that the line would in any way interfere with the scenery of the district, and it was a question for a Committee on that Bill to decide. It ought not to have been allowed to be raised in a mere harum scarum manner upon the ipse dixit of a single hon. Member. He, therefore, reiterated his statement that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was most unusual. But the matter did not rest there, because he found, to his great surprise, on going into the Lobby that there were with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford several Members of Her Majesty's Government—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), the political Under Secretary of the Board of Trade (Mr. J. Holms), and the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and he believed some others. He altogether protested against such conduct as this, for never during his Parliamentary experience had he seen anything of the kind. It was a principle of the House to give the promoters of such Bills an opportunity of being heard, and not to reject such a measure as this on the second reading on account of the personal grievance of any hon. Member. He desired to add that he was not one of the promoters of the Bill; but he knew the locality very well—no one better—and he was perfectly satisfied that it would not do any injury to the scenery. However, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, he was authorized to say that they courted the fullest inquiry in every way; and therefore, on their behalf, he did not object to the Instruction which had now been moved.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINwished, before the Question was put, to ask whether there was any precedent of a similar Instruction? During the time

    599
    that he had been in the House he had never heard of any Instruction of this kind being given to a Committee, and the House ought to be informed whether there was any precedent for the proposal now made?
    MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, there was a precedent in the ease of the Manchester Corporation Water Bill. He believed that Clause 13 of the Bill required the Corporation of Manchester to enter into a certain undertaking in regard to making certain plantations, in order to prevent the scenery from being interfered with; and if they failed to comply with that provision, there was a power to take them before the Justices of the Peace.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONknew nothing of the Bill; but the hon. Member who moved the Instruction ought to say whether there was any likelihood of the scenery being destroyed, if it was not passed. They ought to have a distinct statement whether that was likely to be the case or not. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to state that the promoters did not propose in any way to interfere with the scenery, and that they altogether disclaimed any intention of interfering with it.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that was perfectly correct.
    MR. W. H. JAMESpointed out that there was an Instruction given to a Committee almost identical with the one which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. S. Howard). It would be found that in the case of the Bill promoted by the Corporation of Manchester, which proposed to take certain portions of the Thirlmere Lake, an Instruction was given to the Committee to strike out the provisions of that Bill which might have the effect of destroying the scenery; and unless an Instruction of the same kind was given before the present Bill was sent to a Select Committee, it would be impossible for the Committee to consider the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes 78; Noes 42: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 178.)

PARLIAMENT—SELECTION.
Leave given to the Committee of Selection to make a Special Report:—
SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged Mr. Samuel Smith from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Wills.
Ordered, That the Special Report do lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT— STATISTICS.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Agricultural Department will obtain returns in December showing the estimated produce of grain for the year, and the number of the different kinds of live stock in the Country at that period; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that the Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, which is now only obtained on application, shall be circulated with the December Agricultural Returns?
  MR. DODSON: I quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the importance of obtaining not only a Return of grain produce, but of produce of other kinds; and several years ago I publicly called attention to the fact that Great Britain is, as I believe, the only country possessing a civilized agriculture which is destitute of such Returns. Since the Agricultural Department has been established, Lord Carlingford and myself have had the whole matter under our most careful consideration. But to obtain reliable grain statistics—and if we are to have Government statistics, they must be reliable—it will be necessary for the Government to begin to collect them very much earlier in the year than December, and I can hardly say that we could this year obtain satisfactory Returns. As regards the other part of the Question, that of obtaining Returns of the different kinds of live stock in the country in December, I should like to be satisfied as to the advantage of obtaining a second census of animals in the course of a year, as it would involve troubling occupiers with a second set of Schedules. Before committing myself to that, I should like to assure myself that it will be worth the trouble and expense it would involve. With regard

  601
  to the latter part of the Question, I think the Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council might usefully be circulated when it is issued; but I will make inquiries and see what can be done.

  VACCINATION LAWS (GERMANY).
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in "the Königliche Privile-girte Berlinische Zeitung," regarding certain tables recently issued by the German State Health Office, illustrating the working of the Vaccination Laws in Germany; and, whether he will have the goodness to procure a copy of the tables for the Library of the House?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The attention of the Local Government Board had not previously been called to the tables referred to; but they have communicated with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with a view to a copy being obtained for the Library of the House.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—MAILS TO MAURITIUS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether a contract has been signed with the Mauritius Steamship Company, Limited, to run a line of steamers to carry mails between Aden, Réunion, Seychelles, and Mauritius; and, if so, when the contract will commence?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I may say that in September, 1881, an arrangement was entered into with the Mauritius Steamship Company, Limited, to carry mails by steamers which they announced their intention of running between Aden, Réunion, the Seychelles, and Mauritius; but after much delay, it was found a few weeks ago that the Company were not in a position to fulfil their engagement in a satisfactory manner, and notice was given them to consider the negotiations as at an end.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—LAW AND JUSTICE—MR. BANERJEE.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government have received Mr. Sundranath Banerjee's memorial, praying that the question of the legality of his committal for contempt of court should
  602
  be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, whether he has come to any decision in the matter?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Mr. Banerjee's Memorial has been received, and is under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council at the present time.

  DRAINAGE AND INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)—DRAINAGE OF LOUGH NEAGH.
  SIR RICHARD WALLACEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government propose to take any action with respect to the drainage of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, having regard to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1880 on Inland Navigation, and to the deputations which recently waited on the Lord Lieutenant?
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he has seen the report of Mr. Barton, the eminent engineer, with regard to the drainage of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, and the resolution of the Grand Jury of the county of Londonderry founded on that report, passed at Spring Assizes 1883; whether he is aware that a large area of land on Lower Bann was taxed for drainage purposes for the benefit of lands on Upper Bann, which lands on Lower Bann are also taxed for navigation purposes both inland and to the sea, which taxation, to repay large expenditure, would be of much less advantage if the inland navigation were destroyed; and, whether the Government have decided upon the course they intend to pursue?
  MR. COURTNEY: In answer to the hon. Baronets the Members for Lisburn and Coleraine, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have been fully informed of the views held by the various districts and persons interested in the question connected with the River Bann. The second of these Questions well illustrates the conflicting character of the claims to be reconciled. The matter is one which should be settled by mutual agreement between the parties concerned; but with a view to suggesting a solution, the Government have ordered an immediate and careful survey of the Lower Bann, in the hope that it may be found practicable to alleviate the floods without destroying the navigation, to which some importance seems to be attached.

  603
  The numerous engineering schemes-which have been forwarded will not fail to receive their due share of consideration before a decision is arrived at.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE REPUBLIC OF STELLALAND—MURDER OF MR. J. W. HONEY, A BRITISH SUBJECT, BY DUTCH BOERS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the murder in February last by Dutch Boers, in the so-called "Republic) of Stellaland," of Mr. J. W. Honey, a British subject; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, in order to secure the punishment of the murderers, who are well known?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The only news the Government has is that this man Honey was one of the freebooters in Bechuanaland, and that he has been murdered. He was proclaimed an outlaw by the Government of Stellaland. [Mr. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: What Government?] The self-constituted Government of Stellaland. The information we have is that his murderer is supposed to be a man named Ireland, who has come into Griqualand West, and the officer administering the Government there has issued a Commission under 26 & 27 Vict. c. 35, which is entitled an Act for the Prevention and Punishment of Offences committed by Her Majesty's Subjects in South Africa, under which, if evidence was forthcoming, the men would be arrested and tried.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I should like to ask whether we are to understand that Her Majesty's Government regard Honey as one of the freebooters of Bechuanaland? [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes.] And, secondly, whether we were to understand from the answer that Her Majesty's Government recognized the so-called Republic of Stella-land, or the so-called Government of Stellaland?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The only reason why I said anything about the self-constituted authorities of Bechuanaland is, that this murder was brought about because Honey had himself served up to that time as an ally, and then when he was proclaimed as an outlaw he was murdered by the people.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But is it not a fact that the self-constituted authorities of Stellaland are the Dutch freebooters who deprived Montsoia and Mankoroane of their territories?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I believe the hon. Member is right.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What we want is an explanation of the sort of Government that was established in Stellaland. We ought to have some clear notion of what it is, and if it was recognized in any way by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: It is a very simple matter. ["Oh, oh!"] I have been giving a narrative of facts. I cannot see what complication there is. The Government have had sent to them this proclamation of this so-called Republic, issued by a man called Niewkirk, styling himself President of the Provisional Republic of Stellaland, and Honey's name was mentioned as an outlaw, and soon after that he was murdered.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What we want to know is the sort of people Her Majesty's Government have been corresponding with?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: You cannot say we have corresponded with them. The document was forwarded to us as a public document by the authorities.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CROWN LANDS BILL.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will undertake not to take the Committee stage upon the Crown Lands Bill at a time when the opponents of the Bill would not have time to state their objections previous to the Speaker leaving the Chair?
  MR. COURTNEY: I believe the opposition to this Bill is, in reality, directed to a couple of clauses, and I would undertake not to take these clauses in Committee without due warning to those who opposed them. At this time of the Session, I must avail myself of any opportunity that offers to move that the Speaker leaves the Chair.

  STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES—IRISH EMIGRANTS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  605
  Whether any of the emigrants forwarded to America by Mr. Tuke's Committee were persons who had been inmates of the Belmullet Union Workhouse?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have applied to Dublin, and am informed that the authorities are in communication with Mr. Tuke; but that the right man for information is my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. S. Buxton), who has worked with such extraordinary and disinterested energy in the West of Ireland. He informs me that out of the 2,500 emigrated, with the circumstances of all of whom he made himself intimately acquainted, he knows but two families who had been in the Belmullet Workhouse. In one case the father, Henry Barrett, went out to his son at Rose Mountain, Wisconsin; he received £9 on landing in America, and my hon. Friend has heard from the son that the party have arrived safely, and are doing well. The other family went to Minnesota, and got £6 on landing. They left as long ago as March 30. There was, perhaps, a single woman besides; but my hon. Friend is pretty sure there were no more.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, in reference to a previous reply of the right hon. Gentleman, that these persons were not ordered to be returned by the American Government on account of their poverty, he would like to ask him was it not a fact that the only money they had on landing was the £1 or so left after paying for their passage money, &c.; and he would like further to ask him whether any proposal would be made to the United States Emigration Commissioners to allow these unfortunate people to land, with some provision for their maintenance, instead of having them sent back again to the workhouse?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Inconsequence of the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) last night, I have drafted a letter, the result of which will be that we shall ascertain whether the suggestions he made can be carried out. Until we obtain full information I shall be unable to inform the House on what grounds these poor people have been sent back. They are so few, and the circumstances are so very different, that I cannot but think that it is not a question of a few pounds, but that the United States authorities see something about them
  606
  which make them not satisfactory settlers. It is impossible to say anything further just now.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that some of the Irish emigrants whom the American Government have ordered to be sent back to Europe are coming back in a ship bound for Antwerp; and, if this is so, whether the Irish Government intend to send anyone to Antwerp to look after the returned emigrants, and to provide for them a passage to Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have requested the Foreign Office to ascertain how this matter stands. Her Majesty's Representative has been communicated with, and has been asked to watch carefully what are the steps taken in each individual case.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE SHANNON TRUST.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Bill dealing with the Shannon Trust, and which was stated to be in the hands of the draughtsman some months ago, will be introduced this Session?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry to say that I must abandon the hope of introducing this Bill in the present Session. A Bill was drawn; but unexpected difficulties have presented themselves in working out the details, which I will do my best to settle in the Recess.

  PETROLEUM ACTS—STORAGE OF PETROLEUM.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the storage of petroleum in and near the Metropolis; whether he is aware that at the present time there is stored at the seven wharves in the Metropolitan area 335,000 barrels, equal to 13,400,000 gallons, and that at one wharf alone on the Thames over 80,000 barrels, equal to 3,200,000 gallons, are stored, mostly in the open air, 15 to 20 feet above the level of the surrounding property, without any adequate protection to prevent inflammable material flowing into the river and neighbourhood in case of accident; whether such storage is under the control of either the Government, the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Thames Conservancy;

  607
  and, if the mode of storing has been sanctioned by the Home Office?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, this was, no doubt, a matter of great importance, but it was one in which the Secretary of State had absolutely no authority. The storage of petroleum was regulated by the Act of 1871. Under that Act the Secretary of State was not responsible in any way for the storage of petroleum, and had no official cognizance of the extent or condition of the storage in any particular locality, nor had he any authority in regard to the inspection of the stores. The storage was entirely controlled by licences granted by the local authority, which, in the Metropolitan area outside the City, and outside the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy, was the Metropolitan Board of Works. The high-test petroleums were not subject to any legislative restriction. It was only the more highly inflammable petroleum which was subject to any legislation whatever. The only authority the Secretary of State had was if a licence was refused to a trader he might appeal to the Secretary of State to enlarge his rights, but not restrict them. He had made inquiries as to the state of affairs, and the Metropolitan Board of Works had informed him that the figures given by the hon. Baronet were not very far from the mark; that the storage took place mainly in the open air; that in the case specially referred to in the Question the petroleum was surrounded by high embankments, which would prevent it flowing on to the adjacent lands or into the river. Control was only provided by the Act over petroleum which flashed at lower than 73 degrees. Samples were occasionally taken to test it in the stores; and it had been ascertained that out of 155 samples taken in the present year, not one flashed below 73 degrees. He confessed that he had long been of opinion that this was an unsatisfactory state of things. Some time ago he prepared a Bill on the subject of petroleum, and it was carefully considered, in conjunction with the scientific authorities of the Metropolitan Board. He need not say that he should be glad to introduce such a Bill; but it would not be possible to pass it through that House, for directly he put the Bill down it would be blocked. What he proposed to do was to introduce the Bill
  608
  into the House of Lords, and to see what course was taken with regard to it by their Lordships, and afterwards, if possible, to bring it before the House of Commons.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether, a short time ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not get a Dynamite Bill through both Houses in three hours?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; and if the hon. Member can promise that I shall have the same facilities, I will endeavour to do the same with this Bill.
  In reply to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that petroleum was regulated by the Act of 1871.
  MR. CALLANasked whether it was a fact that the Home Secretary had been in Office three years, and had taken no measures to remedy the state of things that he had just confessed now existed? ["Order, order!"]
  [No reply was given.]

  THE IRISH BOARD OF WORKS— LOANS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that Mr. Michael Quigley, of Knockjames, Tulla, county Clare, applied for a loan of £200 to the Irish Board of Works as far back as February 1880, but has not yet obtained it; if it is a fact that Mr. Quigley is owner in fee of the farm upon which he proposed to expend this money, and that he also gave two respectable farmers as sureties, but that he was informed by the Board of Works that they required "unquestionable security," and what is meant by "unquestionable security," whether it refers to repayment or application of loan, or both; if it is a fact that a sum of £ 1 13 s. 4d. is now claimed by the Board of Works from Mr. Quigley as "preliminary expenses," besides his having to pay an engineer £2 10 s.; and, if it is a fact that delays of this description are of common occurrence in the transaction of Board of Words business, and that preliminary charges are in all cases so exorbitant; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to remedy these defects in the administration of so important a Department?
  MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Quigley applied for a loan in August, 1880, which, after due inquiry, was sanctioned in October of that year. In accordance with the Rules, he was called upon to name sureties for the due application of the money, not for the repayment of the loan. He first named a man whose security was not considered satisfactory; then, after a very long delay, he named a priest, who, however, was forbidden by ecclesiastical regulations to sign the bond; but at last, on the 18th of June, he named a sufficient surety, to whom the bond has been sent for execution. The first instalment will be issued as soon as the bond is returned. The preliminary expenses, for which £1 13 s. 4d. will be deducted from the first instalment, are the cost of the advertisements required by law and of the registration. The Board of Works have no knowledge of the other payment mentioned.

  DWELLINGS OF THE POOR— LEGISLATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will give an opportunity this Session for a discussion upon the dwellings of the poor, and especially for the consideration of a scheme for the provision of houses with land and recreation ground in the rural suburbs of the large towns?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to this Question, I am bound to say that the Government could not engage, in the present state of Public Business, to set aside any other Business for the purpose of such a discussion, or I think I may say generally of any discussion, except that having regard to legislative measures which it is intended to proceed with during the present Session.

  SUEZ SECOND CANAL—RUMOURED AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask a Question of the Government, which is of some urgency, and of which I gave private Notice to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about two hours ago. It is with regard to the following notice which appeared in the newspapers this morning:—
  "The following Official Note, drawn up and signed by the Secretary of the Suez Canal Company, was yesterday posted up in their offices at
  610
  Paris. It was previously submitted to the English Delegates for their approval:—' The bases of the accord between the Suez Canal Company and the English Government being established, M. Ferdinand de Lesseps, in compliance with the express desire of Her Majesty's Ministers, leaves for London with his son, M. Charles Aimé de Lesseps, for the consecration of that accord.—MAHIUS FONTANE, Secretary General.' "
  The Question I wish to ask is, whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have come to an agreement with the Suez Canal Company as to the point mentioned in the notice I have just read?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The information that I have to give on the part of the Government is as follows. In the first place, M. Charles de Lesseps has actually arrived in London, and M. Ferdinand de Lesseps is expected in London this afternoon, and their arrival here is on the express invitation of Her Majesty's Government—Her Majesty's Government having thought that matters have reached a stage at which personal communication between the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Company and themselves will be conducive to a satisfactory settlement. The stage is this—that bases have been provisionally agreed upon, which gives, as we think, reasonable ground—I do not wish to go any further—for hope of arriving at a conclusion that may be satisfactory to all parties; but, of course, the engagement I previously gave of the arriving at no final conclusion without publicity still holds good.
  MR. BOURKE: Can the right bon. Gentleman tell the House what those bases are?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No advantage would arise from entering into that. We have not arrived at the point when that information could be given.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—OCCUPATION BY FRANCE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have not been able to give Notice, Whether there is any truth in the report that the French have taken possession of the New Hebrides?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have received a private Notice of a similar Question from an hon. Member opposite. No information has been received at the Foreign Office; but I may say that it is probable that information

  611
  would arrive in the first instance at the Colonial Office; and, having communicated with the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, I have his authority to state that no information on the subject has been received.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to put another Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have offered or given any assistance to the Government of Egypt with a view to suppress the cholera; and, if so, what steps have been taken?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the House desires information as to the measures taken for the suppression of the cholera in Egypt, it would be better that I should give a short statement on that subject on Monday.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether, when he came to answer the Question on Monday, the noble Lord would be good enough to say whether there had been any increase in the number of deaths from cholera at Da-mietta and Mansourah; and, whether there had been any cases in the Egyptian Army or among English soldiers in Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The last figures I have received of the number of deaths are in a telegram from Mr. Cookson, at Alexandria—namely, the number of deaths from cholera on July 5—at Damietta, 109; Mansourah, 68; Samanoud, 10; Cherbin, 4; and Alexandria, 1; about which there was some doubt. As to the other part of the Question, we have not heard of any deaths from cholera in either the Egyptian or English Army.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: In consequence of a reply that was made to a Question of mine yesterday, I beg to give Notice that I will, on the earliest opportunity, move the following Resolution:—
  "That in view of the unanimous desire of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies for the establishment of a British Protectorate over New Guinea and the adjacent Islands, and the im-
  612
  portance of Preventing any Foreign Power taking possession of these Islands, this House prays Her Majesty's Government to establish a Protectorate over them."
  MR. CALLAN: In that case I give Notice that I shall ask whether the French have not just as much right to take possession of the New Hebrides as the English had to take possession of New Guinea?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a matter of opinion which I could not answer.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th July.] [SIXTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Disqualification of Electors.
    Clause 32 (List in register of voters of persons incapacitated for voting by corrupt or illegal practices &c.) agreed to.
    Clause 33 (Notice of paid polling agent, &c. and preventing his voting).
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, they were imposing, by this clause, an immense number of difficulties upon the candidate, as well as the Returning Officer and other persons engaged at elections. The enormous details involved in these operations would impose great labour upon these individuals, and could not fail in some cases to end in default. He thought it must be accepted that the object of the candidate and election agent was to conduct the election with due regard to the spirit of the law.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond), dealing with the first part of the clause; and, until that Amendment had been disposed of, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be premature.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, his sole object was to save the time of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and of the Committee, in discussing this clause. He

    613
    had a strong impression that the multitude of details set forth would impair the efficiency of the measure; and if some of them could he got rid of, he believed it would be of the greatest advantage to the working of the Bill. He would like to see the clause withdrawn, for the purpose of reconsideration.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. CALLANwished to put a question to the Chairman on a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was no Question before the Committee.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was about to propose an Amendment. It would be quite time enough for hon. Members to call him to Order when he had transgressed the Rules of the Committee; but he was perfectly within his right, and was, moreover, acquainted with the Bill, of which it appeared to him a good many Gentlemen opposite knew nothing.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment which he intended to propose.
    MR. CALLANsaid, there was a great difficulty already in counting the constituency even under the Ballot Act. Under the present Bill a candidate would have to appoint, under his own hand, a polling agent, a clerk, and messenger for every polling booth, who must make a statutory declaration before a magistrate, and whose appointment must be made by 8 o'clock in the morning. It would be impossible to carry out this portion of the Bill. Let the Committee consider for a moment the county of Cork, which was 70 miles in length, and see how it was possible for the provisions of the clause to be complied with. At the present day a candidate was bound to sign the appointment of every polling agent who entered the booth, and that agent must produce to the Returning Officer a statutory declaration as well as his appointment in writing. He believed that in the Universities of the country the candidate, relying on the discretion of his agents, signed these appointments in blank. He wished to have omitted from the clause the words which provided that the election agent should send to the Returning Officer before the day of the poll a list stating the name of every person appointed on behalf of the candidate to be a polling agent,
    614
    clerk, or messenger, and specifying whether such person was paid or not. As to that part of the sub-section which required that the list should contain the description of every such person, and, where he was an elector, his number in the register of electors, that he admitted to be right and fair; but he foresaw the impossibility of handing to the Returning Officer before the day of the poll the name of every polling agent, clerk, or messenger. It would be utterly beyond the power of any candidate or his agent to comply with the requirements contained in the 1st sub-section. He was not speaking in any obstructive spirit; he was addressing himself, through the Chair, to the President of the Local Government Board particularly, because he knew that he was acquainted with the working of the Ballot Act, and was, therefore, aware of the enormous difficulties placed in the way of candidates in complying with the Act. Referring again to the county of Cork, he pointed out that there were 27 polling places, for every one of which the appointment of three separate individuals would have to be signed. Again, if it were possible to supply the names of the polling agents, clerks, and messengers to the Returning Officer, the election agent would be certainly unable to supply them to the candidate on the opposite side. He challenged any Member of the House, who was acquainted with the management of elections, to say that it was possible in any but the very smallest constituency—Portarlington, for instance—to comply with the requirements of the section. Nothing could possibly result from the clause but vexation and trouble; for instance, what was the use of sending in on the day before the poll a list containing all the details mentioned, and requiring that a copy of it should be sent to the agent of every other candidate, who would probably not receive it until 48 hours after the election? The clause imposed such enormous difficulties in the way of everyone engaged in the conduct of an election, and it was, moreover, so unnecessary, that he believed the mere statement of the case to the Attorney General would secure the alteration which he desired. At present, a candidate had simply to appoint a polling agent, clerk, and messenger, and send in their names with the statutory

    615
    declaration to the Returning Officer; but if a personation agent were appointed, not only his name, but his address must be given. He thought it would be an improvement of the present law if a candidate, or his election agent, were compelled to give the name as well as the address of the persons employed at the polling booth; but he could not agree to the proposal to place upon the candidate and his agent conditions with which it was utterly impossible to comply. He, therefore, proposed to leave out the words "before the day of the poll."
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, that, in that case, his Amendment would take precedence of that of the hon. Member. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 17, after the word "officer," to insert the words "one clear day."—(Mr. J. Hollond.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was always ready to listen to suggestions coming from any Members of the Committee. As persons employed as polling agents, messengers, and clerks were disqualified from voting, it was necessary that some information should be given as to the persons employed in the manner specified by the clause. He was prepared to consider whether, within a reasonable time after the election, there might not be a Return made with regard to these persons; and with that object he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to withdraw the clause.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Brighton was an instance of the complete ignorance of Members of that House with respect to the actual working of elections. One might take a morning stroll over the whole constituency represented by the hon. Member; but it would take a day and a-half to go over his constituency, and probably a week to cover the county in which it was situated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, before the clause was withdrawn, he wished to point out the impossibility of complying with its provisions, so far as related to giving to
    616
    the Returning Officer the names of persons from whom committee rooms were hired on behalf of the candidate. It might be possible in the case of a room taken from one individual; but how, in the case of an Association, would it be possible to give a description of every one of, say, 15 Directors? If words were introduced into the Bill which would render it unworkable, it was necessary that the Committee should take some steps to guard against such consequences.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked whether it was worth while to disqualify a person properly employed at an election? He believed that about an equal number were employed on both sides, and in that case their votes would have no influence on the result of the election.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that throughout the Bill the Government had introduced a number of cumbersome and unworkable provisions. In assenting to the withdrawal of the clause, he hoped it would not be understood that there was any agreement on the part of the Committee to these small details. He trusted that when the new clause came forward they would not be told that they had already assented to something of the same sort. For his own part, he protested against these miserable and petty reservations.
    Clause negatived.
    Proceedings on Election Petition.
    Clause 34 (Time for presentation of election petitions, alleging illegal practice, 31 & 32 Vict. c., 125).
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that the Committee had already agreed to a reduction of five days, and the result was that the number of days during which a Petition might be presented now stood at 39. The Attorney General knew that, under the present law, the time for petitioning was limited to 20 days; and he (Mr. Macfarlane) had not heard that any sufficient cause had been shown for doubling or even trebling that period. He would point out to the Attorney General that if the 21 days specified in the 1st sub-section of this clause were maintained, it would be possible for the person petitioned against to sit and vote for nearly two months in that House without having the right to do either the one or the other. He should, therefore, feel

