Sitting of 1 April 1884

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL. (by Order)—With drawn—Metropolitan and London, Tilbury, and Southend Railways.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Post Office Protection* [161].
Second Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order* [145]; Land Drainage Provisional Orders* [137]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton Barnes, &c.)* [147]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c)* [148]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.)* [149]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) (Belchalwell, &c.)* [150]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.]*[151]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.)* [152]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.)* [153]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Pool Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.)* [154]; Representation of the People* [119] [Fourth Night], debate further adjourned; Trustee Churches (Ireland)*[157]; Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment* [155].

INDISPOSITION OF MR. SPEAKER.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the continued indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER, and of his unavoidable absence from the House this day:—
Whereupon Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker, and 40 Members being present, took the Chair pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE INLAND REVENUE OFFICE—PROMOTION OF OFFICERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the father of

  1265
  the officer of Shaftesbury second Ride, Weymouth Collection, who was recently specially promoted over the heads of others in the Inland Revenue, was ever a Collector in that Department; is the father of the officer of Higham Ride, Northampton Collection, who was recently specially promoted over the heads of others, attached to the head office. Somerset House; on what grounds was this officer specially promoted over some 230 others; what are his special merits; could none of the 230 over whom he was placed be found capable of performing the work in which he is now engaged; would he lay a copy of the letter specially recommending him upon the Table of the House; what per-centage of Collectors and Inspectors have specially recommended officers for special promotion within the last twelve months; and, is he aware that the present system of special promotion has given rise to much dissatisfaction in the Service?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Shaftesbury officer referred to in the hon. Member's Question was not specially promoted; but he is the son of a former Collector. The Higham officer, also referred to, is the son of a clerk in one of the subordinate departments at Somerset House; he was specially promoted because specially recommended by his superior officer, and because he was considered, on the best available evidence, more competent than others to do the higher work. The confidential Reports upon which such promotions are founded cannot be published. Five per cent of the Collectors and Inspectors have made special recommendations in the last 12 months. No doubt there is some dissatisfaction in this, as in other cases of promotion by merit, among those who are passed over; but the principle is essential for the Public Service.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —MEDICAL DEGREES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the following extract from the Ordinances of the Queen's Colleges (page 317)—
  "No Professor shall be entitled to claim the foes of any Class of Students, except so long as that Class shall be required by the Council to attend his instruction; and it shall be the duty of the Council to revise and amend the Regulations prescribing Courses of Study from time
  1266
  to time, whenever they deem it conducive to the interests of education and of the Students so to do, irrespective of considerations affecting the incomes of Professors,"
  Whether medical students who intend presenting themselves for the degree of M. D. at the Royal University are, in the third year of their Course, compelled to pay for a Course of Lectures in Practical Anatomy to prosecute their dissections; has the practice only been a few years in existence; and, could he state when it began, and will it be continued?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received Reports which go to show that there are no improper charges made; but if there are, they will be examined, and reported on, together with other matters which will come within the scope of the inquiry which the Government propose to institute. If I were to answer all the bearings of the Question, the answer would carry me to a great length.
  MR. HEALY: Are these illegal and improper charges still to be made; and can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the inquiry will lake place?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will make a statement as to the inquiry on Thursday.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—THE CORK DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM —DISPOSAL OF DECEASED PATIENTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Inspector of Anatomy for Cork resides in Dublin, and if, such being the case, he can efficiently discharge the duties of superintendence required by the third section of the Anatomy Act; whether the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum are the proper custodians of the unclaimed bodies of deceased inmates of that institution; whether, such being the case, their permission is necessary, before removing their bodies to the dissecting room of the Queen's College, Cork, and if there is any distinction between the post mortem examination stated to be allowable in such cases, and the process of dissection admitted to be practised at present; and, are students in Cork Queen's College charged dissecting fees when it is admitted that bodies are supplied to the College free of charge?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Inspector of Anatomy for Minister is allowed to reside in Dublin. He is required to keep an office in, Cork, and the arrangement is open to review should inconvenience arise. The other three Provinces of Ireland are under one Inspector, who also resides in Dublin. Before the arrangement as to the Munster Inspector was sanctioned, it was ascertained that there is but one Inspector for all Scotland, and there are two for England, both of whom reside in London. It is, therefore, clear that in no part of the country is continuous residence on the spot considered necessary for the discharge of the duties of these officers. I stated, in reply to a former Question, all that I feel myself called upon to say with regard to the powers and duties of the governors of lunatic asylums in this matter. I pointed out that the law does not require the publication of details as to dissections; and, in the interests of humanity and of medical science, any attempt to force publicity is greatly to be deprecated. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I think it must be perfectly clear to anyone that no School of Anatomy could be carried on without incidental expenses, and I am sure that there is no such school in the country which students can attend without paying fees. If any of the students at Cork think that any improper charge is made in their case they should address the College authorities. I am informed that nearly 150 students of Queen's College, Cork, presented an address to the Professor of Anatomy on Friday last, stating that they heard with regret that action had been taken to make the class regulations in anatomy and physiology the subject of Questions in Parliament, and so tend to create an erroneous impression in the public mind regarding the relations subsisting between the Professor and students in these departments. These relations, they say, have always been of the most cordial character, and any representation of them as otherwise must incur their unqualified repudiation. I am informed by high medical authority in Dublin that if these Questions are continued a feeling may be aroused among ignorant people which would render it impossible to carry on anatomical studies at Cork, and, perhaps, in any Other part of Ireland.
  MR HEALY: I beg to give Notice that after the right hon. Gentleman has needlessly read out the address presented to this Professor by the students—["Order, order !"]—I will expose on a future day the process of intimidation—[Lord cries of "Order, order!"]—I am perfectly in Order. I always am in Order—I will expose on a future day the process of intimidation by which this address was obtained.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS IN THE MALLOW UNION —ALLEGED INTIMIDATION BY THE AGENT OF A LANDLORD.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the bailiff of Sir Henry Wrixham Beecher went around to the tenants, who are leaseholders, and threatened that they would suffer, unless they voted for the candidate nominated by their landlord for the Poor Law guardianship of the Ruskeen Division of the Mallow Union; whether such conduct is legal; if illegal, what remedy exists for landlord intimidation at Poor Law elections, in view of the declaration of the Government that the Intimidation Clause of the Crimes Act is not applicable to such cases; and, whether, having regard to the repeated and unpunished violations of freedom of voting, in the case of Poor Law elections, the Government will, this Session, introduce their promised Bill to establish voting by ballot at such elections, or will give facilities for the passing of a Bill introduced by private Members with that object?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is not the case that Sir Henry Wrixham Beecher nominated a candidate for this election, or used any intimidation. His brother informs me that he was not even aware that there was a contest in the division. I should be very glad to introduce the Bill mentioned in the last paragraph, though it has no bearing on the case mentioned in this Question, about which the hon. Member was, I think, misinformed.

  HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND)—COUNTY ROAD TRUSTEES OF BERWICK SHIRE, &c.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for

  1269
  the Home Department, Whether the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into applications made by the County Road Trustees of Berwickshire, the Justices of the Peace for the county of Northumberland, and the Norham and Islandshire Highway Board, has yet been considered by the Secretary of State, and the determination approved by him; when it is probable that the determination will be presented to Parliament, in pursuance of the ninetieth section of "The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878;" and, whether, after the determination has been laid upon the Table, a Copy of the Report can be furnished to the three parties directly interested?
  MR. HIBBERT: Sir. The Report referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet has not yet been fully considered by the Secretary of State; but he expects to be able to present the determination approved of by him to Parliament before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess. In the case of the Glasgow and Carlisle Road Trust, the Report itself was not furnished to the parties directly interested. The Secretary of State must, therefore, reserve his decision as to whether he can furnish a copy of the Report until he has more fully considered the subject.

  THE WINE DUTIES—SPANISH AND GERMAN SPIRIT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in negotiating with Spain in regard to a Commercial Treaty, he will bear in mind that at the present time thirteen millions of gallons of German spirits come into England from Spain under the disguise of wine, paying a much less duty than is charged on English spirits; and, whether any steps will be taken to prevent the admission of this so-called wine at one shilling duty, and of a higher strength, causing damage to the English distiller, and to the largest source of our revenue?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member has apparently taken the whole importation of wine in cask—namely, about 13,000,000 gallons, to represent the importation of wine from Spain only, and he has then assumed; that the whole quantity is German spirit under the disguise of wine. I may, however, state, to avoid misapprehen
  1270
  sion, that the total importation of wino from Spain is about 5,000,000 gallons; but there is no evidence as to the quantity fortified with any particular class of spirit. There are, at present, no commercial negotiations proceeding; but, in any that have taken place, care has always been taken to provide against the introduction of spirits under the guise of wine.

  THE DUBLIN MURDER TRIALS—COMPENSATION TO MR. FIELD.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Collector General of Dublin has obtained a legal opinion as to his right to enforce payment of the Tax levied upon the people of Dublin for compensation awarded to Mr. Field under the Crimes Act; whether the Tax is now being collected along with the Consolidated Rate; whether that course is legal; and, whether, if the rated occupier refuses to pay the Tax, it can be recovered from him solely, or whether it should be recovered from every occupier of any part of the premises?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Collector General did not obtain a legal opinion, as no question could arise as to the validity of the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant under which he acted. The tax is being collected with the Consolidated Rate, and I am advised that there is no legal objection to its being so collected. I cannot go into the hypothetical query contained in the last paragraph. If any cases of refusal arise they will, no doubt, be considered on their merits.

  EMIGRATION (IRELAND)—SLIGO BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any provision in the Law by virtue of which the Reverend Thomas Heany, Rector of Calry, county Sligo, is entitled to serve on the Emigration Committee of the Sligo Board of Guardians, taking part in their deliberations and acting as if a legally elected guardian? In putting this Question I would also ask whether the Rev. Mr. Heany is one of the persons who, as chaplain of Orange Lodges, signed a circular calling on the landlords of the country to give all vacant farms and situations to Protestants?
  MR. GIBSON: And is this the rev. gentleman who denied that he ever did any such thing?
  MR. SEXTON: He never denied.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I think the hon. Gentleman should give Notice of that Question. The emigration from the Sligo Union is conducted by the Board of Guardians, who are responsible for all proceedings in relation to it. It appears that a Committee, consisting of a number of gentlemen, were appointed by the Board to take charge of the matter, and the Rev. Mr. Heany was one of them. Although there is no specific legal authority for the formation of such a Committee, the Local Government Board do not consider that they can object to the Guardians utilizing the information and help which such a body can afford.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that I will ask the right hon. Gentleman on a future day whether he considers that a rev. gentleman who signed the circular referred to is a fit man to conduct the emigration of Catholics; and, in reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that I did put the inquiry on the Question Paper; but for some reason beyond my comprehension it was struck out by the Clerk at the Table.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—SLIGO UNION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a complaint has been made to the Irish Local Government Board, that Mr. Thomas Simpson, of Cannatogher, county Sligo, a candidate in the recent election of Poor Law Guardian for the Drumcliffe West Division of the Siigo Union, did, after the distribution of voting papers to the persons entitled to vote in the said division, illegally take possession of and carry away the voting papers left with certain, of such voters, and keep them for several hours in his possession; whether Mr. John M'Govern, also a candidate in the said election, lodged with the returning officer, the clerk of the Sligo Union, before the declaration of the return, a protest embodying the above complaint; whether, nevertheless, the relieving officer declared Mr. Thomas Simpson duly elected; and, what course the Local Government Board will take in regard to the election?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board informed me that a complaint has been made to them to the effect described in the Question, and that they will proceed to make such inquiries as may be necessary under the 23rd section of the Act of 6 & 7 Vict, with the view of determining whether or not Mr. Simpson is entitled to act as an elected Guardian.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT —LAMBETH SCHOOL BOARD—ADDITIONAL SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his Department has consented to the erection of a School to contain 1,200 children, for which a site has been purchased, and which is now being cleared of houses to provide additional School accommodation for Blocks E. F. H. I. J. K. Lambeth, where the School Board authorities report that there are now 1,876 vacant places, and whore the South Western Railway Company is on the point of pulling down houses in which it is estimated that 500 children reside; where the houses in the neighbourhood are already unhealthily crowded; and where there is no unoccupied land on which additional houses can be built?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Department in 1881 consented to the provision of a school for 1,200 children in Upper Kennington Lane to meet an admitted deficiency in three out of the six blocks mentioned. A site for the schools has been purchased, and the houses upon it are being cleared. The clearance by the South Western Railway will only affect a part of this district. It runs through blocks E, F, H, and does not touch I, J. and K. This school is to provide for H, I, and K. The School Board reports that the number of children living within the limits of deviation is 390. The plans of the proposed schools have not yet been approved by the Department, and it will have to be considered to what extent, if any, the size of the school should be diminished by the decrease of population. I have consented to receive a deputation of the managers of the voluntary schools upon the subject. The number of vacant places referred to in the question means the difference betwixt the average attendance and the accommodation; but the actual attend-