    617
    it his duty to press the Amendment he was about to propose, unless the Attorney General would give some sufficient reason for this enlargement of the time in which a Petition might be presented. He thought the proposal in the 1st subsection was unreasonable, because Petitions were always based upon some act which had taken place at the election, and not upon anything connected with the question of accounts. He understood that if the expenses of an election exceeded the amount which was named in the Schedule, the seat of the candidate would be ipso facto lost. He asked that a reduction of the period of suspense during which a Petition might be sent in should take place, because he did not want to facilitate or assist those electoral Micawbers who were always on the watch for something to turn up against a candidate. Without detaining the Committee any longer, he begged to move that the number of days specified in the sub-section be reduced to seven.
    Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 29, to leave out the word "twenty-one," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought it would be better to reduce the number of days specified.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him they were departing from the existing rule, which required a Petition to be presented within a certain number of days of one definite starting point—namely, the day on which the candidate was returned. This system would be attended, in his opinion, with several curious and objectionable results. He, therefore, opposed the departure from the existing practice.
    MR. CALLANpointed out that in Ireland a Petition had to be presented within 28 days after the Return had been lodged in the hands of the Returning Officer. That system had been found to work satisfactorily, and, as far as he was aware, no complaint had ever been made against it. Why, then, did the Government propose to prolong this period of agony from 28 to 56 days? For his own part, he thought the proposed number of days too many. It might be alleged, in favour of the Go-
    618
    vernment proposal, that the Petition might be dependent on the amount of the election expenses returned; but he thought the election agent would be a great fool who should make a Return of expenses upon which a Petition could be founded. If they gave the candidate an opportunity of making a Return before the Petition was lodged, they held out to him a great inducement for manufacturing a Return. He thought it better to keep to the period of 28 days, which had already worked well.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, this was not a question which required to be argued at very great length. He thought that while sufficient time should be given for presenting a Petition, hon. Members did not desire that it should be prolonged beyond what was absolutely necessary. If, to the 35 days already provided, they added seven days, as proposed by the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Macfarlane), there would result 43 days during which time a Petition might be presented. That was considerably more than the time at present allowed, and he should be glad if the Attorney General could see his way to agree to the suggestion.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he considered that the period of 43 days was unnecessarily long. Nevertheless, he hoped the Attorney General would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that an offence affecting the election might occur on a false Return being made, and it was for that reason the Government took that offence as their starting point in the present case.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that it was evident that many hon. Members, having assisted the Government in making the Bill as binding and stringent as possible, now wanted to find some means of escaping from it. The seven days proposed by the hon. Member for Carlow would be insufficient, because longer time would be required for the examination of Returns and the consultation with solicitors and counsel in order to be assured that a Petition would lie. Therefore, he said, that if any useful alteration were to be made of the number of days specified in the sub-section, it would be necessary that at least 10 or 14 days should be allowed from the

    619
    day on which the Returning Officer received the Return, within which a Petition might be presented.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, as he read the clause, it related only to Petitions founded upon illegal practices, and he gathered that it was intended to leave the law with regard to corrupt practices in the same state as they found it.
    MR. GORSTpointed out that the time proposed was practically eight weeks, because it was exclusive of Sundays. If the Government would reduce this to seven weeks he thought they would be making an acceptable concession.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that if, as his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had pointed out, it were necessary, in the case of Irish elections, to send up to Dublin to examine accounts and consult solicitors and counsel, it would be so because a scrutiny was required by the unsuccessful candidate. He asked whether all those expenses were to come into the maximum fixed by the Schedule?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that, under the existing law, a Petition on the ground of corrupt practices would have to be presented within 21 days after the election.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, although he considered 42 days quite long enough for a Petition to be hanging over the head of a Member, yet he was entirely in the hands of the Attorney General, and as he had been asked to accept 14 days he was willing to do so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 29, to leave out the word "twenty-one," and insert the word "fourteen."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped he should get the assistance of the Attorney General and the President of the Local Government Board in moving the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Tip-perary (Mr. Mayne). The next sub-section said—
    "If the election petition specifically alleges a payment of money, or some other act to have been made or done since the said day by the member or an agent of the member, or with the privity of the member or his election agent in pursuance or in furtherance of the illegal prac-
    620
    tice alleged in the petition, the petition may he presented at any time within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment or other act."
    Now, if the acts referred to did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner until after the time specified he would be precluded by the clause from presenting a Petition. But he thought that if any payment had been made, or act done, in deliberate contravention of the Act, that a Petition should be presented at any time, and not within 28 days after it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner. During his own candidature, he was in his sitting room at 12 o'clock on the night preceding the day of election; some sand was thrown up to the window; and a person whom he had never seen before came to the window and said—"Mr. Callan, you will certainly be beaten by a majority of 50; but if you will promise me £500, I promise you that you shall be returned by that majority." He did not, of course, yield to the temptation, and he was defeated by the exact majority named by this interesting stranger. He knew since then that £500 had been paid to this person to corrupt the electors of the borough, which was one of the most rotten in Ireland. Now, he asked, why he should be precluded from petitioning in that case after even a lapse of 12 months? The fact that the money had been paid did not reach his ears until six months afterwards. He saw no reason whatever for precluding him from presenting a Petition, because he could not get the necessary proof within the prescribed 28 days. The proposal of the Government was equivalent to placing a premium on the concealment of illegal practices for the time specified. He appealed to the Committee to say whether it was not giving an absolute bill of indemnity for any illegal practices that could be kept secret for 28 days after they were committed? For these reasons, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne).
    Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 38, to leave out the words "twenty-eight days," and insert the words "twelve months."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. Member for Louth would not press this Amendment. All that the hon. Member had stated with respect to corrupt practices was not touched by the clause. The law at present was that within 28 days after the election the Petition might be sent in. Some short Statute of Limitation was absolutely necessary, and the time fixed in the sub-section appeared to the Government to be reasonable.
    MR. CALLANsaid, it was professed by the Government that their wish was to put down corrupt and illegal practices by this Bill. But why did the Bill give an indemnity to a man guilty of illegal practices, provided he was able to conceal them for 28 days after he had committed them? He would abide by the Amendment he had moved, and he must say that it did not look very well for the pure intentions of the Government to place a premium on the concealment of illegal practices for 28 days.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 5: Majority 210.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 5, after the word "section," to insert the word "first."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 35 (Withdrawal of election petition).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed to omit Section 4, considering the penalty too severe for what might be, under some circumstances, a trivial offence. He would not go into the matter now; but he hoped the Attorney General would, before Report, consider whether he could modify the penalty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 40, to leave out Sub-section (4).—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, men were punished for misdemeanour, and it was therefore important, if possible, to stop this practice, which prevailed to a great extent in former times. The punishment proposed was a maximum punishment; but
    622
    if the Amendment were withdrawn he would consider the matter.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it might, no doubt, be advisable to mitigate this penalty, for if it was made too severe there would be great danger of another evil which was more serious than this—namely, arrangements before elections that no Petition should be presented on either side.
    MR. ONSLOWsuggested that after a Petition had been lodged it should be held to be the duty of the Petitioners to proceed.
    THE ATTONEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the law at present, for a Petition could not be withdrawn without the leave of the Judge, either for some special reason, or for want of sufficient evidence.
    MR. LEWISsaid, it was notorious that the law as it stood had been evaded. It had been evaded in the present Parliament. Cases were perfectly well known, and, therefore, what was the use of the Committee passing a clause of this most stringent and violent character—hard labour for withdrawal? The withdrawal of a Petition was not theft, and it was no offence in itself. The Committee had better not in cumber the Report too much, for there were very many questions left for the Report. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton started hares, and immediately chopped their heads off. He did not understand the object of making suggestions, and then withdrawing them. This was a very important matter. He could remember the time when it was a common practice for Representatives of both sides to meet and withdraw Petitions against each other. That was within the past 25 years; but it was no longer legal. But were they going to send men to prison with hard labour for doing what Members of that House had done—namely, come to an understanding, and then announce the vacation of the seat? There should be some reasonable punishment; but nothing so stringent and violent as this. He should support the Amendment, unless the penalty was reduced to moderate dimensions; and if the Amendment was withdrawn he should then propose to reduce the punishment to simple imprisonment by striking out the words "with or without hard labour," and give an alternative of a fine of £1,000. He did

    623
    not approve of the withdrawal of Petitions; but what he urged, was that there ought to be some relation between the character of the offence and the extent of the punishment. Unless the Attorney General would modify the penalty he should support the Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Member did not realize that the country was getting purer and purer every year in regard to elections. He would suggest to the Attorney General, if he reconsidered this matter upon Report, that he should go a little further. This clause only dealt with the withdrawal of Petitions; but surely the Attorney General was aware that very often there was a corrupt practice in regard to the withdrawal of a candidature. A candidate often came forward, and, on receiving his expenses, withdrew his candidature. He should be glad if the Attorney General would add something to deal with that sort of thing.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that with regard to his starting hares and chopping their heads off, his object was to save time. He did not object to the principle of this sub-section at all, but simply to the excessive penalty it imposed on minor as well as major offences; and as the Attorney General had promised to consider the matter he thought it was the most practical course to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 22, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "with or without hard labour."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was in the hands of the Committee in respect to this matter; but he would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, and did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee; but he was dead against hurrying this Bill through, whatever the period of the Session, for it was one which might affect every Member, and ought, therefore, to have the most careful consideration. He thought the penalty under this clause a great deal
    624
    too severe, and should move to reduce the term of imprisonment from 12 to 6 months.
    Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 8, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert the word "six."—[Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think he was open to the charge of having rushed the Bill through Committee. With regard to the Amendment, he had already given way to what he thought was the reasonable proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); but he could not consent to minimize the punishment too much, and he hoped the Committee would allow him to adhere to the term in the clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFEwished to know why the Director of Public Prosecutions was to be appointed with the approval of the Attorney General? He thought that was a bad Proviso, for it would give a political colour to the whole matter. He would move the omission of that Proviso pro formâ, in order to hear the explanation of the Attorney General.
    Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 14, to leave out the words "appointed with the approval of the Attorney General."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that personally he should be glad if this duty did not devolve upon himself; but at present the Director of Public Prosecutions acted in all eases under his direction. There must be some sort of supervision, and by the method proposed there would be a double check on the appointment. The Director of Public Prosecutions would have the right of selection; and if the person selected were a fit and proper person the Attorney General would never object to him; but by this mode there would be a double check. At present the Election Commissioners were appointed by the Attorney General.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENagreed with the hon. Member that there was too

    625
    much of this Attorney General lawmaking.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he hoped the words would be retained, as they would provide Parliamentary responsibility.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought it very invidious for the Attorney General to have this power.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had now to appoint all the officials that went down to an election trial; and they were subject to the approval of Parliament.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 36 (Attendance of Director of public prosecutions on trial of election petition, and prosecution by him of offenders).
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSON MR. H. B. SAMUELSON moved to insert in page 24, line 26, after "approve," the words—
    "Provided always, That such barrister or solicitor shall not be connected by birth or residence, or in any other manner, with the constituency in which the election petition is being tried."
    He proposed this in the interest of the public confidence in the officer sent to represent the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that he might be above a breath of suspicion; and hoped the Attorney General would either accept the Amendment, or provide some other safeguard against any doubt being entertained in the locality as to the perfect impartiality of the barrister or solicitor selected.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 24, line 26, after the word "approve," to insert the words—" Provided always, That such barrister or solicitor shall not be connected by birth or residence, or in any other manner, with the constituency in which the election petition is being tried."—(Mr. H. B. Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LEWISsaid, that when hon. Members proposed Amendments they should understand the construction of clauses. The words "connected in any other manner" would cover the whole range of the world's history, and the universal connection of mankind.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he should not object to the words "in any
    626
    other manner" being withdrawn, if that would satisfy the hon. Member for Londonderry, who always appeared to think that if any other Member than himself proposed an Amendment he must have some interested motive; and that when bos locutusest—giving the first word in an American sense—when he had given his judgment upon the matter there was nothing more to be said. If the Attorney General thought nothing of this sort could be done he would withdraw the Amendment; but, at the same time, he thought some such Proviso should be inserted.
    MR. CALLANsuggested that baptism certificates and vaccination certificates should be required, and said it was very refreshing to find the hon. Member rebuking the hon. Member for Londonderry, who probably knew more about the subject than all the hon. Members opposite, including the bumptious Member for Banbury.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONexpressed the hope that decency would be preserved in the debate; and he would ask the Chairman whether it was in Order to describe a Member as the "bumptious Member for Banbury?" The remark did not apply to him, because he did not represent Banbury; and entirely in the interests of Order he called the Chairman's attention to the remark.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will, I am sure, feel the propriety of withdrawing the expression.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked whether it was Parliamentary to call the hon. Member for Londonderry a "boss."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am not called upon to give an opinion upon the word. I am not aware that it is an English word.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am sure every one of us wishes to proceed as we have hitherto. I appeal to the hon. Member for Louth to withdraw the words he had used, which are liable to be misunderstood.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that when the hon. Member withdrew the offensive term he had applied to the hon. Member for Londonderry, he would withdraw his words, but not until then.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he did not feel in any way insulted; on the contrary, he regarded it as a highly classical

    627
    allusion, of which a man might be proud.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he meant it in that sense.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he meant his observations in the same sense.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON moved to omit words in the clause, in order to protect localities from having all the expenses put upon them, if the Director of Prosecutions should ask a single question of a witness.
    Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 36, to leave out all the words from "if" to "or "in line 38.—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the subject with which this clause dealt was one to which he had given some time and attention. The evident intention of this clause was the prevention of the suppression of evidence, which had often occurred in the past. That was a very intelligible object; but he thought the framer of the clause had hardly seen the whole bearing it would have on Election Petitions. If agreed to as it stood, it would have a great effect in discouraging Election Petitions; and as an Election Petition was an initial step to the full exposure of electoral impurity, any stumbling block in the way of a Petition must assist the extension of electoral impurity and illegalities. The reason why a defeated candidate petitioned against his rival was that he wanted the seat for himself, or desired another election, at which he might hope to gain the seat. They could not expect people to petition on the high moral ground of exposing electoral impurity; and it was certain that no Petitioner would take upon himself all the trouble and expense, and odium and wear and tear connected with a Petition, if he thought that so much electoral impurity would be exposed that a Commission would follow upon the Petition. He would wish to unseat his adversary, but not to show sufficient reason for the Commission reporting the prevalence of extensive corrupt practices. If it was thought likely that the Director of Pro-
    628
    secutions would produce evidence against the Petitioner and his friends, great pressure would be put upon the defeated candidate not to present a Petition; and so the clause would discourage bonâ fide Petitions. At the same time, he thought it was likely to encourage frivolous Petitions, because many persons, not having sufficient evidence themselves, would petition on the chance of the Director of Prosecutions discovering sufficient evidence to unseat the Member. Therefore, he thought the clause had better be omitted. Later on he should propose an Amendment to abolish what was at present a great discouragement to the production of evidence—namely, the fear of disfranchisement, as he believed that would be the best way of meeting the difficulty.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, this provision was founded on the recommendations of the Committee of 1875; but, in some respects, it did not go so far as those recommendations. It was pointed out by evidence before that Committee that one of the great evils was that, although evidence came out before an election tribunal showing that persons had been guilty of corrupt practices, in consequence of which a Member was unseated, the very people who had committed corrupt practices, as a rule, suffered no punishment. All their malpractices might be exposed, but they went entirely free; and it was felt by the Committee to be desirable to let all persons know that if an Election Petition came about there would probably be proceedings against everyone concerned. At all events, in making a clause of this kind they had acted upon the strong recommendations of the Committee, who went fully into the subject. He thought that the fear of what might happen to individuals who indulged in corrupt practices would be found to have a very beneficial result.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, his great hope was that the Government would persevere in the clause, adopting the provision of the Bill to the altered circumstances of the electoral system.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that for a great part of the Session he had been engaged in one of the Standing Committees in the House, and on that Committee there had been constant allusions made to the Public Prosecutor.

    629
    He was glad to know that the Attorney General had found some use for the Public Prosecutor; and he trusted that this official would, in future, do good and useful work.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it appeared to him that this was one of the most valuable clauses of the Bill. They ought to take care, now that candidates were to be liable to such heavy penalties, that men who committed illegal offences, thus endangering the position of the candidate, should also be severely punished. What had been the state of affairs hitherto? Why, clearly that Election Judges had looked upon these inquiries as most disagreeable duties; they had sat, perhaps, for a day or two, then a case had been proved of corruption; agency had been accepted, by the Judge stating that he considered agency proved; and at once the counsel on each side put their heads together, and absolutely crushed inquiry, and although there had been persons far more guilty than the candidate they had got off scot free. That clause would be one which would bring under punishment a number of people who ought to be punished; and he trusted it would have a deterrent effect upon the people who, at election times, were only too prone to break the law.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Power to Election Court to order payment by county or borough or individual of costs of election petition).
    MR. SALT MR. SALT moved the omission, pro formâ, of Sub-section (2). The effect of this section would be that the Court might, if it thought fit, order a person found guilty of corrupt practices to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the proceedings before the Court. Now, under previous sections they knew that a man guilty of corrupt practices was liable to imprisonment and to fine, as well as to certain civil disabilities. That sub-section created another penalty to which he might be liable. He (Mr. Salt), not being a lawyer, was, perhaps, not a person very competent to understand the details of this matter; but it seemed to him that, in addition to suffering all the other penalties, a man might be condemned to pay the whole costs of an Election Petition. He did not know whether that was meant or not; but,
    630
    certainly, it was a proper inference from the marginal note—namely—
    "Power to Election Court to order payment by county or borough or individulas is of costs of election petition."
    Of course, with regard to counties and boroughs, there were, no doubt, cases in which a community should be charged with the costs of the Petition. But, with regard to individuals, he thought ignorant persons like himself had a claim to know pretty clearly what was intended.
    Amendment proposed, in page 25, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Salt.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. In the case of a perfectly innocent candidate, it was strictly unfair that he should be called upon to bear the costs of proceedings occasioned by the corruption of a constituency in which he played not the slightest part whatever. Again, if a person, against the will of the candidate, corrupted a constituency, why should he not bear the costs of the inquiry, either wholly or in part? He thought many hon. Members would consider it very unjust that a poor candidate should pay thousands of pounds for that which he had endeavoured to prevent, while the man who committed the offence should not be required to pay a single farthing. Sub-section 2 was very simple. It simply provided that if a man should himself have committed an offence of a corrupt or an illegal practice he might be called upon by the Court to pay the costs of, or incidental to, any proceeding in respect of the said offence. It was only so far as this particular act was concerned that it was intended he should bear the costs of the inquiry.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed to add a few words to this clause to remedy a great grievance. He cordially agreed with the former part of the clause to which the Attorney General had just adverted; and he thought the Committee would quite understand the force of the Amendment he was now about to move, especially when he had troubled them

    631
    with a few figures. The first case which he would bring under the notice of the Committee was one in which the Attorney General was involved, and even victimized. The Committee would be surprised to learn that the costs of the Taunton Petition amounted to no less than £9,822; and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, although he had his costs allowed, was, nevertheless, compelled to put his hands in his pocket and pay out something like £2,000. At Stroud there were three or four contested elections within six months of one another. According to the Report of the Committee, the costs of the first Petition amounted to £5,144; and the costs of the second Petition were, as nearly as could be ascertained, £6,889; the costs of the third amounted to £12,000; and the costs of the fourth Petition were £5,155 on the one side, and £6,624 on the other, making a total of something like £12,000. What he proposed to do was to put an end to this scandal by providing that a man petitioning against an election, and alleging that corrupt practices had been committed, and the Member defending his seat should be placed on the same footing, as if an action had been brought in the Superior Court, and the costs should be taxed on the same scale. He did not think he need trouble the Committee with any further remarks on this point; and he would, therefore, content himself by moving to add at the end of the clause—
    "(3.) The rules and regulations of the Supreme Court of Judicature with respect to costs to be allowed in actions, causes, and matters assigned to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court shall apply to the costs of petition and other proceedings under The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and under this Act, and the taxing officer shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses that would not he allowed in an action in the Queen's Bench Division on the higher scale."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he intended to ask the Attorney General a few questions on this matter; because, although they would all agree with the principle of the Amendment, he was not at all clear in his own mind as to the extent to which it was possible to carry it out. He had always heard, although he spoke from imperfect information, that one of the main reasons for excessive costs of Petitions was the change of
    632
    venue; in fact, trial on the spot had proved more expensive than trial at Westminster. Why was this? Because of the enormous fees that it had been found necessary to pay for the experienced and able counsel who were engaged to support the Petition or defend the seat. His own impression was that there were many expenses which really depended upon the wish of both sides to the Petition to obtain the best possible professional assistance in the conduct of their case, and that, whatever rules they might make, that feeling would still guide the parties to an extent far greater than in the case of an ordinary suit in the Superior Court. If that be so, might not the Amendment result in this—that, although the taxed costs would be smaller than now, the costs beyond the taxed costs which would have to be met by the unfortunate person who was unjustly attacked, and in favour of whom costs might have been given, would be found greater than now? If this were so, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) would be entirely defeated, and the future state of things would be worse than the past.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was not the slightest doubt that in consequence of the change of venue the costs of election inquiries had increased very much. In the one case they had to bring witnesses to London, and in consequence of that fact fewer witnesses, no doubt, appeared. On the other hand, inasmuch as great interests were involved for the county, or the constituency, or for the borough in question, it was very natural the parties wished to have the best legal advice they could get. He knew no part of professional duty which required as great tact as the conducting of election inquiries. Take the case of a man whose honour was involved, and whose position in the House of Commons was at stake. He naturally got the best legal advice to be had, and, if he could, would secure the services of the most skilled attorney, and the most eminent counsel. These professional gentlemen had to break off the continuity of their professional practice in London; and in consequence of having to separate themselves from their ordinary practice, for weeks and sometimes for months, they would not undertake the support or de-

    633
    fence of Election Petitions, unless they received extremely large fees. That would continue, do as they would. A solicitor would not leave his London business, and a counsel would say he would not go unless he was properly compensated. The client would, therefore, be deprived of the counsel's services, and, in all probability, would have to obtain inferior advice. [Cries of "Both sides!"] He admitted that both sides would, in such a case, have to put up with inferior advice; but it would be really leaving justice to take its chance. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) seemed to be labouring under some mistake. At present the cost of an Election Petition were taxed under the Act of 1868. The Amendment would, no doubt, result in lessening the costs between party and party to some extent; but it could not prevent a client making a special arrangement, under which he would have to pay certain given sums for counsel, for instance. He believed the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory)—who represented the Law Society—had been consulted on this matter, and that he was of opinion that there was no objection to the Amendment. He (the Attorney General) was sure his Profession would be glad to make any sacrifice which would tend to lessen the extravagant cost of Election Petitions, and he thought that they might accept this Amendment as a step in the right direction.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he had had no opportunity of consulting his Colleagues in the Law Institution; but, personally, he approved of the Amendment. The Amendment would not interfere with the employment of the best counsel, as, no doubt, the taxing master would take a reasonable view of the Act, and allow higher than the usual fees for the counsel retained. The Amendment was certainly a step in the right direction, although it might not have any extensive operation.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was prepared to accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech appeared to defend the charging of heavy fees by eminent counsel. Eminent counsel, of course, had a right to get as much as they could; but the Committee must
    634
    recollect that one of the objects of this Bill was to cheapen elections. What would be the good of allowing a poor man to get elected cheaply, if as soon as he was elected a rich man could bring an action against him, and involve him in very heavy costs? He (Mr. Leamy) hoped that in future there would never be such a scandal as one Election Petition costing as much as £12,000.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFurged upon the Committee the necessity of taking this question into serious consideration. It would be frequently found that men would get together a few hundred pounds to enable them to pay the expenses of an election; but then a rich man, who, perhaps, had been beaten in the election itself, might bring a Petition against the successful candidate, drive him out of the field, and get elected himself. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) knew a gentleman who many years ago was elected by his fellow-citizens in a Cornish borough. He was most fairly elected; but a Petition was brought against him, and he afterwards stated in that House that he knew he would have succeeded in the Petition if he had gone before the Committee, but that he could not bear the expenses even of a successful Petition. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had upon the Paper a clause which would be to restrict the power of Petitions; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) hoped that that clause might be favourably received by the Government. The case could be conceived of a rich man saying—"I will allow a poor man to get elected, but will bring a Petition against him, in which he will be unable to bear the costs." A poor man's friends might be willing to advance him a few hundred pounds necessary to contest a constituency; but he would not be able to get his friends to assist him in defending a Petition. He hoped the Attorney General would either propose some method himself, or would accept, more or less, the fresh clause the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth intended to bring on, by which the power of petitioning might be limited. He was convinced that, although they might have the best intentions in the world, without some such restricting clause their good intentions would be nullified.
    MR. LEWISquestioned whether the Amendment would, in the least degree, affect one of the greatest items of expense in connection with Election Petitions—namely, the fees given to the eminent counsel who were retained. When the House of Commons surrendered its right to try Election Petitions, it had to make a choice between the convenient and less expensive trials up here, and the long weary trials in the locality concerned. Probably by trials in the constituency itself they arrived at the truth more easily; but great sacrifices were necessitated. Both sides at an Election Petition desired to retain the best counsel that could be got. Now, there was a Trades Union among the Members of the Bar; the late Sir Henry Jackson always described the Bar as a Trades Union. All the leading counsel who used to go to Election Petitions made a bargain amongst themselves that they would never go for less than 200 guineas for the first day, and a refresher of 50 guineas for every subsequent day. He (Mr. Lewis) would not say that that was an unreasonable arrangement to make amongst themselves; but he desired the Committee to understand the real difficulty in this matter. He (Mr. Lewis) had himself put an Amendment on the Paper to this clause. He believed the clause would turn out to be as impractical as many other parts of the Bill, and his Amendment was simply to test the opinion of the Committee upon the matter. He considered that it was no use supposing that they could narrow the costs of an Election Petition by this clause. The two greatest items of expense were counsel's fees and payment to witnesses. If this clause were passed, the solicitor who had to conduct the Petition would say to his client—" Do you wish to have Mr. Sergeant Buzfuz? Because, if you do, you will be required to pay him so-and-so." Whatever arrangement was come to between the counsel and client as to fees, no taxing master could touch. Now, with regard to witnesses. They were, by the Court of Queen's Bench scale, allowed so much a day; but a solicitor would say to his client—" Such and such a person cannot be depended upon, so you must allow me to be more liberal with them." If a client gave special instructions respecting certain witnesses, the taxing master could not
    636
    interfere in the matter. There was no doubt that this Bill would leave the greatest anomaly and scandal behind—namely, the great cost of Election Petitions; and he did not see how they were going in any way to diminish this cost. Although he was prepared to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), he could not but believe that its effect would be nil.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERdenied that counsels' fees were the largest items of expense in Election Petitions. For instance, in the Stroud case out of £5,155, the total costs of one of the parties, the counsel's fees amounted to £1,820. If a man engaged first-class men he must pay for them. What he (Mr. Fowler) proposed to do was to interfere with the unlimited discretion of election agents to employ whom they liked at enormous fees. Personally, he considered there were many members of the Junior Bar quite as competent to conduct Election Petitions as the most eminent counsel. He was fully persuaded the Amendment he proposed was a step in the right direction.
    MR. STANTONsaid, it was quite true that the costs of the Petitions which were heard in his own borough (Stroud) were very excessive; but he could not see in what way they could have been reduced. Eminent counsel were engaged, and therefore eminent fees were paid. In Stroud the expenses of the witnesses, and the long time which the trial lasted, were two of the chief causes of the great expenditure. The expenses of witnesses in election trials were necessarily large, because it was impossible to know what course the proceedings might take; it was quite impossible to know in what order the witnesses would be called. Hon. Members who had had much to do with Petitions knew full well the way in which they were got up; it was well known how every minor act of bribery was sought after. It struck him that the only way to reduce the enormous expenditure in Election Petitions was to do a very simple thing, and that was not to allow anyone whose hands were not clean to reap advantage from a Petition. He believed that if the Bill contained some such provision a stop would be put to many Petitions. He felt that if in the cases at Stroud the Petitioner had known that his own con-

    637
    duct would have been inquired into by the Court, instead of there being four Petitions there would only have been one.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there appeared to be no doubt that the Amendment went in the right direction. There did, however, exist considerable doubt as to how far it did go. The evidence given in the Stroud case went to show that the larger part of the costs consisted of something very like treating; and he could not see how, by the Amendment, this large item of expenditure would be stopped. He was informed that if one of the parties to the Petition gave written authority to the agent managing the case to incur certain expenses the taxing power of the Court would not be able to interfere.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, if a man chose to throw his money away it was purely his own fault.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the great evil was that in the case of a Petition the rich man had an immense advantage over the poor man. They could not prevent the rich man engaging the best counsel; they could not properly deal with the expenditure at election trials in the spirit in which they wished to deal with it, unless the Government would endeavour to find some means by which the rich man should not be able, by the mere length of his purse, to put the poor man at a disadvantage. The Amendment might prevent an attorney getting too much money; but it would not prevent the rich man getting an advantage over the poor man.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the only way in which the rich and the poor man could in this matter be put on equal terms was to introduce a scale of fees for counsel. He was quite sure any proposition of the kind would meet with the most bitter opposition from Members of the Profession; but notwithstanding that, such a proposition would not be without precedent. In Bills for the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts scales of fees were introduced, under which attorneys were allowed 10 s., 15 s., or 20 s., as the case might be, for every case in which he appeared before the Judge. Why should not the same thing be done in this case? Why should it not be said that any barrister appearing before an Election Court should not be allowed to claim more than so many pounds a-day? That would prevent the rich man bring-
    638
    ing down the best counsel from London, and paying him, say, £1,000 for his services, because the opponent, if he were called upon to pay the costs, would only have to pay the scale fees.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that if parties wished to go beyond any scale of fees fixed upon they could not be prevented from doing so.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, it had been stated that the Bill was intended to destroy the power of the purse. It would certainly do that in regard to the election expenses; but if it failed to do so in respect to Election Petitions it would be of little use. The lament of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) was that at present Election Petitions resulted in great expenditure. The only remedy was to forbid the employment of solicitors and barristers in election trials. Let the candidates themselves fight the matter out before the Judges; let them dispense with all legal advice. This was only a desperate suggestion on his part; because he saw the lawyers could not agree among themselves as to what should be done.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, the only doubt there appeared to be was as to whether the Amendment would do a great deal of good or very little. Under the circumstances, the most rational course for the Committee to pursue would be to agree to the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that the practical effect of the Bill would be, on the one hand, to lessen the cost of an election; but, on the other, to increase materially the expense attending Petitions. He did not imagine that that was the intention of the Government in bringing forward the Bill, and he did not think that the Bill could be made satisfactory or perfect unless they agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite in regard to this question of the payment of costs. He was very strongly of opinion that unless they made the payment under an Election Petition the same as other legal payments in an action at law, they would not have Election Petitions conducted, so far as the expenses were concerned, upon a reasonable scale; and, in addition, it was most probable that the number of Petitions would be much greater than they otherwise would be. A case

    639
    had been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to the scandalous treating which had taken place in the trial of an Election Petition. He thought that was a case in which the Public Prosecutor would have only done his duty if he had prosecuted the parties for treating, seeing that the Petition had arisen out of the election proceedings; but he presumed that there was no machinery by which the conduct of the parties could be brought under the notice of the Public Prosecutor. Nevertheless, the conduct of the two candidates who were having their case tried before an Election Judge was open to the gravest reprobation. It was clear that each was doing his utmost to bribe the witnesses to perjure themselves in the case. Both of the candidates, and their solicitors also, appeared to have acted in a highly corrupt manner in attempting to encourage perjury on the part of the witnesses on both sides. An inquiry ought to have taken place; and if the law was to be administered at all, it should be, as far as possible, administered in a temperate and impartial manner; and any attempt to prime witnesses with strong drink downstairs before they were brought in to give their evidence appeared to him to be a thorough burlesque upon justice; and he thought the Judge would have been justified in interfering in rather a highhanded manner, and in having the parties brought before him. As to the fees, he did not see why an account of them could not be delivered as well as the expenses. He knew there was a strong desire to secure the services of some barrister of eminence, whose name was often in the newspapers, and who had a large practice, although his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion was that the business would be much better done by a less known and cheaper man. He thought the Amendment went scarcely far enough, and that it should apply not only to the costs between party and party, but that no client should be able to contract himself out of the provisions of the Bill. If he did so, his conduct should be condemned, and any payment he made should be held to be a corrupt payment, especially if he paid anything beyond the taxed costs as between attorney and client.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. M'COAN MR. M'COAN moved to add at the end of the clause—
    "No Election Petition shall be lodged until an abstract of the evidence by which it is proposed to support it has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and his fiat thereon obtained."
    He gathered that it was the feeling of the Committee to keep down the expenses as far as possible, and to prevent the prosecution of frivolous Petitions. He therefore proposed to add these words to the 4th sub-section of the clause. He thought they would meet the difficulty, and that they would certainly prevent frivolous Petitions. It might be objected that the Director of Public Prosecutions was acting as a subordinate, and was, therefore, to some extent, under the influence of the Attorney General for the time being, so that he might have a political bias; but he thought that objection would be met by the fact that, whether the fiat to prosecute was issued by the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General, it would still be open to Parliamentary criticism, and there would, consequently, be an ample guarantee that nothing like a political job, whether Whig or Tory, would be perpetrated. He, therefore, submitted this Amendment to the consideration of the Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "no Election Petition shall be lodged until an abstract of the evidence by which it is proposed to support it has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and his fiat thereon obtained."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)remarked, that if the Committee saw what the Amendment really amounted to, he was satisfied they would be of opinion that it could not be accepted. In 1868 the House gave up its right to try its own Election Petitions to the Judges of the Superior Courts; but he did not think the House wished, at the present moment, to go further, and to give up the right to try Election Petitions to the Public Prosecutor. How would the Director of Public Prosecutions know whether the

    641
    evidence upon which he was called to act was correct or not? Of course, it could only be developed as the inquiry went on.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought there was a great deal more in the matter than the Attorney General seemed to think. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had raised an important point in his opening speech—namely, whether the Public Prosecutor was an independent officer or not? If he (Mr. Biggar) remembered rightly, the present Public Prosecutor was a very independent gentleman indeed—a man who might be mistaken in his judgment, but a man who was always disposed to do what he thought for the best. He (Mr. Biggar) was of opinion that it was desirable to make applications of this nature to some such person as the Public Prosecutor, and for this reason—that one great cause of the excessive expense occasioned by the presentation of a Petition was that the person who lodged the Petition, whether it related to a borough or a county election, during the whole of its progress was continually looking around for evidence to enable him to get up his case. The result was that a very large amount of expense was incurred, and there was a considerable prolongation of the trial. All that expense would, in a great measure, be obviated if the person proposing to lodge a Petition had to make, before some preliminary tribunal, a statement of the case on which he proposed to found his Petition. It might turn out that there was no pretence of a case whatever; and, in that event, permission to go on with the Petition would be refused. He did not think, on the other hand, that any legal authority would be disposed to throw any unreasonable obstacle in the way of litigation. On the contrary, the Public Prosecutor would probably be very easily satisfied in regard to what was to be considered a primâ facie case. But where there was no primâ facie case, it would be unreasonable to allow a person to lodge a Petition against the candidate upon his own responsibility, his sole object being to crush his opponent by rendering him liable to pay excessive costs.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the sense of the Committee was against the proposal, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it. At the same time, he
    642
    (Mr. Leamy) had a strong feeling that something ought to be done to prevent people from recklessly rushing into Court with Petitions. He would suggest that any person who filed a Petition and failed to sustain it, should be sent to gaol for six months with hard labour. The Petitioner would be attempting, to some extent, to interfere with the rights of the constituency, and would be bringing serious charges against another person. Therefore, in any case in which he failed to sustain his charge, he ought to be sent to gaol.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, either by addressing it at any length or by pressing the Amendment to a Division; but, contrary to the judgment of the Attorney General, he was of opinion that the suggestion embodied in the Amendment was not so frivolous as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. The intention, at any rate, was good—namely, to supply some kind of counterpoise to the advantage which a rich man might have over a poor man. He thought it was worthy of consideration whether that object could not be achieved by some such Amendment as this; and he would be glad if the Attorney General would direct his attention to the matter, with the view of proposing some means by which this desirable end could be accomplished.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Miscellaneous.
    Clause 38 (Engagement as agent of person previously found guilty of corrupt or illegal practice).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished to give an explanation with regard to this clause. He did not propose to carry the law any further than it was now carried by Clause 26, so far as it might be deemed to be expedient to make the candidate responsible for the acts of his agent. He did not think it right in the case of this clause to take the course which the Committee took in Clause 26, and he would move the omission of the clause altogether.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to strike out this clause; but it would not be necessary, of course, to move it now. The Attorney General had omitted to state that there was one other important change which he had proposed to make in the law. At one time a disqualification attached to an agent who had been found guilty by a jury, and that was the only disqualification; but it was proposed by this clause, as it stood in the Bill, to extend that disqualification to any person actually reported by the Election Court or by an Election Commission. It was not a question between an agent and a sub-agent as to persons who might have been employed, and who had been found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices, but it applied to all persons who had been reported by an Election Judge. He thought it would have been extremely difficult to justify such a proposal. He was glad that the Attorney General did not intend to take that course, but that he was willing to accept the suggestion that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, there was one point of an important character in regard to the clause to which he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General. It had reference to engaging the services of a man who had just been unseated on Petition. The words were "a person personally engaged." They all knew that it was almost impossible to prove personal engagement. In his own (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) case a candidate was unseated on Petition. He immediately went down to the borough, and introduced another candidate, and, in point of fact, was the main reason of the second candidate's return; but it was impossible to prove that he was in any way "personally engaged," and when he went into the box he actually swore there was no personal engagement between himself and the candidate he was successful in returning. When the Petition was over, and the candidate was unseated, within a short time after the result of the Petition was made known the former candidate, who had been instrumental in returning the second candidate, claimed £1,000 from the Gentleman he had succeeded in getting in, which sum that Gentleman refused to pay, on the ground that, although he
    644
    was actually seated, he was only seated for a short time; whereupon this person issued a writ. He thought the point was an important one, and he trusted the Attorney General would consider it, in order to insert some provision in the Bill to guard against a similar case hereafter—namely, the use by a candidate of the services of a person who had just been unseated. It was a great evil that the moment a candidate was unseated he should be able to go down to the borough again, in order to nominate and actively support another person in securing the seat of which he had himself been deprived. He, therefore, hoped the clause would not be withdrawn at once, and he would move, in line 4, the insertion of words to carry out the object he had in view.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that; I have already put the Question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he had been speaking in opposition to the omission of the clause. He wanted it to stand part of the Bill, and not to be struck out.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot amend a clause after the Question has been put that it stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not rise before I put the Question.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he thought the Chairman was mistaken, and that he had risen before the Question was put.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the hon. Member was in error. He had himself preceded the hon. Member; but he (Mr. Raikes) did not rise until after the Question had been put that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and he had addressed the Committee upon that Question.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 39 (Inquiry by Director of Public Prosecutions into alleged corrupt or illegal practices).
    MR. GORST MR. GORST moved, in page 26, line 15, after "prosecutions," to insert "or his assistant." He wished to point out to the Committee that in the early stage of the Bill a Motion had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), and strongly supported by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, for the establishment of a sum-

    645
    mary tribunal for the purpose of dealing with offences against the election law at the time they were committed. The tribunal proposed by his right hon. Friend was a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, consisting of two Justices of the Peace. To that Court great objection was taken by the Attorney General, and a kind of challenge was thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman to his opponents. "Find me a tribunal," said the Attorney General, "and I will be quite ready to fall into your views, and see if anything of the kind can be done." He (Mr. Gorst) did not think that the Committee at that time noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself found a tribunal in a clause they were now coming to. The tribunal found by the Attorney General was a barrister specially appointed for the purpose of sitting in the town where the election was taking place, and punishing, by summary procedure, offences against the election law. He was not, however, going to discuss Clause 40 at the present moment; but he intended only to move now to add to the words "Director of Public Prosecutions "the words" or his assistant," meaning, thereby, somebody sent down by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute offences against the election law by means of the summary tribunal which the learned Attorney General proposed to create. He thought that was a convenient Amendment upon which to inquire what the intentions of the Attorney General were respecting this tribunal; and he hoped the relevancy of the Amendment would be clearly understood. The Attorney General proposed to established a local tribunal, and he (Mr. Gorst) was strongly in favour of a local tribunal; but he objected to the mode in which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to carry out that idea. It seemed to him something like shutting the door of the stable after the horse was stolen, to send down an official to conduct an inquiry six months after the election was over. He ought to be sent down at the time the election was going on. Apart from the question of expense, he did not see any difficulty in having a barrister, such as was described in Section 40, sent down to any borough where corrupt practices were taking place, and there would be no difficulty in having an assistant of
    646
    the Public Prosecutor sent down also. There would then be a tribunal on the spot. The Public Prosecutor, or his representative, would be in the borough, and it would be his duty to see that the law was observed, and then they might have some some prospect of seeing an election conducted legally, without anything in the nature of a violation of the provisions of the Statute. That was the reason why in foreign countries there was no such open violation of the law as that which characterized English elections. Abroad this sort of violation of the law was unknown. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had spoken of the manner in which elections were conducted at Breslau, and the hon. Member had drawn a contrast between the order and quiet which prevailed in an election at Breslau, and the disorder and illegality which characterized a similar proceeding in an English town. Why was that? It was because there was no officer in England to see that the law was observed. In Breslau, if a man were to commit any of the illegal acts which were over and over again committed at an election in Newcastle, or Leeds, he would have the Public Prosecutor down upon him, and would be sent to prison for openly violating the law; whereas in an English constituency there was nobody to see the law put in force, and no local tribunal to take cognizance of the offence. The consequence was that the law was frequently violated before the eyes of everybody. There was nobody to enforce it, and it was broken in a manner which was scandalous to their civilization. He therefore begged, for the purpose of raising the question whether there ought not to be a legal administration of the law, to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 15, after the word "prosecutions," to insert the words "or his assistant."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved the Amendment in the present clause. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the object of the clause. It was quite correct to say that

    647
    in an early part of the Bill his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) had raised a question as to a summary tribunal which should deal with offences under the Act on the spot. The view of the right hon. Gentleman was that there should be some tribunal so constituted that if a person was caught red-handed he might be tried at once and punished. But this clause had nothing to do with that question. While his hon. and learned Friend was looking for a Judge, he (the Attorney General), in this clause, was looking for a Prosecutor. If they pursued the subject now they would have to discuss it all over again upon the next clause, which appointed Special Commissioners to make an inquiry whether there was reason to believe that a considerable number of the electors of a county or borough had been guilty of some corrupt or illegal practice. The present clause raised the question of placing the prosecution of such persons in the hands of a public officer, and of not leaving it to private persons. It had nothing whatever to do with the tribunal, but simply with the institution of the prosecution.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the misunderstanding was rather on the part of the Attorney General than of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite as much searching, not for a Judge, but for a Prosecutor. The object of his hon. and learned Friend was this—that they ought to have some summary tribunal for dealing with these matters; and in order that that summary tribunal might be of the greatest use, they ought to have a Public Prosecutor wherever it was required at an election. It was in order to make the summary tribunal the Attorney General was about to institute of some use, that his hon. and learned Friend proposed there should be power to prosecute before it, and they could not have that duty properly discharged unless they had a Prosecutor; so that his hon. and learned Friend was quite as much in search of a Public Prosecutor as of a Judge. The question of the Judge would come up further on.
    MR. GORSTremarked, that if the Attorney General would look at the consequential Amendments which appeared on the Paper, he would find that
    648
    he (Mr. Gorst) was not open to the criticism to which he had been exposed Among the Amendments, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
    "Upon the request of any candidate at an election the returning officer shall apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appoint an assistant to attend during the election in the county or borough at which such election is taking place, and it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to send forthwith such assistant, and to charge his remuneration and expenses to such returning officer. The returning officer shall be entitled to recover the sums so charged from the candidates, as part of the expenses of the election, in addition to the sums allowed to be charged under The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875.' "
    This officer would go down and attend elections at the time they were taking place, and the officer so sent down would make all the necessary inquiries, and summon before the proper tribunal any person whom he might find offending against the law. As the Attorney General had placed the question of the Prosecutor first in Clause 39, and had left the tribunal over until they reached Clause 40, he (Mr. Gorst) was obliged, of course, to keep the same order. In this clause he proposed that there should be a Public Prosecutor, and when they reached Clause 40 he intended to propose that there should be a local tribunal. He wished to impress upon the Attorney General that there ought to be in every constituency in places where corrupt practices were known to taking place an officer of the law for the purpose of seeing that the law was observed, and for the purpose of putting the law in motion against any person, whoever he might be, who intended to break the law. He was quite certain that until that was done in some form or shape they might pass what clause they liked, but they would never put down corrupt practices at elections. The only way in which these sort of practices were to be put down was by having some person in the place in the position of a public officer whose duty it would be to watch the election.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the consideration of the Amendment for the present. He should like to ask the Committee to consider what it was they

    649
    were called upon to do by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They were really asked to send down a barrister to every election, and that meant a barrister of seven years' standing, so that they might probably have to send some 400 barristers of seven years' standing down to the different constituencies to watch the proceedings. That could not be done without incurring considerable expense. And what was the barrister to do when he reached the constituency? He would be a stranger to the constituency, and if he were sent down to detect bribery he would be the last man who would be able to do so. He would sit in the bar-room of an hotel all day long, and would have no information brought to him. Was he to act the part of a detective, or was he to act as the advocate of a detective if any case of bribery were found out? What was it that his hon. and learned Friend meant?
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not see why the officer should be a barrister of seven years' standing.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that he might be a solicitor; but, at present, he did not know what the duties were which this individual was to perform. If he was to institute a prosecution, he must be necessarily be a man connected with the Legal Profession, and therefore he must be a barrister or a solicitor. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he was to detect the crime, or that he was to prosecute the offender before the magistrates when the crime was detected? It was evident he was not to be the Judge and to preside over the tribunal, and therefore he must be a stranger to the town.
    MR. GORSTasked why he should be a stranger to the town?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked of what use, if a person was to be placed in a capacity to represent the public, would be the appointment of a local man, who would be certain to be a friend to one side, and under the influence of one side, and could not represent impartial justice as the Public Prosecutor would represent it? He did not think that the proposal was a practical one, or that it would do the slightest good. There could be no utility in sending a man down to a constituency who would know nobody, and
    650
    who would be supplied with no information, and whose only alternative would be to sit in the bar-parlour of an hotel all day long. Of what assistance would such a man be in discovering or bringing to light cases of bribery?
    MR. LEAMYsaw a further objection to this Amendment. If the Public Prosecutor was only to send down his assistant, they would have that assistant roaming about one or two constituencies during the election; whereas in other constituencies, and perhaps those in which his presence was most required, there would be no public officer at all. He thought the Attorney General had shown conclusively that the gentleman appointed, whoever he might be, would spend the whole of the day in an hotel. Who was to come before him? The election would last only eight or nine hours; and suppose the police were to arrest a man, and bring him before this officer on a charge of bribery, or the commission of some other corrupt practice, unless they could show that the man had been receiving or paying money, it was very unlikely that the Public Prosecutor or his assistant would be able to do anything of himself. At the same time, he thought it would have a very good effect if the constituency thoroughly understood that there was a person who could seize on any man who was guilty of bribery, or of any other illegal act; and he (Mr. Leamy) intended to move a clause later on requiring the Returning Officer, as soon as he received a writ, to publish all the sections of this Bill which contained the punishment to be inflicted upon voters who were guilty of any of the corrupt or illegal practices set forth in the Bill. He thought that would have a most wholesome effect; and if an elector had staring him in the face the fact that if he was guilty of a certain offence he would be liable to a certain punishment he would not be so likely to commit it.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the establishment of a tribunal to act on the spot in certain cases would unquestionably be one of the best provisions which could be inserted in the Bill. Indeed, he believed it would do more to check corruption than anything else they could do. All the other pro-

    651
    visions were of little significance in comparison with that; but, at the same time, he failed, to see how the Amendment could accomplish that object. He understood his hon. and learned Friend to desire to appoint a Prosecutor without a tribunal to try the cases. No doubt a Public Prosecutor might be a useful officer; but he would be an expensive one, and might not be necessary, and unless they appointed a local Court he did not see what value the Amendment would have. In foreign countries a security for the purity of elections existed in the fact that alongside of all elections was a person engaged in watching that no illegal practices were committed. His opinion was, that if they adopted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) they would do more to put down corruption than anything else.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he objected to the clause as a whole, and also to the manner in which it was proposed to carry it out. What would be the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions if he were to go down to make inquiry in the way suggested? It was quite evident that he would become the mere depository of all the tittle-tattle of the place on one side or the other. What was the necessity of such a provision? As the Bill stood, they had given ample power for the presentation of Petitions, which was the only resort of persons who were discontented with an election. In the next clause they appointed Commissioners, and sent them down to the constituency at the instance of an aggrieved Petitioner who desired inquiry. They now proposed that, in order to check the corrupt practice which might have prevailed, an inquiry should be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis) that the real objection was to the clause itself. Although he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he certainly could not support the clause. He would not inquire what the object of the next clause was; but, in regard to the present clause, he thought that its object had been misconceived by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). The Public Prosecutor could not try anybody at all. He would be simply sent down to the constituency to see if he could pick up
    652
    anybody and send him for trial, and he (Mr. Lewis) did not think that was a sort of thing they ought to sanction at all. They ought to rest quite content with the eagerness of political partizans, without sending down the Public Prosecutor.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, because he had been impressed by what hon. Members had said, that it was not necessary to have a Public Prosecutor without a local tribunal; and as the hon. and learned Attorney General had not yet provided a local tribunal, it was unnecessary to take up the time of the Committee by looking for a Public Prosecutor. There was one observation of the Attorney General which he desired to answer, in order to show that he was not as ignorant as the Attorney General seemed to suppose. He had never contemplated that the Public Prosecutor should send down a stranger. The Attorney General knew the Public Prosecutor better than he (Mr. Gorst) did; but the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that he would appoint the worst man to represent him he could find. If the Public Prosecutor were a man of sense, he (Mr. Gorst) presumed that when he appointed an assistant he would look out for some independent and impartial solicitor in the constituency itself.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): How could you find him?
    MR. GORSTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked how they could find him? He (Mr. Gorst) would undertake to say that there was not a constituency in which they could not find a respectable solicitor who took no part in Party politics of any kind, and who would be perfectly adequate to exercise semi-judicial functions at the time of an election. That was the sort of man he would recommend; but as there was no use in searching for a Public Prosecutor, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARdesired to say a word before the Amendment was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had asked why a barrister of seven years' standing should be sent down to a borough to listen to all the tittle-tattle of the place; and the hon.