  1273
  ance is often considerably above the average.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVERPRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCY (for Mr. ECROYD)asked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to the death of Ellen Barker, aged eleven yours, at Habergham, near Burnley, which is believed to have been caused by over pressure of school work; at the inquest, held on the 14th instant, the girl's mother stated that her daughter came homo from the day school on Monday afternoon the 10th. At 7 o'clock that evening she complained of pain in her head and illness. She grew worse until Wednesday, when the doctor was sent for; but she died before his arrival. Witness could not say whether overwork at school had caused her daughter's illness; she had only complained about her "home lessons;" the coroner said he had had several cases of that kind, where overwork at school had apparently brought on the illness. A juror remarked that children were too heavily worked at school; and another juror said that there was scarcely a house in the village in which complaint was not made of such overwork; the jury returned a verdict of "Death from natural causes, probably accelerated by overwork at school;" and, whether he will make further inquiry into all the circumstances of this case?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, Her Majesty's Inspector has made a full Report on the case of Mary Barker, of Habergham, of which the following is a summary is his own words:—
  "Habergham, All Saints, N. S. (Gawthorpe, Lancashire). Mary (not Ellen) Barker died from a sharp attack of peritonitis, of which the first symptoms appeared in the evening of Tuesday, the 11th of March, and which ended fatally 24 hours later, in the evening of Wednesday, 11the 12th ult. The family doctor, who arrived after death, is definite on this point, and the parents agree in thinking the cause of death inflammation of the bowels. Two sisters were seven days later attacked with typhoid fever, said to be caused by smells from drains. The landlord is examining these drains, as I am told by his manager. The girls in question are now ill. Mary Barker was, apparently, in good ordinary state of health up to the night before her death, went to school, and worked in the mill as usual. There is nothing to lead to the belief that anything but the disease named cruised or conduced to death, and the statement of the parent expressly excludes school work.
  1274
  The school is in my own parish, is managed by Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth and Colonel Dug-dale, has always done extremely well, and is very popular, I have lived here for nearly five years, and the charge appears to be baseless. (Signed) F. A. S. Freeland, H.M.T."

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. HASLETT, J.P., BELFAST.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state what course the Lord Chancellor has taken in the case of Mr. Haslett, J. P., of Belfast?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that it was the Lord Chancellor who was concerned in this matter. It was true that on a former occasion Mr. Haslett took part in adjudicating on a licensing case in which he should not have done; but there was no reason to believe that he showed any partiality, or that justice was not done in the case. In his capacity as magistrate he punished the woman very severely, and in his capacity as landlord he had her put out of the house on account of her misconduct. Under these circumstances, the conclusion of the Government was that the matter did not call for further proceedings.
  MR. KENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Mr. Haslett, having subjected himself to a fine of £100 and to a liability to be dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, is now to go scot free?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This is what I would mean. The man acted inadvertently; but as Judge he showed severity, and as landlord of the public-house punished also.
  MR. HEALY: A house of ill fame.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government are quite satisfied that he acted without a knowledge of what he was doing.
  MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence before the magistrates showed that he was perfectly cognizant of the fact that he was adjudicating in his own case?
  MR. HEALY: The policeman told him so three times.
  [No reply.]

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—MR. OWEN, ARCHITECT TO THE BOARD.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if Lord Crichton's Commission of Inquiry recommended that

  1275
  Mr. Owen, Architect to the Irish Board of Works, should be called upon to resign; for what reason the recommendation in question has never been carried out; if Mr. Owen, while holding the position of Architect to the Board, was also Chairman to a Discount Company which became insolvent; and, whether he has likewise, in recent years, acted as Director of several commercial speculations which resulted in failure; if Mr. Owen, whilst an Architect to the Board, officially concerned with the business of dealing with applications for loans of public money to tenants and other persons, was also Chairman of a private Loan Company; and, whether, in consideration of his resigning the Chairmanship in question, the Treasury allowed him an increase of salary of about £200 per annum; and, what is the explanation of the course pursued with regard to Mr. Owen?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, no such recommendation was made as that stated in the first paragraph of the Question, and accordingly it could not have been acted upon. The Crichton Commission did not recommend Mr. Owen's retirement; but they advised that he should cease to be Director of a private Building Society, and this has been carried out. The recent increase to his salary has nothing to do with this retirement, but depended on the increase of his duties. Mr. Owen states that he was at one time Chairman of a Discount Company, but resigned nearly two years ago, since which the Company has become bankrupt, otherwise he has long ceased to be concerned in any commercial speculation.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— SCOTTISH METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY—MARINE ZOOLOGICAL STATION AT GRANTON.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether an application has recently been made to the Lords of the Treasury by the Scottish Meteorological Society for a grant in aid of the Marine Zoological Station established at Granton on the Firth of Forth; and. what were the grounds upon which this application was refused?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, an application was made as stated by my hon. Friend. There were three reasons for
  1276
  declining to accede to it—first, similar work is now being done at the public expense both by the Scotch Fishery Board and by the Trawling Commission; secondly, it did not seem right to add to the sum of almost £30,000 provided for scientific grants in this year's Estimates; thirdly, it seems anomalous to intrust money for the purposes of marine zoology to a Meteorological Society.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if the hon. Gentleman would lay the Correspondence on the Table?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought all the particulars embraced in the Correspondence were contained in what he had stated; but if the hon. Gentleman wished to see it he could do so.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENTS OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES-DENMARK.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his attention has been directed to the Reports on the Agricultural Departments of Foreign Countries (No. 9), issued last week?
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will be good enough to obtain details of the Scientific Schools and Experimental Farms referred to in the Report on Foreign Agricultural Departments recently issued; and, whether he will, from time to time, publish, as part of the ordinary business of the Agricultural Department over which he presides, any information so received which may appear to be of practical value to the agricultural interests of the United Kingdom?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, he did not understand that the Royal Society for Agricultural Economy in Denmark occupied the same position or discharged the same functions as those eminent Societies, the Royal Agricultural Society of England, or Ireland, or the Highland Society of Scotland. As at present advised, he did not think it would be for the advantage cither of the country or of those eminent Societies to connect those Societies with a Government Department in the manner proposed. They had several Reports and documents relating to this matter which he proposed to place in the Library of the House for the inspection of the hon. Member, or Gentlemen interested in the question. With regard to a somewhat

  1277
  similar Question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. Paget), the Department would be glad at any time to publish any matter which appeared to be of practical value to the agricultural community.

  EGYPT (FINANCE).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, without waiting for the Budget, state to the House whether any, and, if any, what interference the Government contemplate with regard to Egyptian finances?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have to reply that it is quite out of his power to say now when any statement may be made to the House as to Egyptian Finance, or whether the Budget, which he hopes to open on the 24th instant, will contain any reference to that subject.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— DEFEAT OF GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that General Gordon's Forces sustained a severe reverse at Khartoum; and, whether General Graham's Troops are being recalled from Suakin without opening the Berber road? He said he had also a further Question, of which he had given private Notice—Whether his attention had been called to a statement in the Khartoum Correspondent's letter in The Times of to-day, in which the following statement occurred:—
  "We are daily expecting British troop. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that we are abandoned by the Government. Our existence depends upon England?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is true, Sir, as stated yesterday, that I the troops under General Gordon met with a somewhat serious reverse in the operations which had been undertaken against the Arabs, who appeared to be threatening Khartoum. As it now appears, that reverse was caused parity—to some extent, certainly—by the treachery of some officers commanding General Gordon's troops. My attention has, of course, been called to the paragraph in The Times to which the hon. Member referred. We have, however, received news from General Gordon up to the
  1278
  same date as The Times telegram, in which General Gordon does not appear to have made any reference to the expectation that assistance by British troops would be rendered, and in which he states that he considered he was quite safe, and that supplies were coming in freely. With regard to the second part of the Question, I should prefer postponing any statement as to the roads from Suakin to Berber until we can make such statement as may be in our power, and which we have undertaken to make, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. LOWTHER: Did I rightly understand the noble Lord yesterday to say that General Gordon, in his despatch, referred to the report of The Time Correspondent? If so, would that imply that General Gordon, by his silence on any one point contained in that report, denied the accuracy of the report?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think General Gordon's reference to The 'Times telegram referred solely to the account of the action which had taken place on the previous day. He stated distinctly that he had not had time on that occasion to send a full account, and referred Sir Evelyn Baring to those telegrams. The telegrams, both from The Time Correspondent and from General Gordon, are of subsequent date—I think a week later.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it true, then, that General Gordon is to be left lo share the fate of Tewfik Bey?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE-THE CIRCUITS— THE JUDGES OF THE PROBATE DIVISION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since the liability of the Judges of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court to go Circuit is limited by Clause 8 of "The Judicature Amendment Act. 1875," as follows, "so far as the state of business in the said division will admit," and that the amount of business now before the Admiralty Court is such that a suspension of the sittings of that Court would entail serious inconvenience and loss on the mercantile community, Whether, in the arrangements now being made for Circuit, the names of two Judges of the

  1279
  Probate Division will therefore be excluded from the list?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the question of the two Judges of the Probate Division going on Circuit was under consideration, and that he would represent to the Lord Chancellor the views of the hon. Member as to the inexpediency of that practice.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that a new and valuable vessel was lost in Kingstown Harbour, during the month of February, by running, during a gale, on the south-western foreshore of the harbour, between the Royal Irish Yacht Club and the coastguard station; whether other vessels or yachts have been lost on or near the same part of the harbour in former storms; whether the above-named portion of the harbour, not being fitted with a quay wall or with a timber framing, and the foreshore being composed of projecting rocks, is a cause of danger to ships at anchor during the prevalence of easterly gales, and if the Government intends to complete this portion of the said harbour with a quay wall or timber framing, from which vessels could be warped off in case they dragged their anchors or broke from their moorings during a storm; whether he is aware that, during one of the recent storms, a large American vessel, the G. B. Sutton, with a valuable cargo of grain, went on shore in Kingstown Harbour, and would have been lost had not a Liverpool tug-boat, which was fortunately at hand, gone to her assistance, and that the sum of £260 was demanded and paid for the services rendered by the tug-boat on the occasion; and, whether the Commissioners of said harbour will make arrangements in future to have a steamer ready during dangerous gales, to render assistance to vessels in distress in or about the said harbour?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have inquired into this matter, and find that a vessel of 179 tons, and at least 30 years old, was lost in the way described on the 1st February last; one other vessel was so lost about 10 years ago, and another in 1861. The piece of foreshore where these wrecks occurred is left on purpose without a wall in order that the waves
  1280
  may break there; were it not for this the anchorage space would be diminished. I have ascertained that the G. B. Sutton did not go ashore; but, as she showed signs of drifting against the mail pier, she was assisted by the tug which had brought her over from Holyhead. As experience shows that such cases may be expected only once in 10 years, it would not be proper to sanction a large expenditure from public funds to provide against them.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that this House, in the terms of the Resolution carried on Friday last, pledged itself not only as to the urgency of affording local relief, but also to be ready to entertain any necessary reforms in local administration, lie will undertake to introduce, on an early date after Easter, the Local Government Bill which the Right honourable Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, has stated to be already prepared?
  MR. CHEETHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the Resolution of the 28th March, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider the expediency of giving precedence next after the Representation of the People and Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bills to the measure dealing with the whole question of Local Government and Local Taxation, which the President of the Local Government Board has informed the House is now prepared and ready for introduction?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the subjects of these Questions connect themselves together. The answer cannot be given in a very few words; but I will endeavour to make it as clear as I can. As regards the Question of my noble Friend, I think it is obvious that there will be no practical advantage gained by introducing, at a very early date, the Bill of the Government, which is prepared, unless we were able to form some reasonable and confident expectation as to the time at which we could go forward with it. Therefore, I consider the question rather I as merging in the larger inquiry of my hon. Friend behind me. With regard to that inquiry, the Speech from the

  1281
  Throne gave the first place in the legislative work of the Session to the Franchise Bill, and the second place to the subject of local government. Then it explained that the subject of local government was not one which could be comprised in a single Bill; that a Bill would at once be presented, subject to what had been said about the Franchise Bill, with reference to the Municipality of London; that further measures had been prepared, and reference was particularly made, as has been explained by my hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, to the Bill for local government in England, to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers. Well, Sir, these two Bills are really parts of the same subject. The important financial operations which belong to the question of local government are equally dependent upon the one and the other. In truth, they are, if possible, more dependent as regards the populous area of the Metropolitan District, because there it is that the want of adequate local authority is most palpable and conspicuous. Therefore, Sir, I think, in the first place, that after what has taken place, the distinct pledges and intimations that have been given, we cannot consistently postpone proceeding with the London Government Bill. But, Sir, my hon. Friend will say, "What of the Local Government Bill?" I will say this—we considered very carefully what it was reasonable to expect from Parliament, judging by the experience of former years, and knowing as we did know that Parliament was very sensible of the arrears of Public Business, and hoping, as we were entitled to hope, that Parliament would have a great desire to get on with Public Business, our opinion was, and is, that it was and is perfectly practicable to deal with the Franchise Bill, which we have made as simple as we possibly could, with the London Government Bill, and with the Local Government Bill in the course of the present Session. That was our distinct and deliberate opinion. We believe it will be greatly to the honour of Parliament to deal with these measures, and that it will not be greatly to the honour of Parliament should it fail to fulfil these expectations. I need not say that, as far as the Government is concerned they certainly will shrink from no effort for the purpose of pulling forward these
  1282
  questions. I may remind the House of the importance of not extending beyond what has been in other times the customary and established limits of Parliamentary discussion. We shall do all we can to promote the views of my hon. Friend. We are not omnipotent; we feel with him the utmost desire to put forward this measure; and we are convinced also that the credit of Parliament, and not only of particular Members, is involved in it.

  PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. PELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What action Her Majesty's Government intends to take in respect of the Resolution of Friday 28th March, deprecating the postponement of relief acknowledged to be due to rate-pavers in counties and boroughs?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Resolution at which the House arrived on the 28th of March deprecates, as the hon. Member truly says, the postponement of further measures for the relief acknowledged to be due to the ratepayers. Sir, I have had to read that Resolution in conjunction with a former Resolution of the House of Commons, which that Resolution did not question or rescind. The former Resolution, which was carried by a small majority—but still by a majority a trifle larger than that which voted for the Resolution of the hon. Member—in the Session of 1883, likewise indicated a great desire that relief to local ratepayers should not be postponed. But it did two things. It coupled the question of relief to ratepayers with legislation on local government, and, which is the point I have now especially in view, it pointed out the mode and form in which that relief to the ratepayers was to be given. The House resolved last year that the relief granted to the ratepayers in counties and boroughs should be by the transfer to local authorities of the revenue proceeding from particular taxes or portions of taxes. That declaration of the House of Commons, I presume, had the approval of the hon. Member; at any rate, it remains entirely untouched by the Resolution of the other evening, and, therefore, that declaration is in force and is binding on us. The effect of that will be that the settlement of the financial part of the local government ques-

  1283
  tion, which is a very large subject indeed, involves the question of the removal of a great number of items from the immediate jurisdiction of this House. It involves the allocation of various taxes or parts of taxes; and it might involve the finding of substitutes for those taxes. Consequently, the hon. Member will see that the meaning of the second Resolution, as the hon. Gentleman appears to view it—if it is to be considered without qualification—is that the Business we are engaged upon with respect to the Franchise Bill is to be postponed until we have dealt with the financial part of the local goverment question. I do not believe that to have been the intention of the House when they passed the Resolution of last week. If the hon. Gentleman, thinks that it was the intention of the House, it is for him to suggest the expression of that intention in an intelligible manner. The Government do not think that was the intention of the House, and, therefore, they are not prepared to postpone the Business now before the House with respect to the Franchise Bill. In our opinion it is much too late to deal piecemeal in the unsatisfactory manner Governments have been compelled to adopt hitherto upon this question. We ought, for the benefit of all parties, to make the relief effectual and complete by passing a large and important measure. We are most anxious and desirous to find ourselves in a position to approach that measure; but we are not prepared to put such a construction as the hon. Member appears to do upon his Resolution of Friday last—namely, that the proceedings of the Franchise Bill shall be suspended for the purpose of dealing with the financial part of the local government question.
  MR. PELL: I throw myself on the consideration of the House; but I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my Question. We have had a very long exposition of the views of the Government. I ask again for a simple answer to a plain Question. It is a Question of a financial nature, in which I cannot move—namely, What action the House may expect the Government to adopt in conformity with the distinct expression of the view of the House last week?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The only action we can take is to press forward to the
  1284
  best of our power the Business of the House. We have it in contemplation to deal fully with the subject of which, a few days ago, the hon. Gentleman presented a particular aspect to the House. The meaning of his Motion, if it has a practical meaning, is the displacement of the other Business of the House; it means the displacement of the Business with respect to the Franchise Bill, and that displacement we are not willing to accede to.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: After the three statements of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will be kind enough to answer one more Question. It is this. Are we to understand that the ratepayers of the United Kingdom are not to expect any financial relief until the Franchise Bill, the London Municipal Reform Bill, and the Local Government Bill have been decided upon and passed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a wider statement than I have made. It is for the House to consider at what time the financial part of the question with regard to the ratepayers can be considered. All I have said is this. We are not prepared to intercept the action of Parliament with respect to the Franchise Bill for the sake of taking up the financial part of the question of the relief of ratepayers; nor, I am bound to say, if I am asked with respect to the Local Government Bill, do I believe we can effectually approach the question of the relief of ratepayers until we have dealt with the subject of adequate and competent local authorities.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the London Bill would take precedence of the Local Government Bill, and that the Franchise Bill, the London Bill, and the Local Government Bill were all three to be decided before the question of financial relief was taken up; were they to understand that he did not put the London Bill before the Local Government Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon, Sir, I thought I had distinctly stated the position of the London Bill. I consider the Question of the noble Lord to be comprised within that of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. Our views are perfectly well known, and they were supported by the Resolution of the House last year. The House has now

  1285
  passed a Resolution of a vague and indefinite character—["Oh!"] In my humble opinion, if I may have one in the face of those great authorities who interrupt me, it is of a vague and indefinite character. Like the hon. Gentleman, I deprecate all this postponement; I deprecate all the delays in the transaction of Public Business, which are alone responsible for this postponement. If the old methods had prevailed we should have reached this subject long ago. It is for the House to determine, but our opinion is that the local authorities ought to be established before the full and final measure of relief of local ratepayers can be given. That was voted by the House last year, and our opinion is that that vote was a sound and right one.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: But does the right hon. Gentleman think that the vote of Friday last made no difference in the situation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have stated my view of the effect of the vote of Friday last; it is for those who think it had some other effect to state their view.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON: Are we to understand there will be no proposal made in the Financial Statement in consequence of the Resolution of my hon. Friend?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in no circumstances will it be possible to include in the Financial Statement so vast a subject as that which is involved in the relief of ratepayers as defined by the Resolution of last week. The time has come now for the Financial Statement to be made; it would be made on Monday next if it were possible that the debate on the Franchise Bill could be completed, and undoubtedly no statement could be included in it with reference to this question.

  PARLIAMENT—THE DEPUTY SPEAKERSHIP OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will take such steps as may appear desirable to provide for the Chair being taken by some Member to be chosen by the House in the event of the absence from illness or other cause of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker? He said, he had put the Question on the Paper in consequence of the uncertainty which prevailed as to the
  1286
  course to be adopted in the case of the continued illness of both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. He had not himself much doubt as to the course that ought to be adopted. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have been, undoubtedly, upon the brink of a considerable danger—a danger which it was hoped had been obviated in all reasonable probability by the arrangement made in the appointment of a Deputy Speaker; and I cannot deny that, considering how near we have come to a danger even under the present arrangement, it is well worth considering whether a further provision ought to be made. There are two points that I must keep in view in answering my hon. Friend. One is that it is very material to determine whether the provision can be made by Resolution of this House, or whether it would require an. Act of Parliament. The second question is this, that, as it appears to me, it would be idle to hope to make a provision for this purpose if it were to be a subject of contest and lengthened debate, such as we have had upon most points connected with the Procedure of the House. What I propose to do is in the course of the next few days to inform myself as well as I can as to the method by which we might proceed, whether by Resolution or Act of Parliament; and, secondly, as to the disposition which might exist to supply a remedy for this case of difficulty if it should again arise. But I wish clearly to state that we cannot add another controversy upon this subject to the many controversies that are already before the House.

  PARLIAMENT—MR. BRADLAUGH—THE LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir Arthur Otway, I wish to put a Question to you as to your interpretation of the Resolution passed yesterday, permitting Mr. Bradlaugh to use the Library of the House, but otherwise still subjecting him to the Resolution of the 21st of February. As Mr. Bradlaugh has repudiated the Resolution of the 21st of February, I wish to know whether you are of opinion that he is precluded from coming within the outer doors of this House, which are kept by the doorkeepers?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): There can be no doubt as to the interpretation to be put upon the Resolution which the House came to yesterday. Mr. Bradlaugh, in his letter addressed to the Speaker, requested permission to have access to the Library for certain purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) stated that this was a reasonable proposition on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh, and moved to resolve that Mr. Bradlaugh should have access to the Library, but that the Resolution of the 21st of February in all other respects should remain in force. Mr. Bradlaugh has by the terms of that Resolution access to the Library only.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— THE SUAKIN GARRISON.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary for War, Whether he was still of opinion that the Egyptian troops were unfit to take part in active service; and, if that were his opinion, whether the Government had determined to send those troops to take charge of the important garrison of Suakin?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That is a Question of which I might reasonably ask for Notice, but to which, if I received Notice, I should be inclined to give the same answer as I have given to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). It is a point on which I would defer my answer until the time when the Government are able to make such general statement as they are able to make respecting the affairs of the Soudan. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member is quoting from when he asks if I am still of opinion that the Egyptian troops are unfit for active service.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would give Notice. But the statement with regard to the sending of Egyptian troops to Suakin was in every paper in the country. The observation of the noble Marquess with reference to the unfitness of Egyptian troops for active service was made in reply to a Question which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) put as to whether the Government intended to send a battalion of Egyptian troops to act with British troops at Suakin.
  THE MARQESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think I ever made use of the
  1288
  expression which the hon. and gallant Member attributes to me. I think I said that under the peculiar circumstances of the duty which General Graham's forces were to undertake, and the uncertain character of the operations, it was not thought desirable to send alongside British troops a force the capabilities of which had not yet been tested.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the Government have any proposal to make for to-morrow with the view of proceeding with the Franchise Bill? I have every reason to believe that with regard to the second reading of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill, which will be the first Order of the Day, that there is an intention to talk out the Bill, and, if so, the Sitting will be practically useless.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not our intention to propose to take the debate on the Franchise Bill to-morrow, in as much as the subject of debate for the day is one of some importance, and it has not been the usage to set aside the Orders for Wednesday for the sake of proceeding with Government measures.