    653
    and learned Gentleman asserted that the Public Prosecutor would be able to obtain no evidence which he could lay-before any tribunal. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) contended, on the other hand, that witnesses would be taken before the representative of the Public Prosecutor, who would be in a position to give some substantial evidence upon which the Assistant Public Prosecutor would be able to set the law in motion, and have the case adjudicated upon at once. It therefore seemed to him that the Amendment was a feasible one, and he did not see why it should not be introduced.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman move the other Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper?
    MR. GORST: No.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LEWISwished to call the attention of the Committee to the nature of clause. It said—
    "Where information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions that any corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed in reference to any election, it shall be his duty, subject to the regulations under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, to make such inquiries and institute such prosecutions as the circumstances of the case appear to him to require."
    Did the Attorney General really think that such a provision would answer any practical purpose in the interests of purity of election? It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis) to be wholly a mischievous and a useless provision.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were cases in which persons would go to the Public Prosecutor and his representative and say that wholesale bribery was going on, and that A, B, C, and D could give him conclusive proof of it. Directly he received such information the Public Prosecutor could put the law in motion; and he thought it would be better to leave the duty of entering upon the case to the Public Prosecutor, rather than to persons who might have been taking part in the election on one side or the other.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Special Commissioner for trial of persons charged with corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, a great many representations had been made to him on the subject of this clause, which did not deal with a summary tribunal, but a tribunal to be appointed after the election on the representation of a certain number of electors. A great many Members on both sides of the House desired to see the tribunal sitting during the election. He was anxious to do all in his power to meet the views of those hon. Members, and would therefore take the matter into consideration, to see whether he could provide, not only an inquiry after, but, if possible, during the election. This clause was perfectly isolated from the rest of the Bill; therefore, under the circumstances, he should be prepared to strike it out, with the object of dealing with the matter at a later stage.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he intended to propose an Amendment to convert the Court from one which should sit after the election into one which should sit during the election; but, as he understood the matter, the Attorney General was going to take the whole subject into his consideration, with a view, if possible, of meeting the wishes of the Committee. He would not, therefore, move his Amendment at present; but he hoped he was right in supposing that the possibility of having a tribunal which should sit during an election would be considered by the Government with the desire of adopting such an arrangement if practicable.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENagreed with the postponement, but wished to say that they were postponing too many clauses. ["No, no!"] Well, if they were not postponing this clause they were striking it out, in order to bring up another one in its place, which was almost the same thing. ["No, no!"] Not necessarily, perhaps, but in all probability that was what they would do. He wished to warn the Committee against the danger of leaving too many questions to be discussed on the Report stage; and to suggest that, if they were not careful, the points at issue on Report would be as numerous and as trouble-

    655
    some as they had been in the Committee.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that if this clause was struck out now, he could only hope that it would re-appear. It appeared to him by far the most practical clause of the Bill. There was one point which, so far as he could judge, appeared to have escaped the attention of the Attorney General, and also the Members of the Committee, and he would make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to it. The clause in its present form provided for inquiry into corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring; but the Commissioner only had power under it to punish for corrupt practices. There was no provision in the clause for the punishment of illegal practices, or illegal payments, employment, or hiring; but in Sub-section 4, the Commissioner, on convicting a person for an illegal practice in connection with an election might, if he thought it expedient, let him off, awarding no other punishment than the incapacities that attached to such conviction. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government that the Commissioner should not have power to punish for illegal payment, employment, or hiring; but, while he should prefer to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to punishment for corrupt practices, he should be glad to see the clause re-appear. The omission he pointed out appeared to him to be a serious error in the drafting. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might read the clause two or three times, but nowhere in it would he find provided punishment for illegal practices. There were two other points to which he wished to call attention, and to make proposals, one being in the spirit of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) at an earlier period. He (Mr. Raikes) was anxious that the person who held this Commission should be one who was not liable to the suspicion of political bias; and he, therefore, proposed that he should be a person who had not been a candidate at any election during the five years preceding his appointment. It seemed to him (Mr. Raikes) that it would be a very unsatisfactory element in such inquiry if, in considering cases where malpractices were charged against one side or the
    656
    other, the person conducting the investigation were a person who had recently been a Member of the House, or a candidate for a seat in Parliament. Such a person would hardly be able to hear a case with that partiality which he ought to possess. He had known cases where Commissioners who had been candidates at elections, and who might have been extremely desirous of doing their duty in a most impartial manner, still had entirely failed to satisfy the constituency amongst whom they had sat that that was the case. The question then arose, how far these inquiries were to affect the status of Members of the House? The Bill, in the general clauses, provided elaborate machinery for the trial of Election Petitions; but, as he read this clause, it would be competent for a Commissioner to try a candidate or Member of the House six months after the election, and probably long after the time for petitioning had expired, and if he found him guilty thereby to void the seat and expose the Member to all the penalties of the Bill. It seemed to him (Mr. Raikes) that that, perhaps, was hardly intended; and he wished to put in words making a saving clause, to the effect that neither the candidate nor his principal agent should be liable to be tried by such Commission. If the other side wished to have a shot at a candidate or his principal agent, they had an opportunity in their power to lodge a Petition against the return; but if the clause passed in a form similar to that in which it now stood, it might give political opponents an opportunity of satisfying their vindictiveness or malignity. He mentioned these matters now because he was anxious that the Attorney General, who was going to bring in the clause in a new shape, should have them under his consideration, and might, therefore, make the section more workable and more practicable.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to line 39, in Sub-section 2, he would find that for the purposes of this Act the Commissioner was to have all the powers of a Petty Sessional Court, in addition to the powers conferred by the measure. A Petty Sessional Court could try a case summarily, and impose summary punishment; therefore, the Commissioner would be able to act summarily. Then, again,

    657
    a candidate need not subject himself to this jurisdiction unless he thought proper. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's entire criticism of the clause altogether failed. He (the Attorney General) trusted that upon this subject there would be no misunderstanding. With regard to the tribunal, it would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir B. Assheton Cross) had said that he would endeavour to find it; and he (the Attorney General) could only say that anything that came from the right hon. Gentleman would be received by him with every desire to meet his views if it were possible. He (the Attorney General) could not take upon himself fuller obligations in this matter.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that before they parted with this clause they ought to have a satisfactory understanding from the Attorney General as to whether or not it was to re-appear? Though the Attorney General proposed to withdraw the clause for the present, was it to appear in another shape? He did not understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had pledged himself in the matter; on the contrary, though there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that the principle laid down in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was one the Committee ought to sanction, the Attorney General had not committed himself to that view. From what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman to-day it was clear that the Government did not look upon this proposal with any degree of favour. Therefore, he thought that before they passed away from the clause it would be well for the Committee to understand whether the Government really did intend to bring up any clause analogous to that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent or not.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)was understood to say that the Government would take the point into consideration, with a view, if possible, of making some proposal with regard to it.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that he had lately been thinking a great deal over this question, and it had suggested itself to his mind that this Court might safely be the local magistrates. The local magis-
    658
    trates desired to prevent bribery; it was their object that elections should be conducted decently, and in an orderly manner; and it certainly appeared to him that, unless they availed themselves of the local magistrates, they would be unable to obtain another local tribunal.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought that as his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was not present, he might say in his name that he thought the Attorney General had, on the whole, exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing this clause. There had been a great consensus of opinion in the House that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was quite right in suggesting to the Committee that it was desirable to have a summary tribunal to decide on the spot during the election, if possible, in the case of offences discovered as the election was going on; but such tribunal would not at all be provided by this clause. This clause would enable disgusted opponents—there were always people disgusted with the result after an election—to wait four, or five, or six months before taking any action, and then action might be taken just at the time when everybody was forgetting the animosities of the contest, and were making up their political differences. The effect of the clause would be to bring up the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor into the county or borough, and to have the constituency again annoyed and disturbed when everybody wanted to forget and forgive. He was pleased, therefore, on the whole, that the clause had been withdrawn. He understood the Attorney General to say that he had no intention of presenting this clause again to the notice of the Committee, but that he would be prepared to give the fullest and most favourable consideration to any clause that might be presented from any part of the Committee. That might have reference to the real inquiry to be made on the spot while the election was being carried on. He (Mr. Gibson) understood that while the hon. and learned Gentleman would give that favourable consideration to Motions made on that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would endeavour himself to suggest, if he found it feasible, some clause that might have the effect of satisfying the demands which had been made.

    659
    He understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not pledge himself dogmatically that he would be able to do that, but that he would loyally endeavour, with the aid of Members of the Committee, to present such a clause for their acceptance.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was sorry to find that the Attorney General had yielded to pressure and had withdrawn the clause, which he believed to be one of the most healthy sections of the Bill. At present, if a candidate was guilty of illegal or corrupt practices, there was no remedy against him, unless some interested party went and lodged a Petition, and, at the same time, lodged £1,000 as security for costs. And then what was everybody's became nobody's business—to preserve the electoral purity of the country. True it was that there was a Proviso that after an election, upon a Petition signed by two or more electors of the borough or county, the House might, if it so thought fit, if it were informed that a considerable number of electors had been guilty of corrupt practices, address the Crown to give effect to the representation, just as if it had been moved by a Report of the Election Judges. But how had that Proviso worked. It had been in force now more than 20 years, and had never yet been acted upon—in fact, it was practically a dead letter. Substantially, the only manner in which they could get at the corruption of a constituency was by means of an Election Petition; but an Election Petition could not be instituted, as he had said, unless there was some patriotic or interested party prepared to lodge £1,000 to cover any possible expense. That seemed to him to be a very undesirable method of securing an inquiry. He was not at all in favour of having an inquiry during an election. They could not send Public Prosecutors or barristers of 10 or 15 years' standing all over the country whilst an election was going on, and if they sent to one constituency they would have to send to all. The Attorney General, or the Public Prosecutor, whoever he might be, might be at the time looking after his own election, and they would not be able to send him all around the country. It was a kind of hodge-podge to think of being able to send him down to the constituencies to make inquiries at a General Election. In the future this might
    660
    occur. After an election something might gradually ooze out about corrupt practices, and they might not have to try the candidate or the election agent, but some other person who might be guilty. He knew a case himself in which corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in a constituency. The evidence that was obtained was overwhelming of its kind, and a Petition was determined upon; but it so happened that the candidate who was defeated started for another constituency and obtained a seat, the result being that he abandoned the proceedings. The candidate, who was beaten in this case, had incontestible evidence of corrupt practices prevailing—in fact, sufficient to disfranchise the constituency; but yet he did not want, like Quintus Curtius, to throw himself into the breach and lodge £1,000 in Chancery which might never be returned to him; and, consequently, all these corrupt practices went by the board. If such a clause as this had been in force retribution would have followed quick upon the sucessful candidate who had been guilty of corrupt practices. He might not have lost his seat; but he would have been pilloried before the public, and would have suffered the punishment assigned to him. He must say that he knew a number of constituencies where, if this clause had been in operation, the evil practices of which the persons had been guilty would have been detected. He was sorry to find on this occasion great sympathy with the Front Opposition Bench and the Treasury Bench. No doubt, both of them would have been more or less affected, and to his mind it would have been more during the last Election, if this clause had been in operation. In fact, he believed that if there had been such a law as this when an appeal was last made to the constituencies, one-half of the Members of this House who escaped Election Petitions would subsequently, have been got at and exposed for malpractices. And what would have happened at the last Election would happen at the next. He exceeding regretted the abandonment of this clause, believing that in letting it go the Government were throwing a sop to corruptionists, and those who hoped to profit by corruption.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to make an observation with regard to this

    661
    clause. In the early part of the Bill the Government had provided an innumerable quantity of offences; in fact, they had made it almost certain that every candidate must break the law in some particular or other. What had they done after that? They had taken very good care that no one should be prosecuted under the provisions of this Act unless, so far as he could see, an Election Petition was lodged. What was the result of that? Why, that the expense to the party lodging the Petition, who had to give a guarantee of £1,000, would be £4,000 or £5,000, and that was altogether beyond the capacity of a large proportion of those who were candidates for election, or who might be in the future. If a wealthy candidate was guilty of an offence, and his opponent was not a wealthy man, he would, in all probability, get off scot-free; whereas a poor candidate who might be guilty of some trifling act, which under the Bill would be illegal, might be overwhelmed by the force of a Petition brought against him by some well-to-do opponent. It was proposed in this clause that the Public Prosecutor should initiate a special tribunal to try the case if 10 electors in the constituency gave information and appealed to have the case tried. These 10 electors would be parties who were interested in having freedom and purity of election amongst the constituency to which they belonged; and, more than that, under the clause, if a delinquent was convicted he would be punished, and the constituency which was of a corrupt nature would have to pay the expenses of the proceedings, although, on the other hand, if these 10 gentlemen who appealed to the Public Prosecutor were proved to have made a vexatious complaint, they would have to pay the cost of the proceedings. It seemed to him that the clause might have been so improved as to render it acceptable; at any rate, he believed that this was one of the most desirable clauses of the Bill, providing, as it did, for a comparatively cheap tribunal to try these cases. If this clause was not inserted there would be no means of trying these cases, except through the action of an Election Petition, which was always a very expensive and most unsatisfactory method, and for the reason that if a man was very rich he could go to the expense of suborning witnesses;
    662
    whilst a poor man must depend upon the justice of his case.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had not spoken in the course of this debate, except upon subjects upon which he had some experience, and in which he felt deeply interested. It was a fact, that when an Election Petition was presented it was necessary for the Petitioner to lodge £1,000, and it was also necessary to charge the candidate, by himself or by his agent, with having been guilty of corrupt practices such as would invalidate the election. That was a sine quâ non. Though they might prove that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, if they could not bring home to the candidate, or his agent, the corrupt practices, the Petitioner would be mulcted not only in his own costs, but also in those of the candidate. The most difficult thing in the matter of an Election Petition was to bring the charge home to the candidate, though it was often very easy to prove that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. At his own election, in Dundalk, in 1880, he was defeated. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; he was defeated, but it was by corrupt practices. Treating was so extensive that he had it in his power at the election to bring home corrupt practices to upwards of 100 electors in that borough. He had his Petition prepared; but having obtained a seat within four days for his native county, why should he petition and risk £1,000? He felt sure, however, that he could have proved that corrupt practices extensively prevailed; but the difficulty would have been to have brought it home to the minds of the Judges that the candidate or his agent was implicated. If this clause had been in operation he could have got 10 electors to allege that corrupt practices extensively prevailed without difficulty, and thereupon he could have brought evidence to prove the case. He was not at all surprised at the Attorney General yielding in this case, not because of the objection taken from that (the Opposition) side of the House, but because it came from the eminent jurists below the Gangway. The objection to the clause, he believed, came from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Why did these hon. Members, who held themselves up as the only pure Members

    663
    of the House, object to this clause? Why did the Attorney General yield to the request of his supporters to expunge the most important clause in the entire Bill, when by its agency he could bring home their guilt to erring candidates, and impose upon them the punishment they deserved? As he had said, if this clause had been in operation at the Dundalk Election he could have proved that upwards of 100 voters had obtained £5 or £10 each for their votes. Probably he could not have brought that home to the satisfaction of his opponent; but he felt sure that he could have brought home to the mind of an impartial investigator the fact that such corruption existed, and would have been able to have obtained the disfranchisement of the borough.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member of the new Rule relating to wearying the patience of the Committee.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was not aware that wearying the patience of the Committee was an offence so long as he spoke pertinently to the point. He was fully alive to the fact that it was easy to weary the patience of Members below the Gangway when he referred, in the clear way he was doing, to their malpractices.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not intend to prolong this discussion to any length; but he felt so strongly upon this particular clause that he should take the opportunity of dividing upon it.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 164: Majority 159.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that upon this Motion he wished to put a question to the Government. He did not know whether there was any truth in it, but he had heard from certain hon. Members that Her Majesty's Government intended to propose a series of Amendments on the next clause. Not one of them was down on the Paper; and really, on an important clause like this, affecting as it did a large and interesting
    664
    trade, the Attorney General should give them some facilities for ascertaining what the Amendments were to be.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government would take care to put the Amendments on the Paper, so that the Committee would have an opportunity of determining upon them before they were asked to discuss them.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    The House suspended its Sitting at ten minutes before Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HUGH MASON, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliamentary Franchise should be extended to women who possess the qualifications which entitle men to vote, and who in all matters of local government have the right of voting,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, I must, in the first place, express my regret that the introduction of this Motion has not fallen in the present Parliament, as it did in the last Parliament, upon my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney). I regret it for the sake of the House, and for the sake of the question itself. But, having accepted Office under the Government, a substitute has had to be found for my hon. Friend, and that substitute has been found in myself. In only one thing do I profess to equal my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and that is in my sincerity, and my earnestness in hoping that this question maybe brought to-night to a successful issue. In all other respects I have to confess that I am very unequal to the task which has fallen

  665
  upon me, as compared with my hon. Friend; but if the House will be so good as to grant me its indulgence for a little time only, I will endeavour to place my arguments before it as concisely and as clearly as it is possible for me to do. While I feel regret on the one hand, as I have just said, I have considerable encouragement on the other hand derived from the fact that the question I have undertaken to bring before the House is not a Party political question. There will be no irritable spirit of partizanship aroused on either side of the House by the discussion on this question. In former Parliaments, when this question was brought forward—for this is the first time in the present Parliament in which it has been introduced—many right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Treasury Bench were found to be warm supporters of the Motion I now propose, and many who sat on the Treasury Bench in the last Parliament have also proved themselves to be its warm supporters. The Motion has had the support on a previous occasion, and will have the support again to-night, of every section in this House—of Tories, Whigs, Radicals, the Fourth Party, Home Rulers, indeed, Members from every part of the House will be found amongst the ranks of those who support this Motion. On the eve of the introduction, many of us hope, of the new Reform Bill by the Government—not in this Session, but in the next Session—it does seem fitting that this question should be debated in the course of the present Session; for in my humble judgment a Reform Bill would be an incomplete measure, unless provision was made in it for granting Parliamentary votes to women ratepayers who are spinsters and widows. I wish to bring this phase of the question very clearly now before the House. An impression, I dare say, has gone abroad, and may exist in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen present, that my Motion covers a much wider field than I, for one, have any conception of. I repeat that the words of my Motion are intended to cover women ratepayers who are spinsters and widows. I have not the slightest sympathy with those who advocate the conferring of this vote upon married women, or upon women who are not ratepayers; and I, for one, would wash my hands of this question now and for ever, sooner than I would be a party, in
  666
  any degree whatever, to conferring a vote upon any class of women, except the two classes I have named. Now, what does my Motion mean? It does not mean in any sense a degrading of the franchise, it does not mean the conferring of any fancy franchise which at present is unknown to the Constitution; but it simply means the giving of Parliamentary votes to those women who already possess votes for Municipal Councils, School Boards, Boards of Guardians, Overseers, Churchwardens, Surveyors of Parish Roads, and some other Bodies. And it does seem to me—I will not say illogical in the law, for in my opinion there is nothing logical in the British Constitution—it does seem to me a great act of injustice to the women who discharge the duties of citizenship, who pay rates and taxes, and in many other ways fulfil the obligations which are imposed upon them by the law; it does seem to me a great act of injustice that the voting power which they possess shall stop short of allowing them to vote for Members of the House of Commons. I am asked the question again and again—"Pray where do you mean to stop?" [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] Well, at all events, I have a notion where I mean to stop. I do not mean to make Members of Parliament of women. [Mr. WARTON: Why not?] I do not mean to make them soldiers or sailors, or railway stokers, or colliers, or to give them occupations of that kind. But I invariably answer, when I am asked by a man where I mean to stop, having made those reservations, that I do not intend to go beyond the Throne. In this country we have had women as Monarchs wielding the sceptre, and discharging the highest functions of the State, wisely and conscientiously, and patriotically; and surely if women are competent to perform those high duties, in the way which I have described, they are worthy of having conferred on them votes which it is the object of my Resolution to confer. Now, I said women are in a very unjust position. We must either go backwards or forwards. We cannot possibly stand still. I am quite aware that some hon. Gentlemen have expressed their doubts and fears as to the consequence of conferring this vote upon women. They have said to me—" Do you wish to make them spouters upon every political platform in the coun-

  667
  try? Do you wish them to turn their backs upon their homes and their families, and to neglect the discharge of those important domestic duties for which they are highly qualified?" I have no fears whatever of that sort; and the way in which women have hitherto exercised the suffrage in the election of Town Councils, and other Bodies, I think ought to be accepted as complete evidence that they will not abuse or misuse the trust which some of us wish to put in their hands. Now, I hold an opinion that the qualification for giving a vote is very much more one of the heart than of the head. Though I do not at all agree with the people who say that women are intellectually or scientifically inferior to men. I will only ask those who take an interest in education to look at Girton and Newnham, and see the positions young women in those important educational institutions hold. I will also ask them to look at the Profession of Medicine, and ask them to recall the fact that women are making their mark in this important Profession, in which, they will, in my opinion, continue to make their mark, thus showing that they are well qualified for the discharge not only of duties of this character, but of duties of an equally responsible kind in other vocations. Now, we are always told when a reform is sought that there is no demand for it on the part of those who will be benefited by it. Now, that cannot be said in regard to the women on this subject. For many years they have been very well organized. They have most ably conducted their organization; they have carried on with great ability a public journal, which many hon. Members, I know, read every month; and they have managed their organization with an amount of economy in funds which, I must say, puts to the blush many organizations conducted by men. And we are also told—I will not say whether there is any truth in it or not—that the Parliament of England never yields anything to reason or argument, but that it yields only to fears, and threats, and intimidation. Now, we have never seen the women resorting to threats or intimidation; but their organization, their agitation, has been conducted in the most Constitutional and the most lady-like manner—they have brought no stain whatever upon their sex, or
  668
  upon the purity of their minds by using expressions or adopting means which would be a disgrace to themselves or to the question with which they are identified. We are told that if votes are granted to women they will simply become tools in the hands of the priests—that they will be the victims of the priests. I venture to think that even if that were true—which I deny—it is entirely beside the question. The question really is—Is it just to give them a vote? not—How will they use it; or, if they have it, will they become the tools of designing men? I will reply to an accusation of that kind by asking—"Do not we see men the victims of priests? Do not we hear a great deal about strong-minded women? "And I myself think, judging from the experience—the limited experience, perhaps, I may have had in that direction—that women are as little liable to be victimized by the priests as the men who make the accusations are. Now, I have been told in my own borough, by some of my best friends, to use their own emphatic language—" That if I succeed in achieving this reform for the women it will be at the risk of my seat, for the women will all turn Tories." It has been said to me—"You are giving yourself the greatest slap in the face that you could possibly receive at a future election." Now, that does not concern me in the slightest degree. What alone concerns me is not will the women be ungrateful—not whether, if they obtain the franchise, they will use it for the first time against myself and against the other hon. Gentlemen who will support my Motion tonight; but whether they are justly entitled to the vote. I recollect a memorable instance of a large body of men, in the shape of compound householders, proving very ungrateful. When the compound householder was enfranchised, mainly through the exertions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), at the very next election, which happened in a short time afterwards, my right hon. Friend, who then sat for Manchester, was turned out by the very compound householders whom he had laboured to enfranchise. Manchester has had its punishment since that day, for it has never recovered that proud political position which it then held in the estimation of the country. Now, take the illustration as to the

  669
  qualifications of women in regard to the teaching of the young. My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), if he were here, would confirm what I am about to say in regard to the board schools at Saltaire. I went through those schools with my friend Mr. George Salt. I saw, in every class room, mixed classes of boys and girls; I saw that every teacher in every class room was a woman; and my friend (Mr. G. Salt) told me—if the House will pardon the expression—that the head master of the school was a woman, and that the managers found very much more progress made—not in education alone, but in good manners and in every respect which is important to the training of the young—under the teaching of women than they had formerly experienced under the teaching of men. As another illustration of the injustice sanctioned, by law with regard to women, may I mention the bribery which took place at the last General Election of 1880; and especially may I refer to the town of Macclesfield, which, I am sorry to say, is in the North of England, for there bribery prevailed to such an extent that more than half the voters were proved to have been bribed, and that not a few of them had received bribes from both sides. A Royal Commission was sent down. Many days were spent in the examination of the cases of bribery; the Members were unseated, and some of the lawyers who had been agents were imprisoned for the part they had taken in corrupting the electors, and many thousands of pounds were saddled upon the ratepayers of Macclesfield. Who paid those thousands of pounds? Did those corrupt men? No. In the town of Macclesfield there were registered electors 5,500, and there were women ratepayers to the number of 1,589. Those innocent women, being ratepayers and householders, had to pay a considerable portion of the charge which had been levied upon the town of Macclesfield for the bribery and corruption of the men. Is that not a great case of injustice sanctioned by the law? I am quite aware that the injustice falls upon the pure electors just as much as it falls upon the women; but then the pure electors or voters, at all events, had some compensation and some power which hitherto has been denied to the women. Now, there is another illustra-
  670
  tion which comes nearer home to myself. I have known in manufacturing towns, where I have resided all my life—I have known many cases of honest women having drunken and worthless husbands, who neglected their work, neglected the feeding and clothing of their families, neglected their families' education, and who by their vices had considerably shortened their own. lives. I have known those men die; and I have seen their widows left with a number of small children, not one of them possibly able to work; I have seen those women, I will not say manfully, but heroically facing their distressed circumstances, working hard for their children, gradually clothing them, gradually bringing beds and fresh furniture into the houses, for in many cases the furniture in their former homes had been taken away to gratify the vices of their husbands. I have seen them pay their husbands' debts, keep a roof over the heads of themselves and families, educate their children, pay the rent regularly, and yet, because these persons are women, and incomparably superior in every respect to the worthless husbands they had lost a short while before, they are not allowed to give a vote, while the worthless husbands had been allowed that privilege. Will any person venture to tell me that if anyone should have been deprived of the vote, it should not have been the man who so neglected his family and duties, but the woman? Surely, under such circumstances, instead of being deprived of the vote, the woman who had proved herself fully competent to discharge all the duties of citizenship should have all the rights of a citizen conferred on her. Now, cases of this kind are continually coming up. The more I see of them, the more I am convinced that this question is a righteous question. The question is making progress. A great many of the Town Councils in the country, and in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, have expressed their approval by Memorials and Petitions. The Town Councils of the cities of Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Exeter, Hudders-field, and other towns have expressed their wish by Petitions to this House that the vote shall be no longer kept back from women who, I have already said, now possess the right to vote in many other cases. I do sincerely hope,

  671
  that as regards the limitations of the question, I have made myself perfectly clear; and I hope that the present Government, in the course of the next Session of Parliament, when they bring on what many of us are expecting—namely, a great Reform Bill, will be bold enough to include in it the conferring of the franchise upon women who are qualified in the way I have stated. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I rise to second the Resolution which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mason); and I think that the fact of my doing so affords sufficient evidence that this is, in. no sense of the word, a Party question. If other evidence of that were required, I could give it in the fact that, in the year 1866, Mr. Disraeli expressed himself on this important question in these words—
  "A woman having property ought now to have a vote in the country in winch she may hold Manorial Courts, and sometimes act as churchwarden."
  Now, Sir, those words are clear and definite enough, and they emanate from the late Head of the great Party to which I have the honour to belong. But, if we want still further evidence of how little this question is mixed up with Party considerations, we shall find it in the fact that, in the same year in which the late Mr. John Stuart Mill introduced this question of electoral reform—namely, in March, 1869, Mr. Disraeli said—
  "What we desire to do is to give to everyone who is worthy of it a fair share in the government of the country by means of the elective franchise."
  I think there can be hardly any dispute that the word "everyone" includes women as well as men; and that, in the few words in which the great statesman expressed himself, he clearly showed that he considered it an act of injustice to withhold the privilege of the franchise from women. Sir, I should like to preface the few observations I wish to make, by asking the House to consider why the passing of this measure has been so long postponed? I venture to think that the reason may be, perhaps, the fact that those who sit with me on these Benches have sometimes considered the change
  672
  too Radical, while some hon. Members on the other side of the House have considered the change too Conservative; so that, between the two considerations, the supporters of this question have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Those who are justly entitled to the privilege which they do not now enjoy are the sufferers by the diversity of opinion. Now, I admit that the argument of the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House is a very plausible one. For, of course, it cannot be denied that the admission of women to the privilege of the franchise puts an end once and for ever to any question of manhood suffrage. But, still, I cannot help thinking that this will scarcely be an argument against it. I, however, do not propose to discuss the question this evening from the point of view of its possible advantages and disadvantages to the Party to which I belong, or to the Party opposite All I wish to do is to state, I trust clearly and fairly, the arguments which weigh in my mind in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Sir, it appears to me that one of the principal arguments why women have not been admitted to the exorcise of the electoral franchise is, that the men who make the laws of this country are apt to confound the word "power" with the word "superiority." It is undoubted that men, as the governing body of the country, and governing voice of the nation, have the power to withhold that franchise from women which they themselves enjoy; and is it not equally true that they are apt to find excuses for withholding that privilege, on the ground of supposed superiority, which exists, I am bound to say, purely in their own imagination? Let me, for a moment, consider the arguments which have been used against this measure. I may begin by saying that I was, indeed, delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion that he did not intend to include married women within its scope. I am entirely of his opinion. I would simply grant the franchise to widows and spinsters; and I think, by so doing, both he and I would disarm, to a great extent, those hon. Members who urge, as an argument against this Resolution, that women would be departing from the province of