MOTION
  NOTICES OF MOTIONS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Rending of the Representation of the People Bill have precedence, this day, of all Notices of Motions and Orders of the Dav."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PELLsaid, he wished to take the opportunity which this Motion gave him of making some observations upon what he might almost term the speech of the Prime Minister at Question time with reference to the Resolution on local taxation. They were asked to arrange the order of Business in that House. He would not raise any objection to that. The Representation of the People Bill might justify such a demand; but if the House agreed to the Motion, they ought to have from the Prime Minister

    1289
    some distinct explanation as to the arrangement of Business after the Franchise Bill had been, disposed of. They ought to know whether the giving effect to the Resolution of last Friday was to be deferred until the Government had had an opportunity of bringing under the Notice of the House their Bill with regard to local government generally. If the Government did not, when the Budget was brought forward, offer some relief to the ratepayers, he should feel it his duty, as far as it laid in his power, to interfere with the arrangements which the Government might think well to make. He was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman himself to see reform on these points; but he was more anxious that effect should be given to the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons; and if the Government found themselves pressed on that point, it would be one of the main inducements for them to proceed on an early day with their measure in reference to local government reform. The Prime Minister had stated that they must read the Resolution which was agreed to on Friday in connection with the decision which was arrived at last year upon this subject. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman should consider Friday night's vote as a reversal of the Resolution of last year. It was a reversal, because many of the Members who voted with the Government last year had, he would not say voted against them on Friday, but crept out of their places and refused to support their previous vote. He did not think the Prime Minister should fall back upon an Amendment which was carried by a small majority of Members who did not on Friday support the views which they held last year.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the Prime Minister must be sanguine indeed if he supposed that the answer which he gave earlier in the evening would give satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Opposite side of the House. If that answer meant anything at all, it was a flat refusal to do anything for the purpose of giving effect to the Resolution of Friday night. He gathered from the action of the Government that they were going back to their old practice of deliberately ignoring declared Resolutions of the House of Commons. Last year they ignored the Resolution on the importation of foreign cattle, and this
    1290
    year they were evidently prepared to take a similar course with reference to the Motion on local taxation. He did not hesitate to say that the Franchise Bill was nothing whatever to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. He was opposed to the measure under the circumstances in which it had been introduced; and so long as the Government were careful to conceal the whole of their scheme, he believed the Conservative Party in general would oppose it. He did not understand that the way to offer an effective opposition to the Bill was to give unusual facilities for passing it through the House. Considering the course which the Front Opposition Bench had taken, however, he was not prepared to oppose the concession asked for by the Government. He should leave the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to make his own terms with the Government with reference to the local taxation Motion; but he thought the time had come when the House should have a distinct assurance from the Government as to the course which they proposed to take with respect to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. He hoped the Prime Minister would assure the House that after the second reading of the Franchise Bill he would take the Committee stage of the Cattle Bill, and proceed with it without interruption until that stage was concluded. Unless he received that assurance, he should join his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire in offering further opposition to the arrangemements of the Government.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he could not concur in the remark which had fallen from the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken, that the responsibility of dealing with the questions referred to now rested with Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the responsibility rested with the Leaders of the Opposition. The House arrived on Friday at a certain decision, and there was a difference of opinion between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition as to what that decision meant. Members on the Opposition side asserted that it meant something; Her Majesty's Ministers thought it meant nothing; and, more than that, the Prime Minister, stating that the Resolution meant no-

    1291
    thing, challenged the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to invite an expression of opinion by the House on the subject. Under these circumstances, a private Member of the Conservative Party having, as had been done before, gained a victory over the Government for the Opposition, he had a perfect right to call on the Leaders of the Opposition, now that the battle had been fought, to come to his assistance, take up the challenge thrown down by the Prime Minister, and at once place on the Table of the House a Resolution expressing the dissatisfaction, or, if they liked, the Censure of the House on Her Majesty's Government for not having taken immediate steps to carry out the Resolution of the House. If the Leader of the Opposition would take that course, it would be absolutely necessary for the Government to give him facilities for bringing forward the Resolution after the challenge they had thrown out, and he would certainly assist great numbers of county Members on that and the other side of the House who were really earnest in their wishes and their anxiety to benefit the ratepayers of the country.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: My noble Friend is very adroit and agile in the positions he takes up; but this is the first time I have seen him perform the part of "bonnet" to the Government.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, whether the noble Lord acted the part of "bonnet" of the Government or not, he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was quite right in saying that the entire Conservative Party was opposed to the Franchise Bill. He had risen, not to interfere with the discussion on that Bill, but to endeavour to lead to something which would expedite its progress. On the first reading of the Bill they had an excellent speech from the Prime Minister, going into full details in regard to all the matters of the Bill, and upon the second reading they had another speech from the noble Lord the Minister for War; but since then they had suffered greatly from the obstructive loquacity of past and present officials and ex-Cabinet Ministers. On Thursday the debate lasted about six hours, and four of those hours were taken up by past and present officials and ex-Cabinet Ministers, and yesterday not one English Member
    1292
    who did not belong to either of those classes had an opportunity of addressing the House. He had listened with great pleasure to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen; but a minor official of the Government ought on no question to indulge in the luxury of an opinion. They knew perfectly well what his opinion was before he got up—that he would accept any Bill brought in by the Government, otherwise he would not be on that Bench. With respect to these minor officials of the Government, and also ex-Cabinet Ministers, their speeches, he was bound to say, were somewhat lengthy. They caught the Speaker's eye, and they did not seem able to resume their places. He had made a calculation, and their speeches on an average had been above one hour. Now, considering the short period that they existed, he might almost say, in this world, but considering the very few hours they existed in that House, because they all went away to dinner, and there were only four or five hours during which the debate assumed a practical form on any evening, he did think that if this were to be continued the debate would go on for some interminable period. So far as he was concerned, he believed that the nation had issued its mandate—["No, no !"] —and the best thing they could do was to accept the Bill, and vote for it without saying a single word. ["Oh!"] If that was not the view taken by the House, and if the system which had prevailed up to the present time were to continue, they should not be able to enjoy that Easter holiday which they all anticipated with so much pleasure. The country did not care sixpence whether they had an Easter holiday or not. Whether they passed the second reading this week or next was a thing which concerned Members themselves, and not the country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURobserved, that he could speak on this subject with perfect impartiality, because in the course of this debate on the Reform Bill he had no intention of intervening. He was told by those of more Parliamentary experience than himself that there was a time when it was not the unwritten rule of the House that the Speaker should invariably call on a Member of the Front Benches when he got up. If that was so once, it was so no longer. Under these circumstances, the Front

    1293
    Benches were strong; but, though strong, they were not merciful in the exercise of their power, He had been informed that they had not, in this debate on the Franchise Bill, even allowed unfortunate private Members the hours from 8 to 10—those hours sacred to humble mediocrity and budding genius, during which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, as he told the House last night, was always in the habit of retiring for refreshment—they had not allowed private Members the undisturbed enjoyment even of those hours in which they might meekly express their opinion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put his finger on the difficulty. It was not that too many Gentlemen on the Front Benches spoke, but that they spoke too long. He could not believe that anyone could not express his opinion on so well worn a subject as the Reform Bill in less than 90 minutes. And yet any Gentleman of the rank of a Privy Councillor seemed to think that the House and the country at large would feel aggrieved if he compressed his speech within shorter limits.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he felt this grievance very much indeed. This was now the fourth night of the debate on the second reading, and five right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench below him, four right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Bench, and three right hon. Gentleman, "corner-men," had spoken—[Cries of " Refugees!"]—the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). And he was informed that the right hon. Gentlemen—also "corner-men"—the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) were going to speak. In such a case, if they were to have such long and interminable speeches as the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) made last night, there was no chance of independent Members saying anything. The two Front Benches seemed to have come to the conclusion that they would not speak during the dinner hour; and, as a consequence, they spoke from 6 to 8 and from 10 to12. Accordingly, private Members had only the hours between 8 and 10. He knew there was a practice on the part of private Mem-
    1294
    bers of going to the Speaker in order to be called on at a particular time. Personally he had always objected to that practice. He had never gone, and never would go, to the Speaker to ask to be called on, because it would be unfair to private Members that he should have that advantage by quietly whispering into the ear of the Speaker. He would, therefore, suggest that they should have a Morning Sitting on Friday—["No, no !"]—only in order that the two Front Benches might be allowed to talk and to exhaust themselves, so that private Members who took a deep interest in the question might have an opportunity of addressing the House.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYwished to call attention to a question which concerned himself and his Friends. He had secured Friday for the discussion of a Motion of extreme importance, and about which he saw Notice of a Question upon the Paper to-day by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He would like, therefore, an assurance from the Government that if there was a Morning Sitting on Friday, their position with regard to this Motion would not be damaged. He thought that considering the number of Members who sat near him who were interested in the question, he was entitled to some consideration in this matter, as it was a subject which affected all parts of Ireland.
    MR. GORSTasked whether the Prime Minister approved the growing disposition of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Benches to monopolize so much of the time of the House? They all listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and to the Leader of the Opposition, and no one objected to their occupying a very considerable portion of the time of the House. The complaint was that the Colleagues of those two right hon. Gentlemen occupied too much time. He admitted that their Colleagues were extremely eloquent; but in the present debate the House wanted richness and variety. In the orations delivered from the Front Benches they missed the element of variety. No one on the Front Ministerial Bench dared differ from the Prime Minister, nor did anyone on the Front Opposition Bench dare differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. The Colleagues

    1295
    of the Leaders of the two Parties were not free to think for themselves. They were accustomed to accept the opinions that came from their Leaders. Of course, they were quite right to hold those opinions; but having heard them once from the mouth of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for North Devon, the House did not care to hear them any more. He wanted to know also whether the Members of the Government would pay attention to the debate on the Franchise Bill supposing that the Notices of Motion were postponed? On Monday night between 9 and 10 o'clock, when one of the most important speeches yet delivered—namely, that of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) —was made—the only speech yet delivered from a purely Irish standpoint —the Treasury Bench was almost empty. During part of the speech one of the Lords of the Treasury was present, and during another part the First Commissioner of Works was in the House. No other Members of the Government, he believed, heard any part of the speech. He wished to know whether the Government would pay more attention to the subject that evening?
    MR. GLADSTONE: With regard, Sir, to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), all I have to say is that I take my stand on the Resolution of last year, and that I do not find that that Resolution has been reversed or set aside by the terms of the Resolution of the present year. With respect to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), all I need say is that he is aware that we have made some efforts to push forward the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and that we have found a disposition to occupy a much larger share of time with discussion on that Bill than was anticipated when the subject was first brought to the attention of the House. Nevertheless, I am very desirous to do all that I can in this matter; but it is impossible to undertake to give a continuous progress to that Bill to the detriment of all others. But if the House should be disposed to take a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, the day after our first meeting after the Recess—presuming that the House meets on the 23rd—we should be ready to devote it to the
    1296
    consideration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. We are very desirous that the judgment of the House should be given upon the proposals before it with respect to that measure. Coming now to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who has just sat down, and of other Members, I find that they are attacks more or less severe upon official and ex-official Members of the House, and upon minor Members of the Government. As regards minor Members of the Government. I cannot help saying that the state of things which has been brought about is worthy of note. I think it is most desirable that Members of this House individually should know to what degree the character and credit of the House are at present being staked—and I am afraid not being staked under favourable circumstances—by the alteration in the habits of Business. When I first entered Parliament—I think I can support what I say from memory—it was the desire and pleasure, and I may even say the delight, of the House, that minor Members of the Government, as they are called; that is to say, the young men who have been chosen for their merit in early life and who represent the future Ministers and statesmen of the country—[Cries of "No !?"]—well, to a great extent; do not suppose that I mean exclusively—that they should have considerable opportunities given to them of speaking in general debate, and not only in discussions on subjects connected with their particular offices. Well, I may say that now there is nothing so rare as for any of these minor Members of the Government—I do not speak of the present Government alone, for the same thing, I suppose, applied to the late Government—to find an opportunity for opening their mouths at all. Whoever are responsible for the delay of Business, assuredly they are not the minor Members of the Government. As regards ex-official Gentlemen, they naturally divide themselves into classes. I must honestly say, in the first place, that there is no man who is less responsible for the unnecessary length of speeches, or for the difficulties in which we stand, than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). I must make that confession. It is not for me to comment on the conduct of Members on the Front Opposition