  673
  their sex, would be called away from the duties which belong essentially to women, if married women were allowed to exercise the franchise, and thereby to be carried away by the heat and strife of Party politics. But what my hon. Friend proposes to do—and it is a proposition with which I entirely agree—is, that those women who have already a right to vote in municipal elections and school boards, where they can also sit, being widows and spinsters, should have a further extension of that privilege, and be enabled to vote for the persons they may think fit to represent them in the House of Commons. Sir, I am well aware that those who are opposed to this measure use as an argument against it an alleged inferiority of the reasoning powers of women and their inadequate education; too prone to adopt the view expressed by Shakespeare, when he said—
  "I have no other than a woman's reason;
  I think Mm so, because I think him so."
  That argument, supposing it to hold good in the days of Shakespeare, supposing it to have held good in a period nearer to our own, cannot be used in the present day. The educational progress of women is, perhaps, greater than that of men; and the development of that educational progress has arisen mainly from the fact that many of those barriers, which were felt alike by men and women, have been removed. Women have now the advantage of going to the great Universities. Have they destroyed the character of those Universities? Certainly not. They have raised their own position; they have developed their own intelligence; they have shown that they are equally gifted with men. They have shown, now, they have the advantages they did not have formerly; that they are capable of engaging with men in a fair contest of educational warfare. If that be the case, surely it, in itself, speaks volumes in favour of the extension of the suffrage to women. We are apt to consider women by the light in which they were regarded in the days of our forefathers; we are apt to remember how the women of 100 years ago had not opportunities for education; but devoted such energies as they might possess to strumming on the spinnet, and exercising their culinary powers in making syllabubs and preserving
  674
  fruits. All this is changed; it would be bad indeed if we were now obliged to substitute the simple maiden, in the shape of Clarissa Harlowe, for the intellectual giantess, George Eliot. As a matter of fact, these two examples illustrate the difference between the women of to-day and those of 100 years ago. And if we admit that women are intellectually superior to-day to what they were 100 years ago, why should we deprive them of the privilege which we enjoy ourselves? What possible argument can be used against it? Why should they not be allowed to express an opinion as to the men who are best fitted to represent them in Parliament? They have a stake in the country; they have intelligence to appreciate their duties and responsibilities to the State. What can possibly be urged against the extension of this privilege to them, which we, as men, hold and enjoy? Another argument which is used against the proposal is, that it is the thin edge of the wedge; that if we allow women to have votes for Members of Parliament, the time will not be far distant when they themselves will aspire to the position of occupying seats in the House. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Hear, hear!] My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge cheers that idea. I myself should be the first to oppose anything of the sort, to oppose it strongly; and I am bound to say I do not think it in any way follows that, because a woman exercises her right to vote for a Member of Parliament, she would, as a natural sequrtur, claim a right to sit in the House of Commons. I would remind my hon. Friend that, although beneficed clergymen have a right to vote, still they are not allowed to sit in this House; and, surely, the same power which gives and confers aright to vote to beneficed clergymen, and withholds from them the privilege of a seat in this House, could grant to women the right to vote subject to the same restriction; otherwise, it would follow that whatever might be the profession in which a woman might directly or indirectly engage, she would have the right to claim the highest posts in it. Take the case of the Army; would anyone say that, because a woman like Florence Nightingale devoted the best years of her life to alleviating pain on the field of battle, she would have the

  675
  right to aspire to become a General in the field? Would anyone say that, because women have risked their lives at sea, like Grace Darling, and more recently like the brave women at the Mumbles Head, that those women may aspire to be Admirals of Her Majesty's Fleet? You might just as well say that, because women of the present day pass many weary hours in copying for law-stationers, they, therefore, may aspire to become Lord Chancellors. [An hon. MRMBER: They are lawyers in America.] I am reminded that women are lawyers in America; but it depends entirely whether clients choose to employ them. I do not see why they should not be lawyers here, if they choose. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, very possibly, has in his mind's eye the case of Portia. Of course, the success of women in the Legal Profession entirely depends upon whether people are willing to employ them. I recollect that, some years ago, a similar objection was urged with the same persistency against women being allowed to enter the Profession of Medicine. At the present day, there are many ladies who follow with great success the Profession of Medicine. It is said that is unwomanly and unnatural. It is said that a woman should not be called in to attend a sick man. But they are called in to minister to their own sex, and called to great advantage. I well remember the time when the question was raised whether women were eligible for places on the School Board. I recollect a meeting being held to protest against women sitting upon the School Board, and I equally remember what has been the result. Who is more qualified than a woman to endeavour to educate the young; who more qualified than a woman to look after the training of infant minds? The women who have been elected to our school boards have proved, unquestionably, the fallacy of the arguments of those who opposed their election. All these things, however, do not in any way necessitate the election of women to this House. Government is carried on here, as in all countries, by the men of the country. And it does not follow at all that, if a woman is duly qualified, and holds similar qualifications to men, she should be debarred, because she is a woman, from exercising the privileges which
  676
  attach to those qualifications. We know that in the course, probably, of this Parliament, a largo measure of electoral reform will be introduced. Now, what is the nature of that reform? Broadly, it is to extend the franchise now existing in boroughs to labourers in the counties. We may assume that the labourers in counties are not as highly educated as men in the same walk of life in the boroughs. Still, it is intended to extend the franchise to those men; but, at the same time, to refuse to extend the franchise to those women who may be landowners in the country, and who may actually employ those men. Why is that? Simply because they are women. You give the vote to yokels, but you refuse it to the educated women, on whose bread they live. A greater absurdity can hardly be conceived. In point of fact, these women who own land are of a very considerable number. In England and Wales, according to the Return of owners of land in 1872, called The New Doomsday Book, the number of women, who were landowners of one acre and upwards, was given as 37,806 out of 269,547, a proportion of one in seven. In Ireland the proportion is somewhat loss; it is only one in eight; and if we assume the proportion of women householders to men householders to be the same in the non-municipal and the municipal areas, we arrive at a total of between 300,000 and 400,000 women, who, being householders rated for the relief of the poor, would be rightly entitled to this vote. These figures appear to me to speak for themselves. I believe the fact is not disputed that a very large proportion of women are landowners in this country. They have the same stake in the country as men, they pay the same rates, they have the same responsibilities, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out, not only have they the same privileges in some respects, but they are subject to the same penalties. They have, in other matters, the same penalties without the privileges, as was shown by the hon. Member to be the case when they were called upon to contribute to the expenses of a recent Election Petition; but you withhold from them, on account of some inscrutable reason, the privilege which might, to some extent, outweigh this penalty. Well, Sir, I think that, in advancing

  677
  these few arguments, I have shown that there is no just reason for withholding the suffrage from women, but that there is very great reason indeed for giving it to them. I consider that men enjoy the high honour of a seat in this House as the trustees of the people. Members have, in trust, the privileges and the rights of the people; and the system by which they are entrusted with those rights and privileges is based on the principle that those who have a stake in the country are those who are most anxious to preserve the integrity and the honour of the country. It has never been assumed that women are less loyal than men—in fact, history has shown us in this country, as in every other country, that women are loyal, patriotic, and self-sacrificing. Facts have shown us that they are educated and intelligent; and I wish, Sir, to know what possible reason there can be, in the face of the facts enumerated, why the British House of Commons should withhold from women privileges and rights to which they are, in my mind, equally entitled with men?
  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, the Parliamentary Franchise should be extended to women who possess the qualifications which entitle men to vote, and who in all matters of local government have the right of voting,"—(Mr. Hugh Mason,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. E. A. LEATHAM: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend who made this Motion has just told us that the question is making progress. Now, I have watched the question in this House for many years, and I cannot congratulate my hon. Friend upon the fact that it grows any stronger as it grows older. When my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) had charge of it, and the hon. Member who followed him—I do not know whether I ought to say, in the championship, or in the chaperonship—it used to assume the robust proportions of a full-grown Bill. Then it sunk to the dimensions of a Tuesday's Motion—and a Tuesday's Motion which was always coming on,
  678
  and did not. And latterly it has dwindled down to the lowest form which a Motion can take, to be a Motion at all; I mean a Friday's Motion on going into Committee of Supply. Nor can I remember a single question which has taken so feeble a hold of its sponsors. They are, at best, biennials. They flourish for a couple of years, and then they disappear. Now, why is this? Is it because hon. Gentlemen do not like to be thoroughly refuted more than twice? "What has become of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, who used to advocate this question with marked ability? He has abdicated long ago. It will be the turn of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton under Lyne (Mr. Mason) to abdicate next year. But, although the faces of the advocates of women's suffrage in this House are always changing, there is no change in their expression. They all come up smiling. Nothing can exceed the cheerful confidence with which they ask us why we refuse to make women the political equals of men? Just as though it were the most natural thing in the world to do so. The simplicity is positively touching with which my hon. Friend invites us to ignore the universal practice of mankind in all countries and in all ages. I see that doubts were thrown upon my Radicalism by a daily organ of the Press this morning, because I oppose this Motion. But I venture to think that the man who turns his back upon the immemorial experience of mankind is much more than a Radical—he is a Nihilist. Now, my hon. Friend has taken great pains to prove to us that this Motion has no reference to the votes of married women. I differ from him. I speak under correction, for there are many lawyers in this House; but I maintain that if this Motion were embodied in a Bill, it would admit married women, qualifying under the Married Women's Property Act, to the franchise. And, whatever my hon. Friend may say, many of his supporters are anxious to extend the franchise in that direction. It was only this morning that I received, through the post, a printed letter signed by Mrs. Bright, in which this view was put forward with considerable eloquence and force. And reference was made to a measure which some time ago was introduced in this House, and which we are

  679
  informed by the writer of the letter was "carefully drawn so as to include married women." Now, Sir, but for the protestations of my hon. Friend, I should have supposed that this Motion was "carefully drawn so as to include married women." But whether this Motion goes this length or not, so far as it goes it is based upon the principle of the political equality of the sexes, or it is based upon nothing. And let my hon. Friend consider a few of the things which he has to do before he is entitled to proclaim this principle. In the first place, he has to repeal no inconsiderable portions of the law of the land. This clearly decrees the subordination of the sex, at all events in marriage—and marriage is the normal state of woman—for Miss Becker, who knows this question if anybody does, declares that—
  "Every woman regards marriage either from the side of experience or of expectation."
  And the subordination of the sex in marriage is based upon the declarations of Holy Writ. My hon. Friend, therefore, before he has his way, must expunge certain well-known passages of Scripture. But when he has revised the Scriptures, and amended the law of the land, he will only have reached the beginning of his task. He must proceed to revolutionize the pursuits of woman. These are not at all political, but eminently domestic. It is the pursuits of man which take him away from his home—the robust life of the street and the Forum; the only life, remember, which qualifies for politics. Is woman prepared to join in the rude tussle of the streets? Is she to become more and more masculine every year? Human nature revolts from the idea, and, most of all, that womanly nature which is both the safeguard and the glory of the sex, and which I believe to be invincible. Before my hon. Friend has any right to come down to this House with his unpretending Resolution in his hand, he has to perform one of the labours of Hercules—he has to convince and convert women. For women—I speak of the sex—do not ask for the franchise. This is an undoubted fact; and we see letters in the newspapers from indignant ladies bemoaning the apathy of their sex. What I would ask my hon. Friend, then, is this. Is this franchise of England so cheap and mean a thing that it is to be
  680
  flung, not to those who ask for it, not to those who will prize it, but to those who sit aloof—surprised, annoyed, amazed, that so many generations of Englishwomen should have lived amongst us, and yet that any man should be so ignorant of then tastes, and wishes, and hopes, as to start up in his place in Parliament and demand for them an ambition which they resent, and a character which they scorn. But no doubt my hon. Friend will say that he does not propose to enfranchise the sex, but only a woman here and there—a few spinsters and widows of a certain standing. Yes; but, so far as he goes, he bases his proposal upon the political equality of the sexes; and the fact that he only proposes to enfranchise one woman in 40, and precisely those women who are the least representative of the sex, only shows how illogical his proposal is. In America, which is the home and birth-place of this movement, the women who agitate this question are the logical superiors of my hon. Friend. They demand that women should sit in Congress. They demand the enfranchisement of half the American race, and they naturally speak of sex as an accident, and of marriage as a superstition. But my hon. Friend does none of these things. He does not demand the enfranchisement of half the English people. He does not ask that women shall be admitted to this House. He still clings to marriage as a Divine institution; and he thinks that when a woman is married she should renounce politics and await the nursery. He has told us to-night that if it were proposed to enfranchise married women he would at once wash his hands of the whole question. And he calls this namby-pamby wishy-washy advocacy of Woman's Bights the removal of the electoral disabilities of women. And why are we to enfranchise these women? It cannot be because, as we used to be told, questions affecting woman cannot otherwise be solved fairly by this House; because we have just passed a Married Woman's Property Act, and thus removed the grievance of the sex. And it cannot be because women are taxpayers, because we are no longer living under the Plantagenets; and taxation and representation have long ago shaken hands and parted. In these days of indirect taxation, the

  681
  man who, for his means, mates the most munificent contribution to the Exchequer is probably the habitual drunkard, of whom my hon. Friend has just spoken, and who has no vote at all. And it cannot be because they are ratepayers, for why should a municipal obligation, already recompensed in kind, confer an Imperial right with which it has nothing to do? And it cannot be because they are owners of property. If property be the basis of the franchise, and the possession of an acre is to give the vote, surely the possession of 10,000 acres ought to give 10,000 votes! The fact is, that none of these things give the vote. They are simply restrictions, and restrictions of the most arbitrary kind, devised from time to time, in order to secure, if possible, the independence of the voter. The suffrage has always been a manhood suffrage in this country; but a manhood suffrage limited to men who were free. Every free and independent man voted in ancient times—the freeman in his borough, the freeholder in his county—and, latterly, when Parliament found that in its desire to enfranchise it had stepped beyond the area of independence, what did it do? It brought up the independence of the voter by giving him the Ballot. What is essential is that every voter should be a man, and that every man who votes should be free. But my hon. Friend jumps to the conclusion that it is the restriction which is the qualification, and he thus overturns the immemorial franchise of the country. But my hon. Friend says—"You have broken through the principle of sex already in the municipalities." I know it, and deplore it. But because we have made one mistake, the consequences of which may be trivial, is that any reason why we should make a second and much more serious mistake, the consequences of which may be enormous? The municipal franchise was given to women by a few words slipped into the Municipal Franchise Act at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when everybody was asleep. The whole question is better understood now; and I venture to think that my hon. Friend will not catch the House napping a second time. "But," says my hon. Friend, "you have broken through the principle of sex again. You have given the School Board franchise to women." Unfortunately for my hon.
  682
  Friend, this is not a case in point at all. You were of opinion that women should sit upon school boards, in order to superintend the education of girls, just as they sit upon any other committee which regulates matters specially affecting their own sex. And, having decided to give them the right of being voted for, you were bound to give them the right of voting. For the right of voting implies the right of being voted for. But my hon. Friend does not propose that women should be returned to this House; therefore he has no right to propose that they should vote. So the very illustration by which my hon. Friend proposes to bolster up his argument demolishes it. Sir, I do not think that I need say much more. My hon. Friend, and those who act with him, are fond of posing as the friends of woman. It is they who are to elevate and ennoble the sex. I am one of those who think that the true woman—pure, faithful, modest, and shrinking from all undue publicity—is noble enough already. Let her aspire to fill the high place to which Revelation and the respect of all good men entitle her, and she will never have cause to sigh because she is forbidden to dabble in the mire of a political election.
  MR. INDERWICK: I propose to say a few words in opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. My hon. Friend has said that this is not a Party question in the sense of being a Party political question, and he has said that on previous occasions expressions were used, which, to say the least of it, were not complimentary to women. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that, as far as I am concerned, they will not hear a word from me which can be considered in any way offensive or disrespectful to the women who are connected with this movement or their friends. It is a question, undoubtedly, of a serious political character, which must be discussed fairly and properly; and if we agree to the principle, I must express my opinion that if the political franchise ought to be granted to women we ought to grant it to them, not grudgingly or with a sparing hand, but with the same free and open hand that we should grant it to men. I would desire, as little as possible, to say anything which may appear disagreeable to any

  683
  persona who are connected with this movement. But, after all, the question is not whether we should desire to extend to women what in men every Member of this House must admit to be the legitimate object of an honourable ambition; but we have to consider whether in granting this franchise, whether in taking this step, which is an uprooting of the ancient landmarks and institutions of the country, whether in adopting a policy which has been repudiated by every civilized nation in the world, we shall be doing that which is for the advantage and benefit of this country, in whose prosperity and advance we are all so much interested. My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne has brought before the House this particular Resolution. I confess, with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), I had some difficulty in coming to the conclusion whether he intended his proposal to extend to women generally, or whether he intended it simply to be extended to women who in matters of local government have a right to vote—that is to say, whether he intended that women generally who have the qualification should vote everywhere, or whether he proposed to extend the franchise only to those women who are now entitled to vote in municipal boroughs. I understand my hon. Friend means to restrict his Motion to women who are entitled to vote in municipal boroughs; and then I should like to ask my hon. Friend, and his Friends who support him in his proposal, why are Members for boroughs to have the privilege of having women amongst their constituents, and why is not the privilege to be extended to counties where women have the qualification? I do not want to be too critical.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will not wish to misunderstand me. I wish to extend the privilege equally to the counties.
  MR. INDERWICK: I quite understood from what my hon. Friend opposite said that that was his view; but I was simply referring to the words of the Resolution which gives to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne a very limited and restricted application. Some objection is usually taken—and I dare say it will be
  684
  taken by someone to-night—that we are taking what you call the limited and restricted privilege which is proposed, and upon that discussing the general principle of the political enfranchisement of women. It is not competent for my hon. Friend to bring before the House a proposal of a very limited character—it may be limited to the very smallest degree to which it can be limited—with the view of obtaining the assent of the House, and, if that proposal is based on a broad principle, to say we are not justified in discussing to the fullest extent the question of the principle upon which the proposal is made. My hon. Friends have brought before the House what I consider to be a fancy franchise. It may suit some of them to say that that is all they desire; but we know perfectly well that it is not what their clients desire—it is not what is desired by the women who are associated with this movement. We know perfectly well, from what is stated elsewhere, and from what one hears from Members of this House, that the foundation of this proposal is not a limited franchise of this kind, but a general franchise of women who have property and pay rates. That being so, the question we have to discuss—and the question I propose, with the permission of the House, to say a few words upon—is the question of whether, under any circumstances whatever, it is desirable in the interests of this country that the political franchise should be extended to women? With regard to the argument that is brought forward about women voting at municipal elections, and having a right to discuss the mode in which the money is spent in these municipal boroughs, if that argument is based on the ground that the money so spent is contributed to by them, and is expended in respect of their property amongst others in these municipalities, then the sort of proposal which should have been made to the House would be that they should have the right to vote for Members of Parliament, so long as the duty of these Members was confined to voting on the expenditure of public money. But we know perfectly well that the House is not always in Committee of Supply, and is not always voting away the money of widows and spinsters. There are other important obligations on Members of Parliament, with regard to which also women

  685
  must have a right, if they are to have a right at all. I do not know whether the House entirely appreciates the magnitude of the question now under consideration. According to the Census in the year 1881, there were in this country 17,000,000 men from whom the electorate is taken. I do not know exactly what the number of electors is at this moment, but it is some millions; and it is proposed, by extending the franchise in counties, to increase that number very considerably. With regard to the women, according to the last Census, there were 18,000,000 women; and that is the body of persons from whom the future electorate, as it is proposed here, is to be chosen. That electorate is limited exceedingly now by my hon. Friend; but it would never bear that limitation if the principle were once adopted. If this proposal is, in fact, adopted by the House, the result will be that the House will commit itself to the principle of the political enfranchisement of women; and, having committed itself to that principle, there is no reason and no argument that I can understand for stopping short at the point at which the hon. Member for Ashton under-Lyne now says he is prepared to stop short. If I am not much mistaken, there are other Members in this House who will probably vote for my hon. Friend's proposal, who would be ready now to stand up in the House and advocate a greater extension. [Cheers.] The cheers of my hon. Friends say that that is so; and they show that what we are really practically discussing now is not the limited proposal of my hon. Friend, but the great question whether women, for political purposes, are to stand on the same basis as men? One of the great arguments in favour of my hon. Friend's proposal is the fact that women enjoy the municipal franchise. If the House will permit me, I should like to say how it is that they enjoy that franchise. It is generally suggested, and stated in the House, that women obtained that franchise under the Act of 1869. To a certain extent that is correct; but it is not the whole of the statement. The fact is this—that in some Corporations—in fact, in most Corporations of the country before the Reform Act of 1835—women, who were the wives and daughters of freemen, had certain privileges. They could make
  686
  freemen of their husbands; and widows of freemen, on marrying again, had also the same privileges. In certain circumstances, these women at one time, and for many years, had a right to vote at the municipal contests. When the Municipal Reform Bill was introduced in 1835, and passed with the general assent of both sides of the House, that franchise was taken away from the women. It was not passed over without debate. It was debated in this House to this ex-tent—that, on Report of the Bill, one hon. Member proposed that the word "male" should extend to "female," and said there were numbers of women who might be disqualified, principally, I believe, in the City of Bath, which has always, from the oldest days, been celebrated for a considerable number of widows and spinsters; and he made a proposal that a clause should be inserted to that effect. There was no debate on the Motion. Nobody supported it but the hon. Member; a Division was taken, and it was rejected by a majority of 66. The matter there ended; and in that Bill of 1835 the municipal franchise which existed in the hands of women was swept away by the general consent of both sides of the House. Then this state of things happened. The Local Government Board have the power to grant certain Charters to new Corporations, and in granting these Charters they gave power to women being ratepayers in the municipalities to vote; and as these Corporations increased this anomaly occurred—that there were, in certain parts of the country, certain Corporations where women were permitted to vote, and certain Corporations where they were not permitted to vote. The Government of the day thought it desirable that they should be put on the same footing, so that the anomaly might be done away with, and a Bill was brought in for that purpose in 1869, 35 years after the Municipal Reform Act. It passed through this House without any debate whatever. I have looked through Hansard for 1869, and I do not find that there was a single line of debate in this House with reference to that Bill. My hon. Friend says there was. He may have been in the House at the time; but so inconsiderable was the debate, if any, which took place, that not one line of it appears in Hansard. There was a debate on it in the House

  687
  of Lords, and, as far as I can judge, it occupied the space of about 10 minutes. One noble Lord made some objection to the Bill. The Earl of Kimberley, expressly guarding himself against committing the House to the general principle of women's suffrage, pointed out the anomalies of the system; and thereupon Earl Cairns stated, in a few words, the reason why the franchise should be granted. Earl Cairns said that as an unmarried woman could dispose of her property, and deal with it in any way she thought proper, he did not know why she should not have a voice in saying how that property should be lighted, and how it should be watched, and have a voice in controlling municipal expenditure to which that property contributed. It is clear the reason for granting that franchise to women in municipal boroughs who had property in them was to enable them to have a voice in regulating that expenditure to which they contributed in respect of that property. When the Bill was passed no reference was made to Scotland or to Ireland. Certain hon. Members from Scotland who took an interest in this question were told that the women of Scotland did not care about the municipal franchise, or they would have called for a Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who exercises some inscrutable influence over the ballot box, immediately balloted for a day, and brought in a Bill to extend the municipal franchise to women in Scotland, arguing that, it having been granted in England, there was no reason why it should not be granted in Scotland, and thus succeeded in getting rid of the argument which was thrown at him with regard to Scottish women. I venture to express the opinion that had it not been for the question of woman's suffrage being agitated throughout the country at the time, we should not have heard a word of the Scottish Woman's Municipal Franchise Bill. Under the circumstances, I ask the House how can it be said that the House has committed itself to the political franchise of women in passing that Bill without opposition? None of the arguments upon which this question is upheld are new, as I have said. We have had an argument from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) which is not a new one, and, indeed, it cannot be expected
  688
  that throughout the debate there can be anything new; because the subject has been so long and so often before Parliament and the country that it is impossible to say anything new upon it; yet it is, of course, desirable that when a question of this kind is brought forward it should be debated, and we cannot give our votes altogether without speech. The hon. Member said the higher education of women, which qualified them for holding certain positions, likewise qualified them to exercise a political vote. They do hold certain quasi-public offices, which they have held by right immemorial and by Act of Parliament, and he says there is no reason why you should not go a step further and give them a right of voting for Members of Parliament. He gave as an instance that women might be churchwardens and overseers, and I will add to that, they may be parish constables, and they may even be High Sheriffs, which, under certain circumstances, might entail the office of public executioner, and one or two other offices a woman may hold; but I think these offices were allowed them in the past as much for the opportunity of extorting fines from them as for anything else; and if we find, as a matter of fact, that they never do hold such offices, what are we to think? It is one of the stock arguments that the Sovereign power can be held by a woman, and I do not say it is not a fair argument; but the power of the Sovereign is so bound down by Constitutional limits, that it is very little power that can be exercised by the Crown. Now, there is one reason brought forward why we should give the franchise to women. It is this—there are, it is said, as many—in fact, more—women in the country than men, and, therefore, they have as many or more social interests than men; and, inasmuch as Parliamentary control is in the hands of men, men are likely to be unfavourably disposed towards women, and to treat them unequally in legislation, dealing with their property and their social position. That is the statement made; and I should very much like to see whether, in the result, women have suffered any substantial injustice under the law of this country. I will first take the case of women of property. Can any hon. Member now, in this year 1883, say that any woman in the country has not absolute

  689
  control over her own property? She has. It was a misfortune discreditable to this country that for many years she had not that control. It was discussed by a Parliament of men, and a reform was brought about. It was not obtained suddenly; it has been done gradually and with due consideration; and we have the result that, at the present time, it is impossible to say that any woman is not sufficiently protected in her property. And I will venture to say that women of the upper classes were fairly and reasonably protected before; for it has been the habit of this country, from time immemorial, when property was left to women, to make such arrangements by settlements that women had a great protection for their property, and this was not sufficiently recognized at the time of the debates in this House. It is said, apart from this, that there are legal disabilities attaching to women in regard to the devolution of property by death or otherwise. Let us see how that is. If a man dies possessed of personal estate and leaves no will, then his heirs, men and women, share alike; but if he holds real estate, then the eldest son takes the real estate to the prejudice of the rest of the family. But it prejudices the brothers quite as much as the sisters; it is not a sinister prejudice against women; it is the position of the heir-at-law, a position which, however, in my opinion, ought to be altered. My view is that in devolution of property in cases of intestacy, real property should go in the same way as personal property. But after all this is not a large question, for very little property descends in that way. We know it has been debated from time to time in the House; and, no doubt, if any hon. Member brings in a Bill bearing on the case, it will receive very careful consideration, and probably arrive at a second reading. And now let me take the personal protection of women. Our laws are very stringent even now for the protection of young 'women, and the other House have recently passed a measure to increase the protection for young women. In addition to that, there are provisions by which protection is thrown over women who work in factories and mines that they shall not be employed beyond their powers. And there is another principle in our law which must not be left out of sight. If a man and wife
  690
  are joined together in the consummation of a crime, the fact of their acting together does not acquit the woman of the crime, but it absolves her from the penalty. This is a kindly and merciful provision of our law from time immemorial, and must not be left out of view in considering the effect of legislation on the position of women. Now, under the Married Women's Property Act, there is power to the husband or wife to prosecute each other for theft. Objection was made in both Houses that this clause was not expedient or desirable in the interest of married persons. Now, I cannot exactly vouch for the correctness of it; but I read in the papers a return of the number of convictions of married persons under the Act of stealing from one another, and out of 15 such convictions, in 14 cases they were women, and in one case a man. If that is so, it only shows that, to some extent, a mistake was made in removing the protection which before that time had proved of a kindly nature. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has referred to the question of married women; there has always been a difficulty how to deal with them in relation to this matter, and the difficulty has never been met in a reasonable, or even a plausible, manner. Why, if you give the franchise to women at all, should you, under such circumstances, exclude married women? Some supporters of the proposal do not want to exclude them; but my hon. Friend says nothing would induce him to admit them to the franchise, and the general impression is that they should not be admitted. Why? Is it on account of property? Certainly not, for if a married woman can hold property, can own a house, and she and her husband occupy it, there is no reason why she should not have a vote on account of property for which she pays rates and taxes. It is her own property, with which she is as free to deal as if she had been a single woman, and yet my hon. Friend says he would not admit a married woman to the franchise! They say you must not invade the sanctity of the hearth and home. Well; but all married women do not live with their husbands; some have husbands serving their country, or fulfilling duties abroad, some are apart under directions of the Court, some under deeds of separation. Many wives live apart from their hus-

  691
  bands, just as single women might, occupying their own house, living upon their own money; but you say you would not give a vote to these married women. Why not? If marriage is not a disqualification to men, why should it be to women? Here a difficulty arises, and my hon. Friends are discussing it among themselves, some saying—"Let them have it;" and others saying—"Under no circumstances whatever." Let me put this suggestion to the House, and ask how you would deal with it. We heard a few years ago a good deal about fagot votes; it means that a man may give to a friend, or a person in whom he has confidence, a cottage and a piece of land to qualify him for a vote. Now, under an existing statute recently passed, a man may assign a cottage or house to his wife, and by this means make his wife a fagot voter; and if he agrees with his wife he will have two votes, and if not he will be disfranchised. It may be right or it may not; but if allowed, there will be an addition to fagot voters far beyond any now existing in any county in England. I bring forward these matters to show the House how this question is surrounded by difficulties. As to a seat in this House, so far as I am personally concerned, if I had to choose between two evils, I would very much rather see one of the intelligent women connected with this movement sitting in the House and taking part in the debates than I would consent to give the franchise to the whole of the sisterhood. But this is not the view of my hon. Friends, for they stand up and say, under no circumstances would they allow women a seat in the House; and I must say it is exceedingly ungenerous of my hon. Friends to say—" We will accept your votes at the poll, but we will not give you ours in return." I have alluded to these matters of difficulty; but I do not say that because there are difficulties a proposal should be rejected or passed over. It is the duty of statesmen to get over difficulties, or to go round if they cannot get over, if the object is desirable. But when you find a question of this kind surrounded with difficulties—when, from whatever point of view it is regarded, some obstacle stands in the way—then I think the House must say, as I now say, although I know I shall not get much assent from my hon. Friends
  692
  near me, this is a question not within the range of practical politics. There is one matter which I believe presses on the minds of hon. Members, and is supposed to have originated with the late Lord Beaconsfield—it is the argument that female suffrage is the best, if not the only, effectual barrier to an ever-increasing Democracy. It is said that as we go on the franchise cannot be raised; it must be lowered; and we shall go lower until we get to men of bad and revolutionary passions, and we shall be tempted to make overtures to them, and to deal with them in a way not for the interest of the country, and we shall find the franchise of women a check and a control upon that, and the anticipated evils may thus be met. I admit this is an agreeable and a seductive argument; but it is founded on a fallacy. If you admit the principle of political franchise for women, you must treat them on the same footing as if they were men; and as you lower the franchise to men, so must you lower it to women; and how, then, are you to control or oppose the bad passions of a low class of men by adding to them, as you must, the bad passions of a low class of women? Do you think, if you consider the class of persons to whom you would give the franchise—greatly extended, as it must be in course of time—that the House would not come to a right conclusion if they decided that it is not desirable to extend the franchise in the way now proposed? I shall, of course, vote against this proposal. I believe, myself, that extending the political franchise to women would be a calamity to this country. It will add thousands, if not tens of thousands, to that now too numerous class of electors, who never know their own minds from time to time, and who are swayed by the sentiment of the moment; and we know, from the great revolutions of political feeling which are increasing in the country, that it is this class of electors that renders the task of government more and more difficult, because they impede a continuous policy so desirable, if not necessary, in legislation and in the conduct of foreign affairs. There are many of my Friends who I know are interested in this movement, and I feel that in giving my vote I shall be helping to deprive them of an opportunity of political triumph; but, at the same time, I

  693
  am satisfied that to adopt this principle would not be for the permanent advantage either of the country or of the sex on whose behalf it is proposed.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I had not intended to take part in this debate; but the observations of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down induce me to say a few words, not on behalf of the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—for I have not heard the exact tenour of his Motion—but in support of the general principle of admitting women to the franchise. Now, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Inderwick) concluded a speech of considerable interest by a statement that the main objection he had to this proposal was that it would increase the class of fluctuating political opinion in the country. Now, in that view I do not for a moment agree. I do not believe it would increase the amount of fluctuating political opinion. I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman; and I think the views of women on the great social and economical and moral questions of the day, which are really of more importance than the so-called political questions, are far more stable than those of men. I cannot but think the hon. and learned Member must have been somewhat unfortunate in his experience—I do not say it in a derogatory sense—he must have been somewhat unfortunate with regard to those women whose views he has had an opportunity of learning. So far as I have had the advantage of hearing the opinions of women on any definite subject, I have found them devoted—continually, consistently, permanently devoted—to what I may describe as the reformation of the human race. [Laughter.] I must beg the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) to restrain himself. Women are devoted to the cause of temperance, to the cause of morality; they are devoted to the improvement of the condition of the poor, and with more or less, though not quite equal, intelligence to the cause of education. They are a refining and elevating influence in all the social relations of life. These are my general reasons for differing from the hon. and learned Member's statement. But I have a special reason for supporting this Resolution to-night, which is, as far as lies in my power, to remove from the question of women's
  694
  suffrage the stigma of being represented entirely by a section of the House, in which I am sure, as a rule, women take a very small amount of interest. It appears to me this question can be regarded from several aspects. If you regard it from a logical point of view, it is clear nothing can be said against it; it is absolutely impossible to avoid recognizing the claim of women to the franchise. In almost every other sphere of life they possess rights and exercise onerous duties on a full equality with men. Women are allowed to occupy the most distinguished position in the State; the illustrious Lady who has ruled over these Realms with so much advantage for 40 years discharges functions far more important than any it is proposed to bestow on women by the Motion of the hon. Member. To the amplest extent they hold and administer property; they can be guardians and executors. You allow women to enjoy the municipal suffrage, and you allow them to take part in all the more important and difficult functions of life; they are now allowed to enter upon the Medical Profession, and with general benefit. It is perfectly clear that, from a logical standpoint, you cannot possibly refuse them the Parliamentary franchise. I admit there is some difficulty about proceeding to a further stage and giving them a seat in this House. I am quite prepared to allow that the position of a lady of great ability, and possibly of great attractions, as Prime Minister, might occasionally be open to some objections that must occur to any hon. Member. But I do not think an argument of this sort is worth much; it is the reductio ad absurdum; and we need not consider it. This is only a stage of progress. It does not follow that because we confer on women the Parliamentary suffrage that they would be admitted to that Bench—though, at the same time, I am free to confess they would adorn it very much more than some of its present occupants. Then there is the sentimental point of view. What can be said against it from that point? We are told it will be a horrible thing to divide families and give rise to divergence of view between husband and wife—they would surely fall out over the exercise of the franchise. Well, I think that a very considerable amount of divergence of view exists occasion-

  695
  ally at present, and I do not think it would be very dangerously increased by giving women the franchise. The world would not be happier or more rational if all husbands and wives held a dull consensus of view upon every subject. But there is another reason that can be urged in support of the Motion which I have rather suggested than stated definitely. It is obvious that to confer the suffrage on women is essentially a Conservative measure. ["Oh, oh!"] The principle of Conservatism is to defend and secure all that is good and stable in our social and political Constitution. Women are devoted to the same objects, and therefore they must prove a Conservative force in the State. A quotation was made from a remark of a very great and illustrious man, now no more, by the hon. and learned Member who spoke last. He quoted an expression of the late Lord Beaconsfield in favour of this extension of the suffrage; and, if I had any doubt about it before, that quotation would be sufficient to induce me to view the question with favour. I therefore urge this last as an additional reason why hon. Members on this side should support the Motion. I feel I have supported the cause very inadequately, for I had no intention of intruding myself on the House when I came down; but I have given a few reasons why I think the suffrage should be extended to women, and, with the permission of the House, I will sum them up. It cannot be denied to them from a logical standpoint; there is nothing of real weight, from a sentimental point of view, to induce us to refuse the franchise; and it would be a Conservative measure, which has had the recommendation of the greatest statesman of this century.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I am sorry that the House should be so empty; but we all know that those who generally may be expected to be seen here are engaged at present in an amusement which is thought to be more congruous to the portion of the human race in whose favour you are called upon to-night to legislate than to Senators. I was rather amused at the refreshing and candid speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. After a few observations about fluctuating political opinion, and so on, he candidly confessed that he voted for this measure
  696
  because he thought it was a Conservative one. Well, I own, Sir—and I think the House will believe in my sincerity—that, deep as my political convictions may be, I desire on this matter to vote without any regard to the chance of success, on one side or the other, of the Bill, treated as an electioneering measure. There is something even deeper and nearer to the heart than Party politics, and that is the politics of patriotism and of nature; and I believe that to these politics belongs this question of the enfranchisement of that half of the world which no doubt are quite equal to us—very likely much superior to us—but who are different from us, that difference being the eternal one, which, in spite of sentimental theorists, will exist to the end of the world. I say that the consideration of this enfranchisement belongs not to Party, but to patriotic considerations; and, belonging as it does to patriotic and to natural politics, it is found to exclude the project from the category of healthy and possible innovations. Well, and what are the reasons for it? I have been amused to-night at the vagueness of the arguments which have been urged, and which are not more vague than the premisses on which they are based are far-reaching. The female guardians, the female householder—these form the pretext; and all the arguments tending to the emancipation of the woman—whether householder, whether freeholder, whether married or single—are based on these phenomena, though the Married Women's Property Act in the Statute Book destroys the limitation on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mason) insisted with such candour and sincerity. I cannot really believe that this proposal, if it were carried, would not go beyond the limited class for whom it in this House and for this night appeals. I cannot for one I instant believe in the comfortable pre-| dictions which have been adventured. It is, and it always has been, a question not of the female ratepayer, but of the woman. I appeal to the pamphlet which on a former occasion I quoted, I believe, rather largely in this House. I do not mean to quote it to-day, though there are some passages in it which might be instructive and diverting to those who have not read it before—it was the opinions of 100 women of intellect and of

  697
  ability, and some of them of conspicuous position, brought together by the Women's Suffrage Society. If this pamphlet happens to have been sent round again on the present occasion, I very much commend it to those who have not read it, to see what are the prospects, the expectations, and the arguments brought forward by those who really are at the bottom of the agitation, and who do not, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), dally about the question with the tips of their fingers. It is really worth while to consider what the state of affairs now is. We have heard in various directions that there is in the air, somewhere or nowhere, a very large scheme for the enlargement of the franchise—great masses of people will be brought in who have not hitherto enjoyed the vote; and upon that scheme, as if it were a parasite hanging on to it, we are asked to engraft the enfranchisement of women. Well, now, what is that but universal suffrage, and universal suffrage in a sense in which no one has ever openly announced it? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich ventured a remark which puzzled me at the time, and I have not yet quite made out whether it was an argument, as it came from his mouth, or a joke—if a joke it was rather a good one, if an argument not so good—but it was to the effect that this enfranchisement of women would at least get rid of manhood suffrage. It would get rid of manhood suffrage, for it would become manhood and womanhood suffrage; it would be like the gentleman engaged in the shoe trade, who trumped his neighbour's advertisement, Mens conscia recti, by the superior announcement, Men's and women's conscia recti. When it was objected that this legislation would expose us to see women in Parliament, the question was gravely asked—Why should we not see women in Parliament? The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) drew a very pretty and picturesque picture of a Prime Minister on that Bench who is to come to some strange, mysterious fate—I suppose it was marrying the Leader of the Opposition and forming a Coalition Government. But depend upon it, if we have women admitted to the franchise the claim for them to be in Parliament
  698
  simply follows as a matter of course. Do we not see that on the Benches of that mimic Parliament which plays so conspicuous, and on many occasions, I have no doubt, a very useful part—the London School Board—there are lady members on that, and would not the argument be very strong indeed from that fact that there could be no objection to their sitting here? It is a subject on which, of course, one can draw a great many amusing pictures; but really it is almost sickening, in a matter of this sort, in which the interest of the country, in which the peace of Europe, in which the happiness of those vast Colonies—that vast Indian Empire that belongs to us—in which the whole of the future of the world is concerned, to have to deal with grotesque propositions like this—propositions grotesque in themselves, but full of grave evils for those for whom the future of humanity, for whom the true mission of the world is not a matter of political calculation, not a matter of cynical amusement in the articles and paragraphs of current journalism, but is the source of very grave and serious thought. To bring forward a suggestion like this one at the eve of a possible Reform Bill, at a time when opinions are seething and agitating, at a time when all kinds of—I must use a phrase which is, perhaps, not Parliamentary, but which must come out in this debate—at a time which is the reign of omnipotent "fads," to bring forward the idea of enfranchising that charming portion of mankind, whose influence is so beneficent because it is felt, not seen, is one of the most preposterous and, at the same time, one of the most revolutionary suggestions that could possibly be agitated.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has urged upon the House that this subject should be treated as a very serious business and entirely upon an argumentative basis; but he has allowed his uncontrollable sense of humour to triumph over his logical aspirations; and he has favoured us with one of his very amusing, but, so far as I am concerned, I must say, not very convincing speeches. I have no wish to deal with this question as a joke, either for or against women. The question—whatever the decision of the House may be to-night, or, perhaps, two or three Ses-

  699
  sions hence—is a question which, sooner or later, will have to be faced; and I think that in coming to a decision tonight, we should see whether there is any sound logical reason for this proposal, and whether there is any sound logical reason against it. Now, the two hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) and the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick)—seemed to me, in their very able and interesting speeches, never to touch the principle on which the franchise in this country is based; whether it be right or wrong, the franchise in this country has been for centuries past, and to-day certainly is, coexistent with either the ownership or the occupation of property. The English Constitution recognizes no question of fitness, as far as intellectual qualification is concerned—the English Constitution, in conferring the franchise, recognizes no principle of social position, of intellectual fitness, or of moral culture. The franchise in this country is given in counties to the owners or occupiers of real property, and is given in boroughs to the occupiers of real property. Of course, no one will suppose that I am overlooking the fact that persons disqualified by the commission of crime are excluded; what I say is, excluding that obvious disqualification, that whether the voter be immoral or moral, whether he be good or bad, if he owns property, and discharges the obligations of the State in respect of that property, the law of the land confers upon him the right to vote in the selection of Representatives in Parliament. That is the principle of the English Constitution. Now, we have admitted in our Constitution a class of owners and occupiers of property of the female sex; and it rests upon those who object to their being entitled to all the advantages, so to speak, of property, to show why they should not enjoy them. It has been put to-night—"Why should women have the franchise?" I rather put it—"Why should they not?" Why should not a spinster, or a widow, a woman discharging all the obligations of the State, paying all the required taxes to the State—why should she not enjoy the right of her unit voice, as far as directing the policy of the State is concerned? We have two contradictory theories from the Benches opposite in
  700
  reference to this question—first, the theory of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eye; and, secondly, the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The hon. and learned Member for Eye stated that women were entitled to the municipal franchise simply and solely because Municipal Councils spend money, and rates are paid by women. As a matter of fact, the duties of Town Councils are not confined to spending money. Their function is the local administration of the whole of the affairs of the borough, and year by year Parliament is extending, and enlarging and elevating, the duties which are confided to our various Town Councils. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down drew an appalling picture of the politics of Europe being involved in the exercise of this franchise, and held out the prospect of some great national decision, which might be fraught with divers consequences to the Empires of the world being controlled to some extent by female voices. I am quite willing to meet him upon that ground. He must first tell us that women, quâ women, are morally and intellectually inferior to men. I deny that proposition. We were told we were asking for political equality. I say, prove the moral and intellectual inequality—I say, take any question of the politics of this country or Europe, whether it be a question of peace or war; and I say that the opinion of the intelligent woman is just as good as the opinion of an unintelligent man, and a great deal better. The interests which control the decisions of Parliaments affect women quite as much as men. They have, in respect of their personal feeling as well as in respect of their property, a large stake in the prosperity and progress of the country; and unless you can show that there is a public danger from entrusting them with the ordinary consequences of the ownership of their property, I think that the onus probandi rests with the opponents of the Motion rather than with those who advocate it. I am not going to weary the House with a long speech on this question; I want to put the syllogism, so to speak, as shortly and as concisely as I can. Taxation and representation go together; women are taxed; women ought to be represented. There is no public danger

  701
  in allowing women to enjoy that representation. Now, I know what the answer to me will be—that under the Married Women's Property Act of last year, married women are put into the position of the absolute ownership of their own property, and that, therefore, they ought to be entitled to be put on the same footing as single women. The position of married women is this. A woman by marrying has, deliberately, with her eyes open, surrendered certain advantages—if you like, certain privileges—which would belong to her as a single woman, and she, as a married woman, has no right to complain of the consequences of her marriage. This appeal that is made to Parliament is not made on behalf of married women. Married women are content to leave these interests in the hands of their husbands; and I believe that to introduce a question of political differences into the home would be a step of very grave public danger and disadvantage, and I, for one, should strenuously oppose it. It is not for that that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is pleading to-night. It is proposed to extend the franchise to women who, equally with men, are separate, individual owners of property, who discharge all the duties of property, and who, therefore, claim all the rights of property. One word more. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) referred to the legislation in which women are concerned, and said that that legislation had full attention in this House, and that everything they could desire was carried out. I very much doubt that proposition. I think there are a large number of instances in which this House neglects and overlooks questions in which women have the deepest interest, an interest affecting themselves personally, affecting the happiness and progress of their children as well as of themselves. It is because I believe that the extension of this franchise would not be a political danger, but a political benefit; I believe not in its Conservatism or in its Radicalism, but I cannot ignore the historical fact that the influence of women for the last 50 years of the country has, on the whole, been on the side of progress, on the side of the good and true; and therefore I should be glad to see women brought within the pale of the Constitution.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member had ended his remarks with a political watchword—Progress. He was afraid that in his dull Constitutionalism he should be obliged to answer that by the question, "Whither?" His objection to this proposal was that it struck at one, and not the least, of the remaining Constitutional foundations of the franchise. While he was listening to the eloquent Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) he said to himself—" Has the Semitic race forgotten the difference between a man and a woman? "He was not aware that the unenfranchised women of this country had ever been treated as slaves. He was the surviving collector of the majority that carried the Ten Hours' Act for the protection of women and children in their labour. If anything were said in derogation of women, he would ask—" Have we not a Queen? "We were not afraid of placing women in the highest position when we believed that they had an hereditary right to fill that position. But he had to look to society. He had to look to the constituencies as a whole, and to bear in mind that politics involved a mental, and, too often, a moral, sometimes a physical, warfare; he should no more think of voting for the embodiment of battalions of Amazons, because we had a Queen, than he should of voting for the enfranchisement of women as such. Let hon. Members consider the weight to be attached to the arguments about property as the basis of qualification for the franchise. He (Mr. Newdegate) asserted that, according to the Constitutional history of this country, there was a condition antecedent to the occupation or possession of property, and that condition was fitness. He had seen an hon. Member expelled from that House because he was not of sound mind. He was not fit. Bankrupts were not fit. Women were not fit. Priests were not fit. The Leader of the Irish Members, though nominally a Protestant, was inaugurated, he might say appointed, by a Roman Catholic Archbishop. He could understand his Irish neighbours' reason for advocating the extension of the franchise to women. He believed the priests had too much influence over the men in Ireland, and they would have still more influence with the women. Hon. Members must forgive his having accepted a

  703
  French teacher—M. Michelet—on this subject. The experience of France had not been wasted upon him. It could not be shown that this House, elected by men only, had neglected the interests of English, Scotch, or Irish women. Had it not years ago passed the Ten Hours' Act for the protection of women and children of the labouring classes? It had also more recently passed Acts giving women more command over property. There was not a particle of evidence that Parliament had become so unmanly; that it knew not how to respect, as their forefathers respected, the position and the privileges of women. He thought sometimes that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken their views of the rights of man from the writings of Tom Paine. He was not prepared to accept that kind of teaching with respect to the supposed rights of women, which, he believed, would involve most serious evils. He, moreover, trusted that the men of England felt, as the men of the United States had felt, that the enfranchisement of women might make them more negligent than they had been of the due position and privileges of women.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, during his long career in this House, has always been advocating failing causes. I have been present at almost every debate that has taken place on this question, and I have always noticed that the matter most dwelt upon has been the question of married and unmarried women. Those who are most concerned about married women with Parliamentary qualifications may be satisfied, I think, with the declaration of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mason); but, at the same time, I have never concealed my opinion on this subject, or that of the Women's Suffrage Associations throughout the Kingdom. It is true that these Associations have been founded by men and women who take a far more unassailable position than the line adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Their principle is electoral equality, and when they say that, they mean that any qualification established by Parliament which gives a vote to a man should give a vote to a woman, and they do not ask the question whether she is married or unmarried. What
  704
  gives prominence to this question at the present moment is the fact that in the next Session of Parliament the Government will endeavour to extend the franchise. Those of us in favour of the Motion before the House strongly object that the franchise should be extended as it has hitherto been extended. We say that if you have household suffrage it should be real household suffrage, and that those houses where women are at the head should not be passed over as if there were no human beings there with rights to defend, or with interests to protect. It is said, and I think it is true, that something like one house in seven has a woman at its head. Who are these women? One may be a woman of property, another may be eminent in art or literature, another will be a benevolent woman acting as a ministering angel to the poor and needy around her, and others will be persons in humble life, working year by year to maintain their families. The question we put is this—Why are these houses to be passed over? I do not think that question has been answered to-night in a manner to satisfy the people of this country; certainly not in a manner to satisfy those excluded from the franchise. This evening, in the Lobby, a distinguished Member of the House came to me to speak on the subject. He said—" You know I have always been opposed to you." I said—"Yes; I know. How is it you always oppose this measure?" "Well," he said, "there is only one reason why anybody can oppose it. I oppose the giving of the franchise to a woman because she is a woman." I said—" Do you think that reason will long suffice to maintain their exclusion? "He said—" I doubt if it will." Sir, I doubt myself whether that reason will long hold good. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) has another reason. When I look at his Amendment I see he tell us that, from time immemorial, only men have voted. But, Sir, women have recently discovered that from time immemorial they have suffered from their exclusion. I ask my hon. Friend to answer them when they make that declaration. Women are said to be ignorant. If the measure indicated were to pass, undoubtedly a considerable number of ignorant women would be enfranchised—women almost as ignorant as the men

  705
  enfranchised. I think it will be in the recollection of the House that when the Ballot Act was passed we took considerable pains to legislate to enable ignorant men to vote. It appears that on this side of the House this measure is opposed because it is regarded as a Conservative measure. Of course, action of that sort is inconsistent with Liberal principles. We do not desire to exclude people from the ballot box even if they are Conservatives. We, surely, on this side of the House, do not intend to say we will admit only those who assist our Party. There is one thing anybody can see with regard to women. No one can accuse them of leading disorderly or criminal lives; nobody can accuse them of drunkenness. If there were as little drunkenness amongst men as there is amongst women, if there were as little crime amongst men as there is amongst women, we should want fewer policemen, fewer prisons, and there would be less burdens and rates on the people. We hear in this House a good deal about Radicalism, more especially from these Benches. That term has never had any great charm for me, and for this reason—that I have often found it dissociated from ideas of justice. A remarkable speech was made in Birmingham the other day by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I read that speech with much interest. It was read with great pleasure by extreme politicians in this country. I heard men say it was one of the best utterances of the gospel of Radicalism. That may be true; but I have my doubts whether it was an adequate expression of the gospel of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman took a prophetic view of what may happen some years hence. He told us that every person not a criminal and not a pauper was to have a vote, provided that person was of the masculine gender. There was no suggestion that for all time to come a woman should have any Constitutional influence over those who made the laws which she is called upon to obey. The right hon. Gentleman advocated, as I understand, that Members of this House should be paid for their services. Six hundred and fifty salaries are to be added to the present expenditure. He did not tell us from what fund this was to come. I do not know that there is any public fund to which women do not
  706
  contribute their portion; and I doubt whether it would be just to tax women for services in this House in regard to which they cannot have the least control. Reference has been made to the old maxim that taxation and representation should go together; but my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield treats that principle with something like contempt when it comes from the mouths of women. But there are other and greater reasons than those involved in the question of taxation why women should have some influence in the House. This House sometimes passes laws which apply to women only. It sometimes inflicts grievous penalties upon women which would be intolerable to men. It interferes with the labour of women, perhaps sometimes advantageously to them; but at other times with considerable danger to their interests. Supposing some Assembly were to legislate for men over which men had not the least control. I undertake to say there would not be one man in 1,000,000 who would not see the monstrous injustice of such a state of things. It is somewhat comic that the "time immemorial" argument should be relied upon on these Benches. Many things have existed from time immemorial. The Established Church and the political position of Bishops have existed from the remotest times; and I should like to know, if the hon. Member for Hudderstield were to stand up and recommend important changes in these respects, what he would say if the argument of "time immemorial" came from the opposite Benches? If we had always adhered to what had been consecrated by time, instead of now being the for most nation in the world, we should probably be a group of painted savages. The hon. Members for Hudderstield and North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) have told us women can get what they want without the franchise. That used to be said of working men; but since they have had a vote Members in every part of this House have had a generosity and sympathy and courage with regard to all matters affecting working men which they never had before. Precisely the same effect would follow if you gave women the franchise. I admit that women have gained much without the franchise, and I will tell the House when that gain