    1297
    Bench; but it is for me to say a word with regard to those who sit upon this Bench. I must point out that those who are in Office are in this difficulty—that while occasionally they are criticized for excessive speaking, they are also exceedingly liable to be criticized for insufficient speaking; and sharper and fiercer attacks are made upon them in cases in which it is thought that they ought to have spoken when they have not done so. Well, four Members of the Government have as yet spoken in this debate; and all I can say is, that while we shall remember what has been said to-night, I presume that to-night's debate is not to be allowed to pass without some official speech. But we shall endeavour to confine ourselves within limits; and if it be my duty, as it may be, to take part in the debate when it closes, I shall not dismiss from my memory what has now been said. As to other official Members—Members who are not absolutely involved in the responsibility of either Front Bench —they must really defend themselves. They are generally men of very great ability, and none are more competent to defend themselves. As we are making those remarks in a good-humoured way. I must frankly own that I am not quite sure of the wisdom of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just eat down in drawing attention to this subject. Generally, a man is judged by reference to his friends, and Parties and combinations of men are supposed, in some degree, to base their title to occupy the time of the House upon the importance which is attached to them. Those who sit near the hon. and learned Gentleman will, I am afraid, be found in a predicament from which it will require all their ingenuity to extricate themselves, if a severely critical and numerical test is applied to this part of our proceedings—a test which sometimes brings to light awkward facts. I hope we shall endeavour to reduce our official speeches to a minimum. As far as the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) was concorned, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works assures me that he was present during the greater part of the speech; my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was also here; and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself confesses to the presence of a Lord of the Treasury. With respect to the ques-
    1298
    tion of Friday, I have been asked no Question upon the subject at a time when I could have considered the matter. But I do not see why I should attempt to bind the discretion of the House. We have no intention at present of asking for a Morning Sitting on Friday; but I cannot tell what the desire of the House may be. The desire of the House is certainly to have a Division on this Bill not later than Monday next. I do not wish to bind the discretion of the House; but if it should happen that a necessity arose, and that a Morning Sitting was voted by the House on Friday, we should think it a matter of justice to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Justice M'Carthy), and those who support him, that we should take care to secure for him a House, so that he can bring forward the important subject of which he has given Notice.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he rose to complain of the serious and unprecedented outrage committed on Tuesday last, when the Government, having taken the day for a Morning Sitting, arranged that it should be counted out, when, at the resumption of the Sitting, he rose to call attention to the affairs of Madagascar. Forty of his Friends were good enough to come down to make a House for him, and there were altogether 44 Members present, but four of his Friends subsequently were obliged to leave. The Government Whips were active in preventing Members from coming into the House, and then, when an unsuccessful attempt had been made to count out the House, they, like the Serpent in the history of the Fall, instilled poison into the ears of several hon. Members, and induced them to leave the House in order that the second attempt to count out the House might succeed. That attempt was made, he was sorry to say, by the hon. Member the Colleague of the Home Secretary in the representation of Derby, and thus a question which the Government did not dare to face fell to the ground. This he could not but describe as an unprecedented outrage, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to secure him facilities for bringing forward his Motion, which he had put down again for to-night.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I was present——
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, Sir. You came in late.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was present during the second "Count." I was not present at the first "Count." I was present during the hon. Member's speech.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, during 15 minutes of the speech.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if the House had been in the exact condition described by the hon. Member it could not have been counted. He said there were 44 Conservatives present.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not say so. I said 44 Members were present, and that four of them sat on the Ministerial side.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in that ease the hon. Member had 40 of his own Friends present. If even the hon. Member with his Friends only counted 40, he was at a loss to see how there could be a "Count out." He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was certainly present himself, there was Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was on the Treasury Bench, so there must have been, according to the hon. Member's own showing, not less than 43 Members in the House. As far as his recollection was concerned, at the time when the House was counted out, there were only 30 Members on the Conservative Benches and four on the Liberal side of the House. He saw no action on the part of the Government Whips which would justify the charges which the hon. Member had made against them. He was very sorry that the hon. Member had brought this subject forward, because hitherto he had always looked upon the hon. Member as a public benefactor. The officials of the House were much overworked, and he thought the hon. Member had done good service in bringing forward Motions on Tuesday evenings, because he thus secured a "Count," and the officials and overtaxed Members were able to be released. This had happened on several occasions last Session as well as on that day week; but he was sorry the hon. Member now appeared to be ashamed of the holiday he had thus given the officials. It had always been considered that if, on Tuesdays, less than 40 Members were present in the House, it was primâ facie evidence that the subject
    1300
    under discussion was not of sufficient importance or interest for keeping a House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he desired to traverse the theory laid down by the President of the Local Government Board to the effect that when 40 Members did not assemble to hear a discussion it was of no interest or importance. There might be a very great number of Motions which if they once could be got before the House would interest not 40, but 400 Members, although before such Motions were brought forward they might not interest 10 Members. He thought that, in the circumstances of the present time, the Government were bound to keep a House on Tuesdays for the benefit of private Members.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the noble Marquess if he would afford him an opportunity for bringing on the Motion standing in his name in reference to the New Education Code? The Code lying on the Table would come into operation on Thursday. Therefore, that was the last occasion when it could be called in question. He was willing either to go to a vote without argument on his Motion at once, or else to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Vice President of the Council would withdraw the Code till after Easter; if neither of those courses were convenient to the Government, he must ask the Leader of the House to arrange for the adjournment of the Reform Bill debate in time for him to bring on his Motion that night.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, with respect to the form of the hon. Member's Notice, he understood it was contrary to the Rules of the House that one or two clauses of the Resolution should be put. The hon. Member proposed an Address to the Crown to increase the expenditure of the annual grant for elementary education. The proposal of the hon. Member, if agreed to, would enormously increase the annual grant, so that that part of the Resolution could not be put. With respect to the first two propositions, the Department had already done all that the hon. Member required. These matters were provided for in the Code.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that inasmuch as the Deputy Speaker had been suffering very much,

    1301
    it would not be right to keep him in the Chair beyond a certain hour. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would allow the debate on the Franchise Bill to be adjourned at an early hour, so as to permit the very important Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) with regard to the Education Code to come on at a reasonable hour. He was surprised—but, really, nothing surprised him now—to hear from the Vice President's own lips that long as he (the Vice President) had been in the House he knew nothing with regard to the Rules of the House in respect of Public Business. That was shown from what the right hon. Gentleman had said in reference to the Orders of the Day at Tuesday Sittings.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he would remind the Vice President of the Council that, although the Education Code had been lying on the Table of the House for a long time, hitherto no opportunity had presented itself for discussing it. This was the last chance hon. Members had of proposing Amendments in it. As a matter of political fairness his hon. Friend should have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid there was no alternative but to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) after the adjournment of the debate on the Franchise Bill tonight. The suggestion that they should divide upon it now was impossible. The question before the House was the Motion of his right hon. Friend for the postponement of the Notices of Motion and the Orders of the Day, and it would be impossible to make an exception in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member to the prejudice of the Motions of other hon. Members. He understood that the New Code had been on the Table for a month, and it could hardly be said that there had been no opportunity of discussing it. Under the circumstances, there was no alternative but to discuss the matter to-night after the debate on the Franchise Bill had been adjourned, and it might be hoped that the discussion would not take very long.
    MR. R. H. PAGETasked at what hour it was proposed to adjourn the debate upon the Franchise Bill?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As soon after 12 o'clock as possible.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he understood that the Education Code would become law to-morrow; and if the consideration of the question was to come on after 12 o'clock, he should like to ask the noble Lord at what time tomorrow it became law?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the Code would not become law until the 3rd of April.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the Vice President of the Council would, in the circumstances, undertake to withdraw the Code, in order that it might come on again at a time when it could be properly discussed?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no power to withdraw the Code.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must deny that absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman had perfect power to make a Motion to that effect.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, in his opinion, it would be an act of cruelty to the Deputy Speaker, in his present state of health, to keep the Franchise debate up until after 12 o'clock, because the question of his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire would occupy at least an hour or two, in consequence of which the Deputy Speaker would be detained in the House until 2 o'clock in the morning, or perhaps later.
    MR. HICKSrose to a point of Order. He desired to know whether an Amendment could be moved to the Motion of the Prime Minister to the effect that the Motions on the Paper should be postponed till after the Orders of the Day up to 11 o'clock?
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The hon. Member has put a Question to me on a point of Order. He asks me whether the Resolution can be so altered as to fix the adjournment of the debate at 11 o'clock? That would be putting a limit to the power of debate in this House, and consequently it would not be in Order.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to know, Sir, whether, looking at all the circumstances of the case and the time that is occupied in discussing this matter, it would not be well to undertake to adjourn the debate about 11 o'clock in order to give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) an opportunity of bringing forward the great

    1303
    social question, with regard to which the Members of the House generally have feelings of strong interest.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government wished to do what was most agreeable to the House in this matter; but he must point out that it was not altogether the fault of the Government, because the Code had been upon the Table of the House for many days, during any one of which the matter might have been discussed. He only rose, however, to say that if it was the wish of the House that the debate should be adjourned about 11 o'clock, the Government would offer no objection to such a course.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  LOCAL TAXATION (RESOLUTION OF 28TH MARCH)

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND QUESTION.
    MR. PELLgave Notice that on the earliest opportunity he would move—
    "That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take immediate steps to carry into effect the Resolution on Local Taxation agreed to by this House on Friday, March 28th last."
    He also gave further Notice that he would, on Thursday next, April 3rd, ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will afford facilities for the consideration of the Motion relating to the Resolution of this House of the 28th March on the subject of Local Taxation, of which Notice has been given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    [FOURTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to proceed further with a measure, having for its object the addition of two million voters to the electoral body of the United Kingdom, until it has before it the
    1304
    entire scheme contemplated by the Government for the amendment, of the Representation of the People,''—(Lord John Manners,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), in the course of the conversation which has taken place this evening, expressed his opinion that the country had given to this House a mandate to pass this Bill. If that be so, it is all the more remarkable that the interest which appears to be taken in the measure, both in the House and the country, should be so slight when compared with the importance of the proposal, which, at any rate, is the first step in what has been described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the most momentous change in our legislative system since 1689. I do not attempt to deny that meetings may have been held, and Petitions presented to this House, in favour of this Bill by some of those whom it is proposed to enfranchise; but I do venture to say that there is an absence of that spontaneous enthusiasm in favour of this measure on the part of the classes whom it principally affects which is very remarkable when we remember how enthusiastic these very classes can be in regard to measures of very much less permanent importance. I should like to know what is the reason of this. Perhaps the people are wiser than formerly, and no longer believe that the grant of the vote is an infallible remedy for all political and social evils. Or it may be that some of the most ardent supporters of this Bill are rather disappointed at finding that the owners of property are only to be swamped in the future, instead of being wholly disfranchised. But I believe the main reason for the languid interest in this measure to be, that there is in the country, and perhaps in this House, a very general suspicion that even Her Majesty's Government, who are its authors, have no real expectation that it will pass into law, and that, in fact, it is not a bonâ fide, measure of Reform intended to settle the great question of the representation of the people. I think hon. Members opposite have hardly done justice to

    1305
    the view with which we have hitherto opposed it. I do not suppose that anyone ever considered the county franchise to be finally settled by the Reform Act of 1867. I do not suppose anyone ever imagined that the artizans outside towns and the great majority of the agricultural labourers would be permanently excluded from the possession of the vote. What I understand to be the desire of those who are promoting this measure is that persons who, if they resided within the limits of a borough, would be entitled under the present system to the Parliamentary franchise shall have it notwithstanding the fact that they reside in a county. I do not at all see that there is any difference in the circumstances of the artizans who live outside boroughs and the artizans who live inside boroughs that could make the former less qualified for the vote than the latter. Then I come to the agricultural population. Now, I am bound to say that I have a somewhat better opinion of the agricultural population than some of their professed advocates. I listened with surprise to the First Commissioner of Works last night when he told the House that, the condition of the agricultural labourers in the South and the West of England had gone backwards, that the best of them had gone to the towns, and that what was left in the country was the refuse population.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did not say so.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I took down the words. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not originate the word himself, but he quoted it from a writer whom he named.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I never used the word "refuse."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will not discuss whether the word was residuum or refuse, but it means the same thing. I claim that I know at least as much of the agricultural labourers in the South and West of England as the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. I believe that their condition has very materially improved within the last 20 years. No doubt, many of the labourers have gone to the towns, and thus have enabled those who were left behind to obtain higher wages than they otherwise would have obtained. I am not prepared to say that the agricultural labourer
    1306
    in England is not fitted for the vote; but I am surprised that, after the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed of that part of the population, he should be among the promoters of the measure now before the House. The point at issue seems to me to be this. There is a general desire that these persons should possess the franchise; but I do not see why it should be taken for granted that the only way of giving them the franchise is by making them county voters. I believe it would have been perfectly possible, if the Government had approached the question from that point of view, by a general extension of the boundaries of boroughs and by the creation of new boroughs to fill up the spaces between to confer the franchise as borough voters upon all the persons who would be enfranchised by the Bill, and yet to retain a separate county representation, although that representation would, of course, be less numerous than at present. I do not see why, in order to give the franchise conferred by this Bill, you are absolutely to destroy the system of county representation as it exists in England, or why you are completely to swamp the classes who now compose the county constituencies by the influx of hundreds of thousands of voters, who are of the same class as those who control the representation in the borough constituencies. It is not an argument to say that because the gift of the franchise to the labouring classes in the borough constituencies has done no harm, therefore a measure which alters the whole system of Parliamentary representation so as to base it upon numbers alone will do no harm to the country. There are many who have considered this question from this point of view. I am glad to be able to refer to two authorities of no slight importance in favour of this opinion. Lord Derby, who is now responsible for this Bill, in sneaking on another Reform Bill, stated that it was the duty of this House to see that no class was excluded or preferred over the rest; but by the provisions of this Bill as it stands, without any scheme for the representation of minorities, either through proportional representation, or redistribution of seats, that will be the result. In 1878 a right hon. Gentleman who exercises great authority in this House, the

    1307
    right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), used these words—
    "If those additional numbers were to be admitted into the Constitution, he trusted that such measures might be accompanied by safeguards, which would secure that other classes besides the most numerous might he represented in the House of Commons.''—(3 Hansard,[238] 237.)
    I believe the right hon. Gentleman is now a supporter of the Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could confer a greater service on his country than by suggesting to Parliament a scheme to carry out the views expressed in the sentence I have just read. It is a well-known fact that there has been a considerable movement, not confined to hon. Gentlemen sitting on one side of the House, among persons who desire to see a scheme of proportional or minority representation introduced. What does that mean? It means that hon. Gentlemen feel that unless certain "safeguards" are provided the existing constituencies will be absolutely swamped by this Bill, and that something must he substituted for the existing system if you are to secure that the classes represented by that system shall have their voices heard in the House of Commons. It has been said that my noble Friend (Lord John Manners) is trying to defeat the Bill on a side issue, but the Amendment expresses the full difference between us and the Government in approaching this question. It is all very well to give votes to those who do not possess the franchise. But you have no right to forget the claims of those who possess the franchise now. You are bound to take some measures to secure that the classes who are best educated, the most cultivated, who pay the whole of the direct taxation, shall have some means of being heard in Parliament. No measure will be a fair and just settlement of the great question of Reform which, does not take this matter into consideration. It may, no doubt, be said that wealth and education will always secure influence. But we have been for some time devoting ourselves to limiting the improper exercise of the influence of wealth and education upon elections, and if you do not provide means for its direct and legitimate exercise on Parliament through Representatives who can speak on behalf of the classes who possess it, there is great danger that we may have in this coun-
    1308
    try corruption similar to that which has disgraced the Legislatures of other countries. If not, we may have instead the greatest tyranny we have ever experienced—namely, the government by a power against which there is no appeal. When political power was vested in the aristocracy, its abuse was restrained by the fact that the ultimate physical power rested with the mass of the people. But when political power is given to those with whom physical power rests, you have the absolute certainty that the minority will be placed in a position in which they can have no possible appeal against the decision of the majority. If there has been in years past any reason for the institution of some means by which the voice of the minority may be heard in this House, I am convinced that under the franchise which will be established by this Bill that necessity will be doubled or quadrupled in the future. I shall be told that the Prime Minister has said that minority representation and different modes of voting ought to receive the full and impartial consideration of Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman also stated that he was not himself in favour of anything of the kind. How much impartial consideration would such safeguards receive from the President of the Board of Trade and those who agree with him? That right hon. Gentleman referred to the minority vote as absurd, ridiculous, and irritating, and as having stifled the voice of the constituency which he represents. I cannot understand how those who are in favour of minority representation can support this Bill without the least hope that any proposals of that kind will be acceded to. But something of that sort is absolutely essential to a just settlement; and, therefore, we ask the Government, in proposing this measure, to tell us at the same time how they propose in future to distribute political power, and how they propose that those who at present enjoy political power shall not in future be absolutely deprived of their rights. If some system of the representation of minorities is important here, it is doubly important in Ireland. I am quite sensible of the strong arguments in favour of giving to Ireland the same franchise which you are conferring upon Great Britain. There is great force in the contention that you ought not to

    1309
    leave rankling in the minds of the Irish people anything which they could legitimately consider to be a political grievance; and it is well that the representation of Ireland should be a reality. The President of the Board of Trade, in addressing his constituents, said that if it were not for the violence of the Ulster Orangemen, Ireland would be perfectly tranquil. If that statement was true, the Government ought to repeal the Peace Preservation Act. But I believe it to be a fact that the tranquillity of Ireland is mainly, if not entirely, due to the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act. It is not the case, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that the question to be considered by the Government is merely the fact that a few individuals commit crime. The great difficulty in dealing with Ireland is the fact that the general sympathy is with those individuals who commit crime, because in committing crime they oppose themselves to the Law and Government of the country, and that general sympathy is due to the unfortunate circumstance that a considerable majority of the Irish people are disloyal to the connection between the two Kingdoms. The position is that you are offering political privileges to a people whom you can only govern by the most stringent powers which have ever been conferred on an Irish Government in our time. You are offering this popular franchise to a country where you have frequently to put down political meetings lest they should turn into something like civil war. It seems to me that nothing can be more serious than such a state of affairs. The President of the Board of Trade said that a Franchise Bill must be brought in this year, and that Ireland must be included in it; for if it were postponed to 1885 the question of Reform for Ireland would get mixed up with the renewal of the Peace Preservation Acts in that year; and the right hon. Gentleman was sensible of the palpable absurdity of offering a Franchise Bill with one hand and a renewal of the Peace Preservation Acts with the other. Surely the proposals of the Government are not less incongruous when they are compelled to maintain these Acts. Have the Government really pictured to themselves the position in which the passing of the Bill may place them in regard to
    1310
    the Irish representation? Addressing a meeting in the winter, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War said there were many in this country, who were not confined to the Conservative Party, who would view with considerable dislike and apprehension any measure likely to increase the number or the power of the Irreconcilable Party in Parliament. I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Lord the other evening, and it occurred to me that the noble Lord was by no means satisfied in his own mind that this would not be the result of the measure before the House. All he said was that the measure, by increasing the size of Irish constituencies, might make them less amenable to the influence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). If it be so, I am afraid it will only be because the new electors will be disposed to prefer someone more violent and more hostile to England than even that hon. Member, and that surely is not a result which can be looked upon with satisfaction by any Member of the Government. The noble Lord said that the real representation of the loyal minority in Ireland was to be found in the Members from England and Scotland. I am afraid the loyal minority in Ireland would hardly accept that view, and I do not know why they should. If there be any force in the argument of the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that the number of Members for London need not be increased on account, of the influence of its Press, there must be force in the argument we used to hear so much of, that indirect representation was the same as the gift of a vote; but that argument would strike at the root of this Bill, for it might be argued that the agricultural labourers and the artizans were indirectly represented already by the Members of this House. I was surprised at the assumption of the First Commissioner of Works last night that the loyal minority of Ireland would be represented, because the Protestants amounted to 60 per cent of the inhabitants of Ulster.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I said 60 per cent of the population of Ulster, minus the three counties in which the Catholic population are a large majority.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: And, therefore, he considered that this

    1311
    loyal minority would be able to control the representation of the whole of Ulster except those there counties, and to secure as large a proportion of the total Irish representation as it would be fairly entitled to by its numbers. If the right hon. Gentleman had carried his statistical research a little further, he would have found that this Protestant population is by no means divided among those counties in the way he supposes. He would have found that by far the greater proportion of it is situated in Antrim and Down and in the large town of Belfast; and I venture to say that any hon. Member acquainted with Ireland who will openly speak his mind on this matter, whatever his political opinions may be, will be pretty certain to come to this conclusion—that if this Bill should become law without any further redistribution than appears to be contemplated by the speech of the Prime Minister, the result would be that the loyal minority of Ireland would be represented by no more than eight or nine Members, including the Members for the University of Dublin, whereas the Party the Secretary of State for War has called the Irreconcilable Party would practically sweep the rest of the Irish representation. Is that a state of affairs that the Government can contemplate with possible satisfaction? If that be so, they will find themselves face to face with a very large proportion of Irish Members, so large as almost to amount to the whole body of Irish Members, whose first demand will be either for a separation of Ireland from this country or for some measure of Home Rule which will be tantamount to it. I will not suggest that the Government could ever in their own minds think of agreeing to such a demand or of supporting designs which they have condemned in the strongest language in and out of the House. I would suppose rather that they would oppose to such a demand as resolute a front as they have hitherto opposed to it; but what would their position be? Their strength would lie simply in the force of Great Britian as against nearly the whole representation of Ireland. Is it a statesmanlike proposal to give to the I people of Ireland this popular franchise, and then to turn round on them on the first demand they will probably make and say—"We refuse it by the
    1312
    strength of the Representatives whom Great Britain sends to the House of Commons?" I may be told that these anticipations are exaggerated; but I have made some inquiries from those who ought to know, and I do not believe that they are exaggerated at all. I believe that unless you make some provision for the representation of the loyal Irish minority, it will be swamped in the manner I have described. This is the strongest reason of all why we should demand, not merely on behalf of Great Britain, but mainly on behalf of Ireland, that the redistribution of seats which will be necessary should be considered by Parliament at the same time as the Franchise Bill, and before it comes into operation. Why cannot we have this scheme of redistribution? The President of the Board of Trade thought he had given a triumphant answer the other night when he said there was no sufficient scheme of redistribution attached to the Reform Act of 1867. But the scheme of redistribution attached to that Act was considered by Parliament sufficient at the time, and it was as much as Parliament would then pass or public opinion would sanction. The Government of the day laid it frankly before the House; and all we ask now is that, having in view the altered circumstances of the case and the necessity which will exist for a much larger scheme under the proposals now before the House, that you should do what the Government did in 1867, and place your proposals fairly before Parliament. Another objection to that course has been based on the alleged want of time. The Prime Minister has constantly spoken of the delays to which the discussion of the measure has been subjected already, and the impossibility of passing a whole measure of Reform in a single Session. I believe the second reading of the Reform Bill of 1866 was taken at a later date of the Session then the second reading of this Bill. If the Government make up their minds to deal with this great question of the reform of the representation of the people, surely they ought to go so far as to recognize that it must necessarily demand the whole attention of Parliament, and they ought to put aside all those other measures which they are attempting to push through Parliament at the same time.