  707
  began. It began with the introduction of the question of women's suffrage to the House, and the gain has been mainly due to the awakening intelligence of women on political questions, owing to the widespread agitation and the demand for women's suffrage. They have gained without the franchise municipal votes, school board votes, the right to sit on school boards, the magnificent Act of last year—an Act which ought to confer lasting fame on the present Lord Chancellor—I mean the Married Women's Property Act. And, owing to the untiring energy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), they have succeeded in inflicting a blow on an Act of Parliament more unjust to women than any which has ever been passed—a blow from which that Act will never recover. These things they have gained without the franchise. But who will toll me that they would not have gained them sooner, with less heart-breaking labour, if they had had the political franchise? I contend that to declare women incapacitated to vote, whatever property they may have, whatever may be their intellect and their character, and yet to declare men capable of voting, however wanting they may be in the qualifications to which I have referred, is to degrade women in their own estimation and in the estimation of everyone else. To give the franchise to men is to raise and to strengthen them. It would have the same effect upon women. Universally, to possess political influence is to command respect, and if women were more respected they would be less open to injury of every kind. We are going to enfranchise the farm labourer. Why, I ask, should, we not also enfranchise the farmer? I believe it has already been shown by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution (Mr. Mason) that a very large number of women are farmers—as many as 10 per cent of the farmers in England and Wales being women employing farm labourers. If we are going to enfranchise the labourers, is it right that the women who employ them, who pay their wages, and who have all the responsibility of the enterprize on their shoulders, should be treated as political cyphers? Again, one-seventh part of all the persons holding land of one acre and upwards are women. On what ground can we refuse to give
  708
  them a vote? Five per cent of the lay patronage of the Church of England is in the hands of women. Those women have a right to appoint the spiritual pastors of large and small parishes, and yet they are not allowed to perform the very humble function of giving a vote for a Member of Parliament. There is no greater delusion than to imagine that a high qualification is necessary in order to give such a vote. The instincts of the people, as a rule, enable them to decide which is the ablest or the most trustworthy candidate. In conclusion, I shall merely say that clever speeches, from whatever side of this House they come, will not subdue this agitation. In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddorsfield says, indications come to me which show that this agitation grows because women believe that its object is just; for God has planted the passion for justice in every human heart—and not less in the hearts of women than of men.
  MR. RAIKES: I desire to detain the House only a short time; but I am bound to say that it is difficult to abstain from offering some observations in reply to hon. Members who have advocated this Motion. I was particularly struck with what fell from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who laid great stress on the restricted objects of the Motion, and disclaimed, for himself and his Friends, any attempt to bring about the universal enfranchisement of women which has boon alluded to. The hon. Member pointed out that the Motion is one which extends only to women who possess the necessary qualifications—that is to say, that this question comes before the House to-night, as it has done on one or two former occasions, merely as a question of the enfranchisement of those women—widows and spinsters—who happen already to possess the franchise in local matters. I would venture to remind my hon. Friend that this year that position has become something of an anachronism. A very important measure was passed last Session; and when this House deliberately set itself to the abolition of the ancient relations of husband and wife with regard to the possession of property it took a new departure, which we cannot ignore in considering this question. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) has not dwelt

  709
  quite so much as he might have been expected to do on that wider view of the question with which he might have concerned himself. It was only to-day that I received, as I presume other hon. Members had done, a printed letter which has been signed and circulated by a lady who has taken great interest in this question, and who is treasurer of the Manchester Association for promoting the enfranchisement of women. In that letter, the writer argues with considerable logical force the case of the general enfranchisement of females, as compared with the partial enfranchisement contemplated by the present proposal. I cannot refuse full assent to the arguments I have seen in that letter. If we agree that women are to be equally entitled with men to the benefit of the franchise, it is impossible logically to refuse the franchise to that large number of women who are living in matrimony, and who have had that experience and knowledge of life, and of the affairs of life, which the position of a wife and mother must necessarily bring. Anything, therefore, more unjust, ungenerous, and indefensible than the exclusion of wives from such a proposal is hardly to be thought of; and I certainly shall do what I can to secure that the married women of this country shall not be ignored in the bestowal of the franchise, if it is to be conferred on women at all. There is another point on which I would briefly touch. Hon. Members, in their anxiety to minimize this enormous change, have told the House that women do not desire seats in this Chamber. This seems to me a more unreasonable limitation than the other. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton has told us that an enlightened woman is at least as qualified for the franchise as an unenlightened man. We are always reading about enlightened women, and hearing much that is said with respect to women on account of their intellectual qualifications. I should be sorry if anything I am about to say should be considered disrespectful to any members of that sex. I think, however, there is much more argument in favour of their sitting in this House than for the enfranchisement of the whole sex, in order that they might vote for the Members of this House. There is no doubt that many women are quite as well qualified for seats in this House as many hon.
  710
  Members; and no one can deny that there have been, and are, numerous examples of women of great intellectual capacity, and of high cultivation and attainments, who have specific and peculiar knowledge of many questions on which their opinions are entitled to the highest respect. This is, as far as it goes, an argument in favour of their sitting in this House; but I cannot see that it constitutes a valid reason for flooding the register with all the 95 or 96 per cent of other women, who have not the time or the qualifications for the study of political questions. I venture to call attention to what I think the illogicality of the two limitations I have referred to. If we are going seriously to deal with this question, we must be prepared to face it as a whole, and either to enfranchise women generally or to leave it alone. Much has been said as to the importance of the claims of women to direct representation. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) has said that the working men have been able to exercise greater influence on this House since they have had the franchise than before. The hon. Member, however, rather spoilt his argument by what he said in reference to the position of women as regards recent legislation in this House. But I would point out that those who argue from this point of view are arguing from a position unfortunately too common, particularly among those who hold advanced opinions—namely, that nobody can have any interests unless they are antagonistic to those of others; and that, therefore, it is necessary that those interests should be guarded by direct representation. I do not believe this. I believe it is from the calm judgment of the collective community that we got at the best opinions, and that it is not necessary to look to a particular class to vindicate the rights it claims. With regard to women, this idea appears to be a greater delusion than in the case of any other class. I believe that the interests of women, so far from being antagonistic to those of the men among whom they live, are indissolubly bound up with those of the other sex. I believe it is absolutely impossible for any man, who is qualified to take his seat in this House, not to be largely governed by considerations of what is due to women, who so greatly contribute to the

  711
  happiness of the country; and I do appeal to the House to consider this matter, not so much with regard to questions of foreign politics, or of peace or war, or even as to whether or not the clergy of all denominations may not have or exercise undue influence; but I do press my opposition to this proposal on grounds which I shall always oppose it upon, as long as I have a seat in this House, and which lead me to believe that anything more injurious to the women of this country could not be conceived than a scheme which proposes to put an Imperial, or, at least, a Parliamentary imprimatur on doctrines which lead to the unsexing of women and putting them on a false equality with men. Far be it from me, or anyone in this House, to speak of or dwell upon the general physical and mental inferiority on the part of women. I fully and freely recognize their great moral superiority in other respects. But we are endangering the moral superiority of women if we tell them that their duty in life is not that duty it has hitherto been conceived to be—not that simple round of daily domestic life in which a woman's days are passed. If we are going to detach women from those duties, which reconcile her to the sphere in which her lot is cast, and to ask her to turn her attention to political affairs, to study the columns of the political magazines and daily newspapers, in order to arrive at conclusions on questions which otherwise she could but imperfectly understand, and to expose her to the annoyances which appertain to political and public action; to bring her from that place in which she is so happy, and where she contributes so much to the happiness of the other sex, in order to make her a bad copy of man, the day, I trust, will be long distant when such a result will be achieved. I regret to find that a class of modern politicians is to be found on the public platforms of the country doing that than which nothing-could be more unworthy their position in society. When I see men of great gifts, of high aspirations, and noble example, such as the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), who can find nothing better to do than to go about from place to place to try and catch the cheers of poor, unreflecting, and thoughtless women, by uttering conventional platitudes which they may
  712
  fully believe, but which are sterile of any good for the country, and exciting au agitation out of which no definite result can be achieved; or when I see their female colleagues ascend those platforms and make public speeches—I wish to speak with all due respect of those ladies and of their public aims and aspirations, and even their ambition—I must say that these things cause to me, and to many people in this country who do not belong to this House, and who are not active politicians, something of a feeling of pain, in the presence of a public scandal which we grieve to witness, especially when I see that this is done at the expense of that sex which we all honour and revere. I apologize to the House for having so long intruded on its attention; but I trust I have explained that, so far from deprecating the well-recognized merits of women, I rather desire to preserve that safe and honourable seclusion which is given to them by nature and sanctioned by Revelation, which up to the present time has been respected by the law of England, and will, I trust, in the future, continue to be respected and protected by that law.
  MR. COURTNEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who has just spoken, and also his Colleague in the representation of that University (Mr. Beresford Hope), have insisted that if we granted the franchise to women, we must, in logic, go still further and admit women to this House. Those two speeches are equally remarkable, whether regarded as coming from Members of the Conservative Party, or as the expositions of opinion proceeding from Members having a constituency consisting to the extent of more than one-half of clergymen. But I believe that both—I am certain that one of them—have voted for the Bill which proposes to prevent even unbeneficed clergymen from sitting in this House. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Raikes) has added some remarkable observations with regard to the position and character of women. He began his speech by saying that it was impossible to accede to this proposition, because if it were acceded it must go much further.
  MR. RAIKES: the hon. Gentleman has misconceived what I have stated. I

  713
  did not rest my objection to the proposal on that ground; but I said it appeared to me that those who do not accept the wider view which I have referred to are illogical.
  MR. COURTNEY: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has said that if we accept one proposal we must accept the other. With regard to what I have said as to the constituency of the two right hon. Gentlemen whose speeches I have referred to, I would ask, do they intend to disfranchise the unbeneficed clergymen, because that is the logical deduction to be made from what they have said. With regard to this matter of logic, which requires that women should give a vote in the limited form proposed, as votes are already given to the Universities, I am bound to say it is a strictly moderate proposition. It is based on the following grounds:—We have already given to spinsters and widows, possessed of certain qualifications as to property or occupation, the privilege of voting for Town Councils, Boards of Guardians, and School Boards. We have laid down the principle that, so far as regards these public functions, sex is no disqualification. Marriage remains a disqualification, but sex does not; and the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) is that as far as we have already gone in local matters we should now go in Parliamentary matters. This is, I think, a strictly moderate and a Conservative proposition. It goes on that principle of politics which we all respect, since it proceeds from experience. We have tried it, and what are the results? Are they beneficial, or are they the reverse? Are they advantageous, whether as regards the constitution of the Boards so elected or the character of the women who form part of the constituency? If they have been beneficial, they are in favour of our going further. No one has said they have produced injurious effects in either direction. On those, then, who oppose the extension of the principle that has been so far successful, the burden is thrown of showing the ineligibility of women for the Parliamentary franchise. I can conceive one reason why hon. Members may refuse to give votes for women being Members of this House. They themselves might be affected by the change. This is, however, a very small reason indeed; and I
  714
  should like to know what is the real explanation of this singular anomaly—that hon. Members are ready to give women votes at elections in which those hon. Members are not directly concerned, and yet they refuse them in cases where they are so concerned? I confess I should have thought that one of the most hazardous things possible was the giving women votes at elections for Boards of Guardians, except, perhaps, making them eligible for seats on the school boards. One would have thought that the enfranchisement of women in respect of Boards of Guardians might have tended to thwart the operation of the Poor Law; yet, as a matter of fact, a totally different result has been witnessed; and so successful has been the experiment of admitting women, and so strictly and faithfully have they endeavoured to carry out the operations of the Poor Law, that the Local Government Board has used its power of nominating women as Guardians where they have not been elected. If we take the case of elections to the school boards, I ask, is there a single thing that is of more importance to the nation than the education of the Democracy of the future? And yet we give women votes for school boards, and allow them to be elected as members of those boards, because they have to do with the education of girls. In making women capable of sitting on school boards we have supplied them with a strong argument in favour of this Motion, for the work of the school boards far transcends in importance the ordinary questions that come before us at General Elections. Let me point out this with respect to the alleged injurious influence of public life upon the female nature. You find women engaged in the elections for Boards of Guardians, the elections for School Boards, and the elections for Town Councils—the first taking place yearly, the second once in three years, the third yearly; but the General Parliamentary Election, the effect of which is to be so injurious on the character of women, comes on the average only once in five years. But it is said, if you do give women this vote in the restricted form proposed by my hon. Friend, you must go further and give votes to married women too. ["No!"] That is the sort of logic that we have heard over and over again. If you give the £10 householder a vote you must give every householder a vote. If

  715
  you give every householder a vote, you must give every man a vote. If you give every man a vote, you must give every woman a vote, and so on. Principles of abstract political reasoning are, perhaps, not dealt with by any political Party in this country; but these are principles which I am most surprised to hear from Members of the Conservative Party. I proceed on the lines of experience. [Laughter.] I do not catch the secret explanation of the laughter which is now excited. You have women as electors in local affairs, women who are widows and spinsters and possess the qualifications required by law. Proceeding on that line, I ash why the same class of women, possessing the same qualifications, should run any danger by becoming Parliamentary electors? It is, I dare say, possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) desires to see the franchise extended to married as well as to single women. It is just possible that married women may ultimately demand the franchise too; but that change certainly will not be introduced till after much discussion and deliberation, and with many safeguards. I can see great reasons against it; but I utterly repudiate a line of opposing argument which is unworthy of any person educated in the political history of this country. That line of argument is this. You shall not confer the franchise upon persons who have proved their fitness for it, because you might possibly raise hereafter the question of conferring it upon persons in a different position, and against whose admission there are special and powerful arguments. Sir, the present proposal is, as I said before, simple, moderate, and Conservative; and let me remind hon. Members on the opposite Benches that the proposition received the approval of Lord Beaconsfield, who voted for it again and again. It also received the approbation of another man who was long known in this House, who sat on the Conservative side, and who was most justly respected by every Member. I refer to him not only on account of his position and authority, but because he became a convert to the cause after once opposing it; and he was a man whom certainly no one would suspect of any mawkish sentiment or weak feeling. I refer to Mr. Henley, who sat in the
  716
  House for years; and after opposing this proposal for three or four years, rose in his place one day and said—
  "I have been voting on this question; I have been watching what has been done; I have observed how women have voted for Local Councils and Boards of Guardians; and I have come to the conclusion that both as regards themselves and the bodies for which they have voted the change is beneficial, politic, and much to be desired."
  At this hour I will not detain the House much longer. But I must say a word or two in answer to the latter portion of the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman protested, in vigorous and powerful language, against the degradation of women which would ensue when some of them were called upon to discharge public functions upon political occasions. And he discoursed also, in still more vehement language, upon what I think he regarded—though his language was uncertain—as the degradation of those ladies, especially, who appear in public to advocate the claims of their sex. Sir, I altogether take issue with the right hon. Gentleman upon those points. I protest that so far from degrading her the bringing of women into contact with the ideas of public life, with the conceptions of national progress, with the development of national character, with the elevation of the people, and with the relation of this nation to other nations, just supplies that want which is necessary for herself, and, still more, which is necessary for her as the companion of man. If you want to have a heroic woman—[Laughter.]—if you want a woman with public spirit, one who shall be the companion and help-mate of the ideal English citizen, you must have a woman who shall understand and sympathize with the ideals and the pains and the life of her husband. I have, on former occasions, expressed in this House what I believe to be a fact—that in too many cases the husband is pulled down from the position which he would occupy, and the aims he would pursue, and from the ideals which he would seek to realize by the scantiness of education, by the limitation of motives, and by the restriction of feelings and ideas in his wife. Unless you develop in woman a power of sympathizing with and supporting man in the developments of political life, you will not only secure a stunted

  717
  woman, but you will also be punished by finding in her society little of that which will elevate you and her. You will have to reach to another ideal, and you will find society fall away from the standard that you desire to reach; and the national life, instead of becoming richer and fuller in successive years, will become more and more impoverished, poor, and petty. It is said that there are women who do not want the franchise. It is one of the strong points of the opposition that some women do not desire it. I often find that objection brought forward; but I doubt whether it is true. This is a question on which you may get any evidence you like, according to the point you desire to make. Just as you desire the answer you may find it; but the practical experience of political life, so far as it goes, shows that women do exercise municipal functions just as freely, largely, and jealously as men. Those women who tell you in society, as many of them will, that they do not want votes, are, I find, mixed up in politics very zealously; but the politics they pursue are the petty politics of personal relations, instead of the politics of national progress and national development.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have almost to apologize to the House for intruding now. I have to apologize to the House because I have so often expressed my opinion on this question; and I am only prompted to do so again because I feel so earnestly and sincerely on it, and I shall give a most earnest vote against this Motion. I am glad to think that the mask is at last thrown off. Tonight, for the first time, we know the real intention of the supporters of this Motion. For years they have expressed one view to the public, while their object, and their aim, and their purpose has been a different one. They have told us that their object has been to give a vote to unmarried women only, and by that representation they have secured support. Sir, to-night it is useless for them to tell us that. Add to this Motion the legislation of last Session, and it will be seen that the vote is to be given to every married woman as well. [Mr. HUGH MASON: No.] Let the hon. Mover of the Resolution make his declaration if he likes. It was worth nothing except the word that he gave. He
  718
  meant, no doubt, what he said; but let this Resolution pass into a Bill, and let the Property Qualification Act, 1882, remain unrepealed, and every holder of a free hold in the country became a voter. Let there be no mistake about this. If this Resolution is drafted into a Bill, and the legislation of 1882 remains unrepealed, you will give a vote to the married woman in the county and deny it in the borough. The husband in the county may enfranchise his wife. Every husband who has the means will have the right to confer a 40 s. freehold on his wife, and he can then either ask her to vote with him or against him. Let hon. Members who are about to record their votes understand that this would be the legal result of a successful issue to this Resolution. Now, in that is a plain issue. If you tell me that the difference would be nothing as regards women between the county and the borough franchise, what do you say to the illogical difference between giving a married woman a vote in the county but not in the borough? Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said about mysterious qualifications, I want to know what you are going to do about this Property Qualification Act in the case of married women? My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who has given a most unsound definition of political rights, has said that occupation and ownership should always be represented. According to that view, every house that holds a man has a vote, and not every man who holds a house. Occupation and ownership are to be represented. What does that mean? In a borough a man who pays no rent, but only promises to pay, has a vote. The man who owns a whole town is not entitled to vote; and that is what he calls the representation of occupation and ownership. My hon. Friend says, in effect, that fitness has nothing to do with the right to vote. Does he not know that property qualification is only held to be an evidence of fitness? A short time ago it was thought that no person below a £10 qualification should be allowed to vote. The hon. Member's proposition is that mere ownership, or occupation, or the payment of taxation, gives a right to vote; but the man who has lived 20 years in a house managing the property is not allowed to vote, and why? Why do not you allow them to

  719
  vote? Because they are not fit. You do not allow persons of weak mind to vote. It is because they are not fit. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said—" Why not give the franchise to woman, when she is willing to discharge all the obligations to the State?" But is she able to do so? Ought not a person who claims the rights of citizenship to be able to fulfil all its burdens? What is the first duty of a citizen? It is to defend the country in time of war. ["Oh!"] It is a principle which has; Been recognized in every State from the earliest times. Will she do that? There is another duty of citizenship—to assist in the suppression of internal commotion. Will woman take part in that? Will she be a special constable? Will you make of woman a Justice of the Peace? Will you make her a juryman? Will you allow her to be a Bishop? I will not say that the office of a Bishop represents the greatest degree of unfitness for women; but I might mention different offices, none of which they could fulfil. I would ask my hon. Friend, Would he allow women to sit in this House? ["No!"] Why not? Does not fitness come in there? [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton says distinctly "No;" and there we have a distinct test of inequality between men and women. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an old opponent of mine on this subject, and I am sure he will not object if I reply to some of his remarks. He said that both the right hon. Members for Cambridge University opposed women's suffrage on the ground that women could not sit in the House, and yet many of their constituents were clergymen, who could be voters, but were not eligible for election to Parliament. Yes; that is true; but a clergyman is not disqualified. It is his office that disqualifies him. Take off his robe, and take him away from his office, where he is supposed to exercise spiritual duties, which he cannot exercise if he becomes a Member of Parliament, and then that man may come into this House. I have one word more to say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. But the woman to whom you are asked to give the vote—and yet exclude her from this House—is excluded by virtue of her being a woman, a condition she never changes.
  720
  He has made an eloquent, and I know sincere, appeal on behalf of giving votes to women, with the object of raising them up. I should like to translate his views and put them explicitly before the House, in order that you may understand the persons for whom he so earnestly asks for the franchise. These were his own words, expressed to this House on a former occasion—
  "The narrowness of woman's range of ideas is absolutely deleterious in its effect. Our earliest lessons are received from them. Are they not often lessons that we have afterwards to unlearn with great difficulty? We often find a difficulty in freeing ourselves from them, and in emancipating ourselves from the errors of our earliest days."
  Those are the women upon whom my hon. Friend proposes to confer the franchise. What does my hon. Friend say with regard to married life?
  "Again, of those who enter into the marriage relations of life, how constantly does it happen that the man's freedom of intellect is a thing unto himself, that he is incapable of imparting to the woman, with whom so much of his life is spent, any conception of the range of his thought? He does not find' in her any companionship; but, on the contrary, a drag upon his aspirations."
  Now, Sir, I understand it is by giving women the franchise that my hon. Friend now seeks to lift them from this condition of weak-minded error. I say that is a proposition of very serious aspect. What period of probation are these women to go through before they arrive at the ideal of my hon. Friend? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh; but if I have quoted my hon. Friend correctly, where is his answer to the question? If you are going to put these unfit women into the rights of citizenship, are we to sacrifice the interests of this country in the hope that they will improve? I believe that my hon. Friend has approached the subject from a different point of view to that taken by most men. I differ from him even more in his premisses than in his conclusions. If hon. Members look back to the lessons of their earliest years, they will not find anything to lead them to agree with my hon. Friend. The difference is that we did not wish those lessons to be political, and, because they were not political, they were valuable. My hon. Friend wishes the mother and the wife to become a politician; but he makes a great mistake in thinking that the public life will make women virtuous, rather than the

  721
  private life by which, they have made so many men good. Now, Sir, one word more in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. What qualifies a man for admission to this House? Have not men experience of all professions? Do we not one and all bring to bear something of a peculiar and particular knowledge? Cannot my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, and others in the same Profession, enlighten us respecting the law? Do not commercial men tell us their views upon trade and commerce? Do not military men give us their experience of armies and of war? To any one of these subjects can woman contribute any experience? She can tell us, no doubt, of her great experience of domestic life; but, unhappily for us, that is not a subject with which we have to deal here. It is useful on school boards, but not in Parliament. When we had to deal with great questions of peace and war, what would result if women took part in politics? We should find them timid in time of panic and violent in time of outbreak. I believe that if a war were proposed for restoring the temporal power of the Pope every woman in France would support it. Whom do you think 'were the most earnest for war when France went into her unhappy conflict with Germany? Why, the women. If they have to decide questions like these, I am afraid the goodness of their nature will stand them in little stead. We shall have the impulses of hearts rather than the reasoning of minds. I am told to-night that the supporters of this Motion have a majority in the House, and that there is to be a great victory for them. Well, Sir, they may, from accidental circumstances and great importunity, have secured for this time a majority; but it will be a very fleeting one. It is easy enough to bring down a few devoted followers in support of a movement which has been well canvassed; but let this once be found a serious question, and there will be deserters on one side and recruits on the other. I am certain of this—that we have forces still in reserve. The women of England have never yet really expressed their opinion upon this question. Were it not for that class of women who are happy in gazing upon, and being gazed upon by crowds, there would be no demand at all for
  722
  women's suffrage. Those who represent the real feminine feeling of the country do not go to public meetings. The voice of the mob is heard, and the clamour of their loud cry is supposed to represent the voice of the women of England. To-night we, as men of different political Parties, express our view; but there is a class in the country that does not often speak, and yet it has at times determined the state of Parties; I mean those men who take but little heed of political life, who find their happiness at home, and who wish to see this country well governed, and who believe that upon the stability of their homes depends the greatness and prosperity of the country. When once they know that from those homes you seriously mean to take the women who are their light and happiness, they will denounce this measure as an influence that can add nothing to the happiness and the strength of any man's domestic life, and that will bring within the action of public men a source of weakness and of impulse detrimental to the very best interests of this country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 114: Majority 16.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Allsopp, C.

  Duff, E. W.

  Armitstead, G.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Bass, H.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

  Elliot, hon. A. E. D.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Errington, G.

  Blennerhassett, Sir E.

  Estcourt, G S.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Evans, T. W.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Bryce, J.

  Finch, G. H.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Cameron, D.

  Floyer, J.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Fort, R.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Foster, W. H.

  Causton, R. K.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Gardner, E. Richardson-

  Chaplin, H.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Cole, Viscount

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Corry, J. P.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Cropper, J.

  Greer, T.

  Curzon, Major hn. M.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  723

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Newport, Viscount

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Percy, Earl

  Percy, Lord A.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Ralli, P.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Holms, J.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Ince, H. B.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  James, Sir H.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Scott, M. D.

  Johnstone, Sir F.

  Sheil, E.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Sykes, C.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Thornhill, T.

  Levett, T. J.

  Tollemache, hn. W. F.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Loder, R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Warton, C. N.

  March, Earl of

  Webster, J.

  Marriott, W. T.

  Whitbread, S.

  Martin, R. B.

  Willis, W.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Winn, R.

  Maxwell-Heron, Capt. J. M.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Wroughton, P.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Miles, C. W.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  TELLERS.

  Monckton, F.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Mowhray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Leatham, E. A.

  NOES.

  Agnew, W.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Anderson, G.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Arnold, A.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Fry, L.

  Baldwin, E.

  Fry, T.

  Barran, J.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Giles, A.

  Bective, Earl of

  Grant, A.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Grant, D.

  Blake, J. A.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Blennerhassett, R. P.

  Henderson, F.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Howard, J.

  Burt, T.

  Illingworth, A.

  Cameron, C.

  James, C.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Cohen, A.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Collings, J.

  Kinnear, J.

  Collins, E.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Lalor, R.

  Cowen, J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Creyke, R.

  Leahy, J.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Leake, R.

  Davies, D.

  Leamy, E.

  De Ferrières, Baron

  Leatham, W. H.

  Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Earp, T.

  Lee, H.

  Edwards, P.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  M'Arthur, A.

  724

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Roe, T.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Ross, A. H.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Round, J.

  Morley, A.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Morley, J.

  Shaw, T.

  Morley, S.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Smith, E.

  O'Beirne, Colonel F.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  O'Brien, W.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Summers, W.

  O'Gorman Mahon. Col. The

  Taylor, P. A.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Palmer, G.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Pennington, F.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Porter, rt. hn. A. M.

  Waugh, E.

  Potter, T. B.

  Whitworth, B.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Power, R.

  Williamson, S.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Woodall, W.

  Ramsay, J.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Rankin, J.

  Richard, H.

  TELLERS.

  Richardson, J. N.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Richardson, T.

  Mason, H.

  Roberts, J.

  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee upon Monday next.

SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]
(Sir Hervey Bruce, Mr. Pell, Mr. Corry, Mr. Lewis, Mr. O'Sullivan.)
SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Hervey Bruce)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, this was a very important Bill, and it was desirable to know what view the country took of it. In many parts, and especially in Lancashire, there was a strong feeling with regard to it; the belief being that it would bring a number of people who were not natives of England on the poor rates, without their having previously given any benefit to this part of the country. Several Members who wished to discuss the measure were not here, and he therefore moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the Bill was not new to the House, and had only been snuffed out earlier in the Session by a technical error.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEopposed the Motion, regarding the hour as one when a Bill of this sort might be discussed. If it were discussed upon its merits, the Government would support the second reading; but, no doubt, there would be Amendments moved from various quarters in Committee.
  MR. RAMSAYobjected to a measure of this kind being passed through at the instance of a private Member. It was not right that the Government should say they would support the Bill, and not accept the responsibility of bringing the measure before the country. He gladly supported the Motion. He had sat upon a Committee which inquired into this subject, and the Bill did not carry out what he thought was the intention of that Committee.
  MR. C. H. JAMESsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the Bill, for it interfered with a law which had worked very well. He should vote for the Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 20: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Tramways Provisional Orders * (110).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (122); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) * (123); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) * (117).
Third Reading—Registry of Deeds (Ireland) * (97), and passed.

LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—THE CLYDE DISASTER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl opposite in his place, I beg to ask him a Question of
  580
  which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether the Government intend to take any steps to ensure that an inquiry will be made into the Clyde catastrophe? From all the information that has been published, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that there must have been gross mismanagement; and I think the Government should take immediate steps to see that a searching investigation into the circumstances should be made.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, on receiving the Notice of the noble Viscount I communicated with the President of the Board of Trade, but I found it was not a case that will come under the Board of Trade. The matter is one that will have to be considered by the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, and I have not had time to communicate with him since I received Notice of this Question.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I understand an investigation is being made, and I should like to know if the Report will be laid on the Table before the House rises?
  EARL GRANVILLE: If the noble Viscount will revert to the usual practice of giving Notice of his Question, I will be glad to do my best to answer him. It is very inconvenient to be called on to answer Questions of this kind without Notice.

WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—THE NEW HEBRIDES—OCCUPATION BY FRANCE.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I hope I may be allowed to ask a Question on another matter. On coming down to the House a telegram from Sydney was put into my hands, stating that a French gunboat had been sent with orders to hoist the French flag on the New Hebrides. I should like to know Whether the Government have any information on the subject?
EARL GRANVILLE: I have not had time to communicate with my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). If the noble Viscount will give Notice, according to the usual practice of the House, I have no doubt that my noble Friend will answer the Question on another occasion.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

INDIA-CRIMINAL LAW—PUNISHMENT OF FLOGGING.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps (if any) have been taken in regard to the abolition of the punishment of flogging for minor offences in India; and to ask whether any returns on the subject will be furnished, and, if so, when? said, that it was not until last year that an assurance was given in that House which led him to believe that some activity had been shown on the part of Her Majesty's Government with the view of remedying the evils to which his Question applied. An assurance was given by the then Under Secretary of State for India that the subject was receiving the attention of the noble Marquess who at that time presided at the India Office. He was inclined to believe, from observation of the Indian journals, that the noble Marquess had acted in the matter with his accustomed energy and promptitude. Flogging in India was in itself a punishment that inflicted the deepest indignity upon the Natives, and was the cause of far more grievous suffering than corporal punishment inflicted in this country. The Returns showed that sentences of flogging were passed in India for the most trivial offences; while in this country flogging was only used to punish the most heinous offences, such as robbery with violence. He wished to bring before the attention of the country the dreadful horrors which were perpetrated under the British Government in India by the indiscriminate infliction of flogging for trivial offences. He had collected information on this subject from public journals enjoying, and rightly enjoying, the respect and confidence of the Indian public—The Englishman of Calcutta, The Madras Times, and The Bombay Gazette—and the cases which he had selected were not old ones, but had occurred as recently as 1882. For stealing eight annas, value 1s., a sentence of 30 lashes and three years' rigorous imprisonment had been inflicted. On a previous occasion he had been told that severe punishments were inflicted because the subjects were old offenders. The House should remember that they were administering British justice in India according to English law, and
  582
  there was no such thing in English law as accumulative punishments. But even if there were, unless for offences of a most grave character, such a punishment as 30 lashes, administered with a cat or rattan, in addition to three years' rigorous imprisonment, ought not to be inflicted. The theft of a bottle of whiskey was punished with 20 lashes and two years' imprisonment; for stealing seven annas, value 10 d., the sentence was 30 lashes and two years' imprisonment; stealing cloth, value 6s., 25 lashes and one year's imprisonment; the theft of a tiffin box, 35 lashes; stealing gold ornaments, value £15, 50 lashes and two years' imprisonment; the theft of a pocket-handkerchief, 18 strokes with a rattan; stealing a bottle of brandy, 10 lashes; stealing a pocket-handkerchief, 15 strokes and two months' imprisonment; while a boy of 12 years of age received 12 strokes for stealing a bottle of Eau de Cologne. The theft of a pair of shoes was visited with three years' imprisonment; and stealing 3d. was punished with eight months' rigorous imprisonment and one month's solitary confinement. Stealing a necklace was punished by three years' imprisonment and two months' solitary confinement; stealing 9d., three years' imprisonment, with two months' solitary confinement. To show the inequality of the punishments, he would point out that for stealing £2 10 s. only two months' hard labour was given; and for stabbing, only sis weeks' imprisonment. The theft of £150 and other articles was punished with four months' imprisonment; while three years' was given for stealing 3d. He did not suppose the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would justify these cases on the ground of cumulative punishments. What was the cause of these small offences? The cause was the most lamentable that could be conceived. It was admitted on all hands that these trivial thefts took place because 40,000,000 of the population were in a state of chronic starvation. Many of the thefts that were committed and punished with flogging were committed by the offenders for the purpose of relieving the chronic hunger from which they suffered. Labourers were only paid 4s. a week. Out of every sum of 5d. expended in the purchase of salt, 4½d. went to the Government. It was further to be remem-

  583
  bered that this was in a country where £4,000,000 out of the £60,000,000 of Revenue was paid as pensions and deferred pay to persons not resident in the country. These circumstances explained how it was that the working people were sometimes driven to commit theft. Hunger was the cause of their misconduct; and that being so, the British Government deserved severe censure for having permitted the practice of flogging to extend to such proportions as it had readied in late years. In a recent year there were 17,032 cases of corporal punishment for offences committed in gaols. That was an enormous number; and what made the matter worse was that the flogging in those cases was ordered to be inflicted by the prison officers, without the intervention of any magistrate. He trusted that the Secretary of State for India would give the House an assurance that the punishment of flogging would, in the future, be much less frequently resorted to, if not abolished altogether.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was quite understood in that House that when a noble Lord had given Notice that he would call attention to one subject he was allowed to speak on all other subjects, however remote their relevancy might be. But his noble Friend behind him had extended their Lordships' privilege very greatly on that occasion, for he had referred, not only to the subject of flogging in India, but to questions that had very little connection with the subject matter of his Question—such questions as the condition of the population of India, the food supply of that country, and its taxation, not one of which subjects could be discussed adequately in less than a whole Sitting. If his noble Friend wished to have them discussed, perhaps he would be good enough to give Notice of his intention. Passing by the figures of his noble Friend, which were not all of them accurate, he said that he feared that the noble Lord could not have read the Papers presented to the House last August on the subject of flogging, because in those Papers, although he did not say that they would remove all the censure which the noble Lord had passed upon the Government of India, there was very full information upon the whole question; a statement of the inquiry made by the Indian Government on the subject; the answers of the Local
  584
  Government; the view taken by the Indian Government; and the despatch of Lord Hartington stating his views upon the whole question. In order to understand the present position of the matter it was absolutely essential that those Papers should be referred to, and his natural answer to the noble Lord, therefore, would be—" Read those Papers." He was not prepared to deny that the great amount of flogging which had been inflicted in India for minor offences was a subject deserving of attention, and that it was most desirable to diminish the number of such punishments. His noble Friend would find, if he would look at the Papers, that the Government of India quite recognized those considerations; but the replies received from the local Governments disclosed practically an unanimity of opinion as to the propriety and necessity of retaining whipping as a form of punishment. The inhabitants of India had always been familiar with that form of punishment, and in the opinion of the Indian Government the advances made by the people in civilization were not yet such as would justify the Government in abolishing flogging. It was for reasons connected with the question of caste, a less severe punishment than imprisonment, and it relieved the gaols. It was also preferable to imprisonment in that it left the bread-winner, supposing him to be the offender, with his family. The Indian Government, however, thought that magistrates of the second class should alone have authority to order a prisoner to be whipped, and suggested other limitations to the punishment. the Governor General added that indiscriminate flogging should be checked, especially in times of distress. Lord Hartington approved generally the views taken by the Governor General; but he added that he desired that the Viceroy in Council should take into consideration the question of a further reduction in the class of offences to be punished by flogging. That was the last despatch on the subject. He had no doubt that Lord Ripon's Government would consider whether a diminution could not be effected in the number of offences for which whipping was inflicted; but while it would be necessary to preserve in India a punishment which would not be necessary in this country, where the ways of life and the habits of the people

  585
  were very different, at the same time he strongly felt, as everyone must feel who considered the subject, that every effort should be made to diminish the number of floggings. There was one piece of information which would be satisfactory to his noble Friend, and that was the number of corporal punishments for gaol offences had been largely diminished. While in 1880 the number was 17,057, in 1881 it was 8,921, or a reduction of 47 per cent. Further and more complete Returns would be shortly received. The ordinary Returns had been received already, but not those for which Lord Hartington called, distinguishing the kinds of offences and the nature of the punishment. When his noble Friend saw those Returns he would be better able to judge how far an advance had been made towards the object he had in view.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that he had been in communication with a medical man who had been 10 years in India, and who told him that after seven or eight lashes of the rattan, he had seen the flesh fly from a man's back, and that he had witnessed scenes really disgusting and horrible. It was partly owing to his representations, and the terrible nature of the punishment, that he had brought the matter before their Lordships. He had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to reduce the punishments; but he hoped they should be able to see their way to substituting some other punishment for that of flogging.

RAILWAY SERVANTS—HOURS OF DUTY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FORBES, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, If a Return could be obtained of the number of hours in the day or week that the railway servants were on duty? said, the subject was one of national importance, inasmuch as now-a-days all the community were, if not travellers themselves, at all events deeply interested in the convenience and safety of those who were; and it was well known that many of the accidents that occurred were attributable to the long hours that railway servants were employed. Quite recently the Irish mail escaped from a terrible; accident by an engine with two men asleep on it being
  586
  providentially discovered just in time to be removed. While asking for information on this subject, he would like to know the powers of the Board of Trade in regard to signals, brakes, composite trains, and other matters of that kind. In regard to brakes, he thought we were far behind Continental countries; and as to the danger of forming composite trains of passenger carriages and goods waggons, they had a strong proof in an accident that occurred on the Alford Branch of the North of Scotland Railway. He did not make any charge against any particular Company, but thought he was justified in urging on the Government the necessity of introducing more stringent regulations.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that, before his noble Friend answered this Question, he should like to be allowed to make an observation. The number of railway servants in the United Kingdom was about 240,000, and, therefore, the information referred to in the Question would indicate a vast mass of statistics. He did not mean to suggest that it would be impracticable for the Board of Trade to obtain from the various Railway Companies a copy of their time-sheets during some given week; but the items ascertained would, if they were to be turned to any practical purpose, require so many explanatory qualifications that the result might become somewhat uncertain and complicated. A pointsman at some local station might be nominally on duty for, say, 20 hours; but that might be occasioned by the fact that he had to start an early goods train at 3 o'clock in the morning, and he might then be without actual work till many hours later when the regular traffic commenced; and the Railway Company would, of course, be entitled to insert all such extenuating circumstances. At the same time, the general fact remained that it was exceedingly common for railway servants to be employed for periods which were undesirably long. That might be explained partly by the varying and peculiar requirements of railway traffic, but also he thought by the fact that there was a certain attractiveness in railway work, which secured a constant and superabundant supply of applicants for that kind of employment, and that enabled the Railway Companies to make terms of a more stringent kind than those which were practicable in

  587
  other kinds of business. What he would I suggest, as he could not, of course, put a formal Question to his noble Friend without Notice, was whether it would not be quite feasible to arrange that, as every casualty on a railway, however slight, was by regulation reported to the Board of Trade—in the year 1881, for example, there were 3,734 cases of injury to railway servants duly reported—it should be at the same time stated in the Report for how many hours the railway servant, or servants, concerned had been employed at the time of the occurrence, or what was the average length of their day's work?
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, this question of the hours of employment of railway servants has been brought before Parliament on several occasions. In 1877, the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) brought in a Bill to limit the length of time during which railway servants could be employed; it being stated to be—
  "Detrimental to the proper working of railways, and dangerous to the public, that the hours of employment should be excessive."
  That Bill was discussed by the House at some length; but it was thrown out as likely to cause needless interference with Railway Companies, and because it would, to a great extent, reduce their responsibility. The Board of Trade have no legislative authority, and can lay down no special binding rules in the matter; but they have indirectly great moral power. It is found that, when accidents happen and inquiries are made, the publicity given by the Inspectors to cases of working overtime is far more efficacious on the Companies than any law on the subject could possibly be. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade have reason to know that, on the whole, the Railway Companies are most anxious to prevent this sort of irregularities happening, and take stringent steps to prevent them; but it is clear that sometimes under special circumstances they will happen, as, for example, when goods trains are delayed from fog, snow, and other causes. A few cases, therefore, do sometimes arise, though the Board of Trade are convinced they are very rare. The case to which the noble Lord refers appears to have been due solely to the great desire of the men to get back to their homes; and they distinctly made a wilful misstatement to the
  588
  night porter to the effect that they came out at 12.45 mid-day instead of 8 o'clock that morning. The London and Northwestern Company state to the Board of Trade—
  "The delay to the Irish mail was caused through an engineman and fireman falling asleep on their engine when returning empty without waggons. They reported themselves at Bangor to the night foreman and were allowed to return to Chester. This would not have been done if the men had not wilfully made a misstatement to the effect that they had commenced work at 12.45 mid-day instead of 8 o'clock. The men stopped in obedience to signals at Llanfairfechan and fell asleep. The signalman at Llandudno exhibited great presence of mind, when the light engine ran through that station, in telegraphing to Colwyn Bay for the protection of the line. Both driver and fireman were asleep, but perfectly sober.… Although a delay of 22 minutes occurred to the mail owing to its being stopped at the various block points, no danger whatever could arise, as the signalman and other servants on duty took the usual precautions necessary under the block regulations, nor was there any possibility of the engine exploding, as the fire had naturally died down."
  There is no doubt the signalmen deserve the greatest credit. The policy of Parliament has always been to show that it thought it would be a dangerous precedent to interfere between the employer of adult labour and the employed as to the number of hours he was to work. It has always considered it far better to leave the responsibility on the right shoulders—namely, on those of the Railway Company. The whole question of Government taking additional responsibility and interfering with the Railway Companies was also most fully discussed before the Royal Commission in 1878. As regards the question raised by the noble Lord on the judgment of Major Marindin, one of the Board of Trade Inspectors, about three years ago, I have not the Report by me; but I can say that it is the practice of Inspectors to point out all matters connected with accidents that appear to have tended to cause them. There are several occasions on which it has been pointed out that mixed trains are an element of danger. I have one here, in which it is stated that—
  "Mixed trains are always more or less an element of danger; but the risk of accident is far greater when the goods waggons are in front of the passenger carriages, although, doubtless, it is more convenient to place them there for shunting purposes."
  This is not done because the Board of Trade have any legal power to enforce

  589
  it, but merely, by giving full publicity, to let it operate on the Railway Companies. It must be remembered that it is the direct interest of the Companies to prevent accidents; and up to a certain point there can be no doubt, provided you obtain uniformity of practice, it is far better for a Public Department not to interfere more than is absolutely necessary. In the present instance, where a strong case has been brought to light of a fireman and engineman working over hours, the Board of Trade consider that it is their duty to point it out as a caution to all other Railway Companies, to show the great and urgent care that is required to prevent overtime. They propose, therefore, to issue a special Circular to the Railway Companies, calling their attention to this case, and to the necessity of providing for the regularity of the hours of labour. I have only to add that I hope the noble Lord will not press for the Return for which he has moved. It would be a most voluminous document, and, besides being very difficult to obtain, would, I believe, be found altogether useless.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that, if the Board of Trade were to obtain such powers of interference, it would be undertaking the conduct of the railways, and with it the responsibility of their management. The Return asked for might very probably not be as voluminous as the noble Lord opposite supposed; but there could be no objection to a Return of the hours of labour of such classes of workmen as engine-drivers and signalmen, whose long periods of duty were often injurious to their health, as well as dangerous to the safety of the public. The rule of dividing the 24 hours into three sections of eight hours for signalmen had been departed from by the Companies, except in the neighbourhood of London and other large towns. The time was now often divided into two equal parts, and thus a signalman had to remain in the box every day for 12 hours continuously, with, perhaps, a good many signals constantly to attend to. He knew of several cases in which this stress of duty had injured the health and even the sanity of those employed. This, of course, involved serious risks to the public. He thought there was great cause for a general Circular on the subject of hours; and, as in the case of
  590
  continuous brakes, the Board of Trade would do well to lay down some general standard rules, which would serve as tests of responsibility in inquiries about accidents.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, that the ordinary practice was that the drivers and firemen of passenger trains were employed from seven to ten hours a day, and those of mineral trains from nine to twelve hours; but the fixed hours were subject to exceptional delay by reason of bad weather. Passenger guards did 10 hours' duty. It was now rather the exception for signalmen to work the long hours that had been stated. At all important stations the time was eight hours; at some out-of-the-way places it might be longer. If attention were turned to some other employments, it would probably be found that the hours of work were longer than they were on railways. For instance, omnibus drivers in London were on duty from 12 to 15 hours a-day. As to the inspection of works and bridges by the officers of the Board of Trade, as he was a Director of the Company that was building the new Forth Bridge, commenced three months ago, he might say that the officers had been there and had made a rigid inspection of all the material that was to be used in the work.

OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in rising to move—
  "That the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod he directed to inquire into the department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, with the view of ascertaining whether the appointments in that department, or some of them, may not in future be conferred upon persons who have served with distinction in the army or navy or some department of the public service,"
  said, he could not bring forward the Motion without expressing his deep regret, in which he was sure their Lordships shared, that they would never again see Sir William Knollys take his place in that House. The late Sir William Knollys led a long career in the service of his country and in the service of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and when he was appointed to the Office of Gentleman Usher of the

  591
  Black Rod, the general feeling was that he well deserved the tribute that had been paid to his services. Sir William Knollys was the personal friend of most of their Lordships, and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to say anything further; but he was sure that his name would never be mentioned in that House with any other feeling but that of the deepest esteem and regret. This was not the first time that the propriety of making this Motion had occurred to him; but for obvious reasons he had postponed it until it could be discussed on some such occasion as that, when nothing of a personal character could be supposed to be attached to it. The offices attached to their Lordships' House were valuable offices. There were two principal door-keepers who received a salary of £300 a-year; one who received £250, and 18 who received salaries from £70 to £170 a-year. These appointments were formally made by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He himself was not in the primary sense an officer of the House; he was senior Gentleman Usher of the Queen, and was deputed as such to attend upon this House. In point of fact, he was the representative of Her Majesty in that House. Formerly, he was paid by fees, which were commuted into a salary. Originally, when there was only one door, he was the only officer admitted into the House during the debates, until the increase in the number of doors had involved an increase in the number of door-keepers. The appointments were made under the authority of the House, which at no time relaxed its control over them, and they were in no sense attached to the office of Black Rod. They were made by him simply because the House had permitted him to make them. In early times the offices were disposed of by sale, and a Committee reported with satisfaction that the practice had ceased, intimating that it ought not to be revived. The duties attached to the offices were not laborious. With regard to that portion of his Motion which alluded to the Army and Navy, he thought it would be admitted that there was a growing desire in the country to do what was possible to elevate those two great public Services in public estimation by reserving for those who distinguished themselves in those Services
  592
  appointments of the character of those under consideration. The civil employment of soldiers and sailors had occupied the attention of both Houses of Parliament; a Committee of the House of Commons had reported strongly in favour of it; the Commander-in-Chief had advocated it; some of the Public Departments had recognized the claims of soldiers and sailors; and preference was given to them at the Admiralty and at the War Office respectively. Their claims had been urged on a Committee of the House of Commons, which had not yet reported. If it was urged that the appointments in that House must be filled by responsible persons, what better guarantee of responsibility could there be than the training of the Services and the recommendation of the commanding officers? It seemed to him that there was every reason in favour of this Motion. There were many of their Lordships, and he was one of them, who owed their seats in that House to the services rendered to the country either by themselves or their Predecessors in the Army and Navy. Therefore, he thought it was only right that they should seize every opportunity of recognizing the debt they owed. Large numbers of commissioned officers would, he believed, be keen candidates for such places. For his own part, he would far rather be a principal door-keeper of that House with £300 a-year than the Governor of a gaol. Yet whenever the Governorship of a gaol became vacant there was sure to be a large number of candidates for the post, including many officers in the Army and Navy. He was certain that both Services would consider the acceptance of this Motion by their Lordships as a very great compliment. He had proposed the Motion simply for the reasons he had stated, and without any reference to any of the present officers of the House. If there were anything in the terms that might seem to be too stringent he should be perfectly willing to accept a change in the words. He might mention that he did not wish to limit these appointments necessarily to persons who had served in the Army or Navy. All he desired was that candidates from the Army and Navy should have a preference given to them. In conclusion, he begged to move the Motion of which he had given Notice.

  593
  Moved, "That the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod he directed to inquire into the department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, with the view of ascertaining whether the appointments in that department, or some of them, may not in future he conferred upon persons who have served with distinction in the army or navy or some department of the public service."—[The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE DUKE OFCAMBRIDGEsaid, he entirely agreed with every word the noble Lord had said. He had no wish to find fault with anything that was going on now; but he was of opinion that if this Motion were accepted an opening would be given to the valuable men who were now serving their country in the Army and Navy, and there would be an immense inducement to men to enter and continue in those Services. It would, he thought, be a great pity if they did not attempt to introduce a system of giving such appointments as these to naval and military officers. At the same time, he should be sorry if it were made an exclusive system; but the noble Lord distinctly guarded himself against that. He hoped the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty would, on behalf of the Navy, support the Motion. For his own part, he cordially approved it.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that during his connection with the Civil Service Commission it had fallen to his lot to see the excellent characters and the creditable examinations passed by the pensioners both of the Army and Navy. These very deserving non-commissioned officers came before the Civil Service Commissioners for the very small number of appointments which they were now able to receive. Such appointments were very few, both at the Admiralty and the War Office. He felt certain that if some scheme, such as his noble Friend had sketched forth, could be entertained by those in authority, it would constitute one of the greatest inducements possible to recruit even a better class of men than we had at present in the Army and the Navy. The excellent testimonials of soldiers and sailors produced in Cannon Row had come under his notice, and it was a subject of regret to the Civil Service Commission, of which he had the honour to be the head, that there were so few of these appointments that could be given to them. If
  594
  the scheme proposed by the noble Earl could be entertained, it would be viewed by the Civil Service Commissioners with the most hearty approbation.
  THE EARL OF NORMANTONsaid, there was one point on which he could confirm everything the noble Earl had said. The noble Earl had remarked that he would far prefer to be a doorkeeper of that House than the Governor of a gaol. It had been his evil fortune more than once during the last few years to act on a Committee appointed for the purpose of choosing the Governor of a gaol. On one occasion there were upwards of 300 candidates, and he was astonished to find that among them there were not only subordinate officers of the Army and Navy, but officers of high rank—General Officers and Admirals of the Fleet—who were most anxious to obtain the appointment. On one occasion he was so astonished that he spoke to one of the candidates—an Admiral who had since held a high command. He at first thought it was impossible that he could be aware of what could be the duties of the office; but to his surprise the Admiral told him that he was prepared to go through them all, that he could get nothing to do, and that he was in the greatest possible distress. If this Resolution were carried, he believed it would be found that a large number of applications would be received, not only from non-commissioned officers and men, but also from commissioned officers of Her Majesty's Army and Navy.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the evidence adduced before the Select Committee of 1876 was strong and conclusive as to the important effect on recruiting that would be produced by giving civil appointments to non-commissioned officers. It was recommended that more of these places should be placed by the Government at the disposal of deserving non commissioned officers. At the War Office the number of military clerks was very small as compared with the number of civil clerks. He thought that the War Office should be entirely manned by soldiers; and that even the higher appointments in that Department of the State should be filled by officers. Many officers would gladly compete for such appointments, especially if they found promotion in the Army slow. In Germany and France

  595
  the War Departments were wholly manned by soldiers.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAREMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the late holder of the Office was an officer in the Army, and his Predecessor was an Admiral, and there had been no impediment to their appointment because they were in the Army and the Navy; but it might be carrying the matter a little too far to say that the Office should not be conferred upon any others than officers in the Army and Navy. It was surely fair that domestic servants throughout the country should have opportunities of getting these places. The evidence was clear that these appointments rested with Black Rod, and down to the present time there had been no dissatisfaction as to the manner in which they had been filled up. He did not resist the Motion, though he was a little sorry that new restrictions should be placed upon a public officer at the time of his appointment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was impossible not to sympathize with those who had advocated the cause of the Army and Navy on the present occasion. He thought, however, that other officers in the Public Service besides those in the Army and Navy were entitled to consideration. He was glad the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) had given them some advice upon the matter. No doubt, the habits of discipline acquired by officers in the Army and Navy rendered them peculiarly fitted for certain situations; but he understood that the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) who made the Motion only wished for an inquiry into this matter. He thought, however, that one subject of inquiry should be not only the rewards given, but what would be most for the convenience of the House. Some noble Lords had pushed their arguments to an extreme length. Some of the officers of the House had to perform duties of a menial character; and he should himself be very unwilling to order a retired Admiral or officer in the Army to perform duties of that class. It was, he thought, necessary to appoint men who could deal with distinguished foreigners and ladies when they visited the House; and that, no doubt, required a certain amount of training, which was not necessarily, but might be, possessed by a gallant soldier or sailor. Though he
  596
  adopted the Motion, it would be quite understood that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire, not only into the character of the rewards, but also as to what was most for the convenience of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he disclaimed any intention of interfering with the convenience of the House, and expressed his gratitude at the manner in which his Motion had been accepted; also his willingness that the Motion should be adopted in the sense placed upon it by the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.