    1313
    If they will not do it, I think they are hardly showing much appreciation of the importance of their oven proposals. But it seems to me that neither the question of time, nor any other reason of that sort, is the real reason why we are not favoured with any scheme of redistribution. The real reason is that Her Majesty's Government cannot agree among themselves as to what it is to be. Certain suggestions of a personal and rather evanescent character were made by the Prime Minister; but the principal of them, including the idea that Ireland should retain its present number of Representatives, were subsequently repudiated by Ministerial speakers, including such staunch supporters as the right hon. Members for Montrose and Bradford, and those suggestions practically disappeared with the speech of the Secretary for War. We have absolutely nothing now before us as to the redistribution which may follow this measure, except it be the most contradictory opinions on the part of the Members of the Government who have spoken. The Secretary for War said that if he believed any attempt was to be made to introduce a uniform system, such as equal electoral districts, he would not be prepared to support such a Bill. That, of course, is his opinion now; but I am afraid events may induce him to qualify it in the improbable event of Her Majesty's Government having to bring in a redistribution measure. I can remember the time when the noble Lord was an opponent of the Ballot, and how, when the Ballot was brought within the range of practical politics, he was converted to it through the agency of a Select Committee. I recollect how in the last Parliament he supported the continuance of flogging in the Army. When, however, the Leadership of the noble Lord was repudiated by the President of the Board of Trade, he changed his mind with reference to flogging in the Army. The noble Lord, I think, was two years in Opposition, before he brought himself to support the proposal for the extension of household suffrage to the counties; and now he is responsible for the measure which is on the Table of the House. I am afraid that the noble Lord in this matter is too likely to be guided by others. The President of the Board of Trade is well known to be in favour of equal electoral districts, although he
    1314
    may be content to wait for the application of that principle. I think those who were the prime movers of the Leeds Conference, where this Bill really originated, will have something to say upon this subject before long to the noble Lord, not merely with power, but with some force of argument. The principle on which this Bill is based, I take it, is that the householder in the county is as good as the householder in towns. If that is so, why is he not entitled to so large a share of political power as you give to his neighbours in the towns? If you say that an equal value should be given to every vote, what does that mean but equal electoral districts? The First Commissioner of Works told us the other night that if we objected to such a public scandal as the holding of an Election under so chaotic and unjust an electoral system as would be afforded by the passing of this Bill into law before any redistribution of seats took place, all we have to do is to keep the Government in Office until they have passed a Redistribution Bill. In effect, that is to say that we are not to call the Government into account for any blunders or mistakes they may make in the administration of the country; that they are to be allowed to fix their own time for Dissolution, and the reward we are to have is such a Redistribution Bill as it would suit them to pass into law. Such a proposal as that seems to me to show that the Government are driven to the last shifts of argument in this matter. I believe they have no confidence in any fresh constituencies that might be created by any fair, equitable, and complete scheme for the representation of the people. But they think they may possibly have some chance in an appeal to constituencies which will be the creation of accident, and which nobody can possibly pretend should be permanent depositories of political power. The President of the Board of Trade challenged, I think, the House of Lords to throw out this Bill some little time before the Government made any formal announcement that it was their intention to introduce it. I believe no Member of the Conservative Party would for a moment shrink from the challenge which the right hon. Gentleman gave the other night; but I am sure of this, that when the issue is really decided between the two great political

    1315
    Parlies of the country—and I hope that time will not he long delayed—it will be decided not merely on this visionary and incomplete scheme, but on all the blunders and all the failures and all the broken pledges which have characterized the official career of Her Majesty's present Government.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he thought that the speech of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, although it contained much invective of the Government, was not altogether without hope for Reformers. He hardly thought it worthy of the right hon. Baronet to say that a Government, which had been placed in power in order to deal with Reform, had been guilty of an "electioneering dodge" in introducing a Reform Bill. The right hon. Baronet had himself admitted that the Act of 1867 was not final, and that it was absolutely impossible that the exclusion of the county householders from the franchise should be long continued. Admitting so much, he was bound to say he could not understand the attitude of the right hon. Baronet, for, while he agreed that Reform was necessary, he was by his vote going to make it impossible that the House should even discuss Reform. Again, there was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Baronet to prove, if he and the Party who acted with him were successful in their endeavour to climb into Office, that they would not bring in the Government scheme of Reform themselves. It was true that the right hon. Baronet maintained that the extension of the franchise should be accompanied by a scheme for the redistribution of seats; but his arguments tended to show it was chiefly important that the same electorate which passed the Extension Bill should also pass the measure for redistribution. If this were his object, then he maintained that it was quite possible to insert in the Bill some provision which would give him the security he desired. As this could be done in Committee, there could be no reason why the right hon. Baronet should not give his support to the second reading of the Bill. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet had not endorsed the opinions of some of his Party, who held that the enfranchisement of the county householder was in itself an undesirable thing. In his opinion, extension was absolutely im-
    1316
    perative, being demanded alike by political justice, by political expediency, and by political necessity. Some hon. Members opposite had attacked the Government because they had approached the subject from that standpoint which viewed Reform as a matter affecting the right of the individual. Well, he agreed with those hon. Members and with the President of the Board of Trade in regarding the franchise as a trust, and not as a right; but he would remind the House that it was possible to create conditions which would confer a right, where, if those conditions had not been created, no right would have existed. If they gave one man a vote because of his fitness, they could not withhold a similar privilege from another man who could show an equal fitness, without giving him a legitimate reason for complaint. Lord Cairns, in 1859, declared that all the eloquence of the Party to which he was opposed—
    "Would not persuade the man living on the wrong side of the street that he was fairly dealt with in the distribution of the franchise."
    Political justice required that the man should not be deprived of the privilege of a vote simply because he lived on the wrong side of the street. But even if political justice did not demand it, extension would be called for by political expediency. Our experience of the benefits that have resulted in the past from former extensions of the franchise justified the belief that the proposed enfranchisement of the county householder would bring advantage to the State. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the possession of a vote would not remove every political and social evil. The good which he anticipated as likely to accrue did not, in his mind, assume the shape of particular acts of State interference; for he agreed with those who held that we had more to fear than to hope for from paternal legislation in the interests of any particular class. The good which he anticipated from extension was the advantage which would be certain to result from the development of that spirit of enterprize, energy, and self-help which the bestowal of a vote was calculated to produce. There was an old maxim of the Greeks which said—
    "The evils of popular government appear greater than they are; there is compensation for them in the spirit and energy it awakens."
    If it was true, as some contended, that

    1317
    the result of extension would be to give us a more ignorant Government, there would be compensation in the fact that the spirit and energy created by the consciousness of participation in the governing power would tend to raise and enlarge the manhood of the nation. But if extension was demanded by political justice and political expediency, it was not less loudly called for by political necessity. There were some hon. Members opposite who honestly believed that they could throw out this Bill with impunity; that there was, as the right hon. Baronet had declared, no genuine spontaneous desire for the Bill. Such was not his belief. He would counsel those hon. Members who held this opinion to go to the North of England, and consult with the Leaders of their Party as to the chances of any candidate who would boldly declare that the county householder ought not to be enfranchised. Let them consult with the hon. Baronet, the recently-elected Member for York, or with the noble Lord who had succeeded his Father in the representation of Haddingtonshire, or with Mr. Bruce, who opposed, in the Tory interest, the candidature of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, and they would learn from them how impossible were the chances of any candidate who might deny that the enfranchisement of the county householder was necessary and just, He had listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) last night, whose return to the House had brought, as it seemed to him, a greater accession of debating power than of statesmanship. He, for one, could not sympathize with the policy of that right hon. Gentleman, which was summed up in the words—
    "While the country is quiet, I will vote against Reform,
    When the country is noisy, I will vote for Reform."
    That was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the policy also of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). It was a policy of disorder, turbulence, and lawlessness, and one which was singularly unworthy of a Party which had constituted itself the special champion of law and order. In his opinion, it was statesmanship to anticipate a fierce demand. It was worse than a
    1318
    blunder to refuse to legislate on this question when we could do so in calmness, in order that we might wait until we were driven to legislate in a panic at a time when the pulse of the country was throbbing with the fever beat of a hot excitement. He was strongly opposed to any action which might seem to deny that extension was an urgent necessity. He should, therefore, give a cordial support to the second reading of the Bill, believing the course which the noble Lord invited the House to take was dangerous, unstatesmanlike, and unwise. He would now, with the permission of the House, make a few remarks on two different points, and in doing so he would endeavour to avoid following the example so abundantly set of making a redistribution speech at the wrong time, or of repeating arguments which were already painfully familiar to the House. He wished to make a few observations, first on the character of the Bill itself, and then on the method of procedure which the Government had advised the House to adopt in dealing with Reform. First, then, as to the character of the Bill; it struck him as a great defect in the Bill that it contained no definition as to what constituted a valid claim to vote as a householder. It would be in the recollection of all who heard or read the Prime Minister's opening speech, that he divided the subject of Reform into three separate parts; that he defined the object of the first part as the fixing of the franchise; that he pointed out that this was in itself an enormous task; and that this enormous task—namely, the fixing of the right of the individual who should be entitled to a vote, was the sole aim and object of the Bill which he had introduced. It would be further in the recollection of those present, that the Prime Minister begged the House to fasten its attention on the borough franchise as it existed in England, because that borough franchise was the hinge of the whole measure, on which the whole structure depended, not only as regarded England, but as regarded Scotland, and as regarded Ireland. This being the case, the nature of the borough franchise became a matter of vital importance, and he thought that it must have been a matter of surprise to many, when they found, on obtaining a copy of the Bill, that it

    1319
    contained no definition of the borough franchise, and that it was necessary for those who wished to understand what Parliament was doing in giving its consent to this measure in its present shape, to search through back Acts of Parliament and Law Reports in order to discover who was entitled to vote as a householder in an English borough. Well, he had made it his business, and many other hon. Members had probably done the same, to find out and discover what was the exact position of the law as to the borough franchise in England. Those who had done so, and who were aware how flimsy and unsatisfactory was the line of distinction between the householder and the lodger, would, he was sure, agree with him that that great Magna Charta which was to add 2,000,000 voters to the 3,000,000 already on the Registers, should contain something more than a reference to back Acts of Parliament and judicial decisions, and that it should be a measure self-contained and complete, clearly defining and explaining what was the nature and character of that franchise which was for the future to be the backbone of English liberties. Now this point was of great importance, for he would venture to assert that it was by no means certain that the effect of the Bill would not be to extend the franchise a great deal further than was contemplated by the House, and, by the conversion of even lodger who had the separate occupation of a single room into a householder, to establish over the United Kingdom a suffrage more closely resembling manhood suffrage than what was generally understood as household suffrage. The House would, he was sure, recognize the importance of this point, and would pardon him if he ventured to occupy a few moments of its time in referring to the exact position of the law as to the borough franchise. In order to explain the exact line of distinction between the lodger and the householder, it would be necessary for him to go back for a moment to the year 1867. As everyone was aware, up to 1867 there was no household franchise except at a value of £10, and no lodger franchise at all. The effect of the Act of 1867 was to establish, for the first time, in boroughs a simple household qualification irrespective of value
    1320
    —the Prime Minister's "hinge"—and a £10 lodger franchise. But the Parliament of 1867, anxious to draw a careful distinction between the two different classes of householders and lodgers, set up three tests by which an occupier who was a householder might be distinguished from an occupier who was a lodger. Under the Act of 1867 no man could vote as a householder, who did not personally pay rates, who did not occupy what was known to the law as a dwelling house, and who did not occupy such dwelling house as a tenant and not as a lodger. These were the three tests and safeguards on which the Parliament relied, in order to distinguish the householder from the lodger. Now he would show, that in consequence of subsequent legislation, two out of the three tests and safeguards had been removed, and he would also show that the third test was a most difficult one to apply. The first of these three tests—namely, the personal payment of rates—was immediately found to be so inconvenient that the provisions enforcing it were repealed by the Poor Rate Assessment Act of 1869. That Act re-established the system of compounding, and enabled persons who had constructively paid their rates to vote. The effect of the Act was that every householder, whether he paid rates or not—assuming of course that somebody paid them—was entitled to vote. The first test which served to distinguish a lodger from a householder was thus swept away. The second mark of distinction between a lodger and a householder rested on the nature of the apartment occupied. To give a vote as a householder, the apartment must be what was known under the law as a dwelling house. The occupation of lodgings would not be sufficient. What, then, was the difference between a dwelling house as defined by the Act of 1867 and lodgings? Now, the question under what circumstances a part of a house was to be considered a house, so as to give the right of voting, had arisen under the Act of 1832, and, after numerous decisions more or less conflicting, it was laid down in 1861 by the Court of Common Pleas, that a part of a house, in the common understanding, of the word, became a house in law when and only when there was actual structural severance. But the definition in the Act

    1321
    of 1867 gave rise to much difference of opinion. The Court of Common Pleas was three times equally divided upon the question whether particular premises were or were not a dwelling house; whether the Interpretation Clause of the Act of 1867 did or did not extend the meaning of the word dwelling house beyond that laid down by the Court of Common Pleas in 1861, and, if it did, how far it extended it. To decide this open question, and to remove the scandal naturally created by the absence of any uniformity in the decisions of the Revising Barristers, the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act was passed in 1878, which repealed the definition in the Act of 1867, and substituted a new one in its place. The effect of this Act was so far as the nature of the premises was concerned to convert every lodger into a householder. This alteration in the law was made by an Act passed by the late Parliament without any discussion. The Act which embodied it was referred to a Select Committee and accepted by the House without an Amendment and without discussion on the assurance of Mr. Marten, the late Member for Cambridge, and the President of the Local Government Board, that the Bill had been most carefully considered, and that no sweeping changes were introduced. Thus the second test followed the fate of the first, and was in its turn swept away. The question soon came before the Courts whether there remained any distinction at all between a lodger and a householder. And in November, 1881, in the case of "Bradley v. Baylis," the two able Judges, Denman and Bowen, decided that the effect of the Act of 1878 was that every man who separately occupied a single room for the requisite time was qualified to vote as a householder. These Judges were so confident that there was no question in the matter, that they declined at first to allow an appeal; but when it appeared that the construction put upon the definition of "dwelling house" in the Act of 1878, made householders of multitudes of persons who had no houses, and that its result would be, according to a loading article in The Times, to give the franchise not to a few hundred, but to a few hundred thousand persons who did not possess it before, when it was seen that the effect of this decision would be to create in boroughs
    1322
    a suffrage hardly distinguishable from manhood suffrage, it was felt that the manifest importance of the point decided was a good ground for allowing an. appeal. It was felt desirable that a wholesale addition to our Registers, owing to an unforeseen interpretation of the language of the Act of 1878, should be confirmed by the Court of Appeal before it was legalized. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decision of the Court below. They pointed out the existence of a third test which had been overlooked by Justices Denman and Bowen. They did not deny that the occupation of a single room was sufficient as far as the nature of the premises was concerned to give a vote; but they said you must look further and examine the nature of the occupation, and see whether the occupier of a single room occupied it as a tenant or as a lodger. Now, on the nature of the occupation rested the whole case as to whether a man was a lodger or householder; and he thought it would hardly be believed that although so much depended on the line of distinction between the occupation as a tenant and the occupation as a lodger, the Legislature had not attempted to distinguish the two kinds of occupation. Having found some difficulty in agreeing on the definition of the term "lodger," Parliament left it to the Courts to determine its meaning. How the Courts had succeeded appeared from the statement of the late Master of the Rolls, who declared—
    "There is probably no question on which there has been a greater variety of judicial opinion than this."
    Another Judge, Lindley, also declared—
    "The distinction between those who are lodgers, and those who are not lodgers, must be discovered from other sources than the Statutes, and it is extremely difficult to draw the line between them."
    He had now proved how exceedingly unsatisfactory was the line of distinction which separated the householder from the lodger, that two out of the three tests and safeguards set up by the Parliament of 1867 to distinguish the householder from the lodger had been swept away, and that the third remaining test was most difficult to apply. Now, he wished to know what the effect of this Bill would be? He had pointed out that this third test did not depend upon, Statutes, but upon the opinion of the Courts.

    1323
    Was this third test to be swept away by the Bill, and no distinction at all to be kept between the lodger and the householder? This was the point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. He rather inferred from the Prime Minister's speech that his object was to remove this test, for the Prime Minister had distinctly declared, in referring to the service franchise, that—
    "Our object is to provide a franchise for those inhabitants who are neither owners nor tenants."
    Now, the effect of this would be to make every man who separately occupied a single room for the requisite time into a householder. He wished to know whether this was the intention of the Government? He would point out that if this was the case, a state of things would be brought about over the whole of the United Kingdom similar to that which, by the judgment of Denman and Bowen, was created in 1878 in English boroughs. Those who wished to know what a scare the judgment of Denman and Bowen caused would find abundant evidence in the newspapers of November, 1881. He wished to know whether this Bill would do for the whole Kingdom what the Act of 1878, in the opinion of Justices Denman and Bowen, did for the boroughs? He regretted to have wearied the House at such length on so dry and technical a subject. It was, however, a point which ought to engage the attention of the House, for whether this Bill was intended to alter this state of the law or not he thought it ought not to be left in its present state of technicality and uncertainty; and he hoped, before the Bill reached Committee stage, that the House might be treated to something more than a reference, and that this great Magna Charta might contain a definition clearly stating what was the exact line of distinction between a householder and a lodger. Then passing from this somewhat dry but none the less important point, he asked to be allowed to make a few remarks on the method of procedure which the Government had invited the House to adopt. The right hon. Baronet had pointed out that there was no security, under the Bill in its present shape, that the same electorate which passed extension should pass redistribution as well. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking this
    1324
    a grave defect, and if it was possible to introduce into the Bill some provision which would give this security, without in any way interfering with the desire of the House to extend the franchise, then there could be no reason for refusing to insert it. As he had already trespassed at considerable length on the indulgence of the House, he would not be justified if he were to attempt to give his reasons for that belief at any length; but he wished, with the permission of the House, to make a few remarks in support of his contention, that whether the franchise was regarded as a right or as a privilege, it was in any case of vital importance that the same electorate which dealt with the extension should deal with redistribution also. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had last evening stated that the principal argument he had heard brought against the separation of redistribution from extension was the inconvenience that it would cause from the large size of the constituencies created. This he said, and rightly said, was a very inadequate reason, for what, he asked, was inconvenience when compared with justice? Well, his own attitude upon this question was based and founded upon justice. If justice required that a man should have a vote, justice also required that he should be able to make his vote effectual. If a man had a right to a vote, that implied that he had a right to participate in the governing power. This was the end to gain which the franchise was only a means. Participation in the conduct of public affairs being the end aimed at, it did not follow that this was secured by the mere bestowal of a vote. To have a vote was, of course, absolutely essential, but something more than this was required. The right to vote must be of value. If an elector was to participate in the conduct of public affairs, it was not only necessary that he should have a vote, but that he should be able by means of his vote to give effectual expression to his opinion. If this was admitted, and he could not see how it could be denied, then this also must be admitted, that the number of names on the electoral roll was not so important as the number of electors who by the effectual use they could make of their vote were conscious of a direct participation in the governing power. For

    1325
    instance, if the object of Reform was to foster and increase the spirit of citizenship, it must be obvious that that object would be far more effectually attained by a system of election which secured that the vote of every individual elector should count for as much as that of any other elector, than it would by a system which would give the whole of the representation to two-thirds of the electors, and no representation at all to one-third of the electors. If, then, it were possible to extend the suffrage in such a way as to secure equal representation to all the electors, it would be a political error of the gravest magnitude to extend it in such a way as to set up, on the one hand, a large privileged class widowed with a greater share of power than they were entitled by their numbers to receive, and, on the other hand, a large unrepresented class labelled electors, whose votes were absolutely useless, and who, instead of feeling any consciousness that they had any participation whatsoever in the governing power of the country, would be depressed by the most miserable consciousness that they were not only entirely unrepresented and virtually disfranchised, but they were to be henceforth deprived of all chance of participation in the conduct of public affairs. This, he maintained, was exactly what they were asked to do if they were invited to agree to the extension of the franchise without any security that the same electorate which passed it should settle the scheme of redistribution. Let him refer to Ireland as an illustration. Let them suppose that, according to generally accepted statements, the result of extension would be to give them an electorate of which two-thirds were Nationalists and one-third Loyalists. And let them further assume that the Loyalist population was so diffused that it could only win five seats, the remaining 100 going to the Nationalists. It would be evident to everyone that in a country where Parties were divided in the proportion of two to one, a system of election which would give the whole of the representation to that Party which could command a local majority, and no representation whatsoever to the minority, might give them a Legislature in which the one-third would be entirely unrepresented. He supposed, however, that the one-third had been able to win five seats out of
    1326
    105, the remaining 100 seats going to the Nationalists' two-thirds. Now, what happened? If the Nationalists' two-thirds won 100 seats out of 105, and the Loyalists' one-third won only five seats, what was the respective value of the Nationalists' and Loyalists' vote? Why, if two-thirds got 100, one-third got 50, and thus they obtained this result—that one-third of the electorate who were Nationalists got 50 seats, and the one-third of the electors who were Loyalists got five seats. Thus, the vote of every Nationalist would count for 10 times as much as the vote of every Loyalist. Was this a possibility which those who aimed at justice could regard with complacency? The President of the Board of Trade had told them that the representative system in Ireland should be a reality, and not a mere imposition. And the hon. Member for the City of Cork had warned the House against allowing the Irish Representation to remain an utter sham. He would ask both the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) what they considered to be a true respresentation and what an utter sham? Did they consider a system of election which made the vote of a Nationalist elector 10 times more powerful than the vote of a Loyalist elector a true representation, or would they agree with him in calling it an utter sham? Did they consider a system of election which would give nine-tenths of the representation to two-thirds of the electors a true representation, or an utter sham? And did they consider a system of election which would secure to one-third of the electors, although they were Loyalists, one-third of the representation, a mere imposition which the House should disallow? His hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk, in his eloquent speech last evening, said—"Who was there in this House who would dare to stand up and say I am in favour of a sham." He (Mr. (Grey) asked who was there in this House who would dare to stand up and say with him, "I am against an utter sham." the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) admitted that the effect of extension unaccompanied by redistribution would be to swamp the loyal minority in Ireland; and did he regret it? On the contrary, he rejoiced at it, because, in his opinion—

    1327
    "The action of that so-called Loyal Party had not been an aid, but a hindrance, to any solid union between England and Ireland."
    If the House wanted further proof that the result of extension, unaccompanied by redistribution, would be to produce a perfect fraud in the representation and an utter sham, they would find it in the melancholy avowal of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, that the loyal minority for Ireland must look for their representation to the 550 Gentlemen who might be sent to Parliament by English and Scotch constituencies. So far, lie had confined himself to an attempt to show that if the increase of citizenship was the only object of Reform, it was important that there should be a connection between extension and redistribution. He had shown that if we once separated redistribution from extension we should hand over to a numerical majority a monopoly of political power, which would enable them to prevent the minority from obtaining that fair share of participation in the conduct of public affairs to which they were entitled. But to add to the number of electors was not the only object of Reform. It certainly was not the only object of the Reformers of 1832; and, according to the evidence abundantly supplied by Hansard, it was not the only object of the Reformers of 1866 and 1867. The governing consideration both in 1832 and in 1867 was not the increase of citizenship, but the character of the Legislature. The object in both cases was to bring about a transfer of political power, and, while increasing the number of citizens entitled to partake in the governing power, to regulate that increase in such a way as to secure these two great results—(1.) That no class should be excluded from representation in the House of Commons. (2.) That no one class should by over-representation unduly overbear all the rest. These were the considerations which occupied the minds of statesmen during the previous periods of Reform, and which caused them to keep an inseparable connection between extension and redistribution. The Prime Minister had argued that because the number of electors depended upon the Redistribution Bill at a time when there was a different franchise in town and county, that was a good reason against the separation, but because the number of electors could not
    1328
    be affected by a Redistribution Bill when the franchise was uniform, the case against separation fell to the ground. But Lord Derby's unanswerable speech in 1866 was not so much directed against the inconvenience referred to by the Prime Minister, as against the dangerous course of leaving the power of deciding what should be the ultimate balance of power between the different classes of I the community in the hands of a Parliament returned under a Provisional Constitution after extension and before redistribution, by a constituency which no one ever intended to be the depositary of political power. This was the real ground of the opposition to the separation in 1866; and he would ask the Prime Minister, if it was unsafe in 1866 to leave in the hands of a Parliament elected by a constituency which was never intended to be the depositary of political power the serious and vital question of determining what was to be the ultimate balance of power between the different classes of the community, was it a bit more safe now? If it was important to keep the two measures together in 1866, it was ten times more important now. For what was the difference between the situation of 1866 and that of 1884? In 1866 the Reform Bill maintained a marked diversity of franchise—a broad distinction between the town and county franchise was carefully maintained, in order that there might be an ample security for that variety in the representation which had always been considered as the very essence of our Constitution. But now, if we dissolved after extension and before redistribution, we should find ourselves in this position. We should have lost the old security and should have established no new one in its place. He was not arguing against extension. On the contrary, he maintained that extension was required by political justice, expediency, and necessity. He only wished to point out that at present we secured variety of representation by variety of franchise, and that one inevitable consequence of extension, which we were bound not to disregard, was that it would remove and destroy a particular form of security deliberately and carefully set up with the object of ensuring that variety in the representation which had always been regarded as absolutely essential. The question was—

    1329
    what security could we set up in its place? The representation of local majorities, which answered well enough so long as there was a different franchise in different localities, was useless when the franchise was uniform. If we had an uniform franchise, there was only one way of securing that variety in the representation which was of the very essence of our Constitution, and that was by the abandonment of the system of local majority representation, and by the wide application of the principle of personal or proportional representation. He could not now enter into the reasons for this belief; all he could say now was that, in his opinion, while a uniform franchise, coupled with the present system of majority representation, would be most dangerous, a uniform household franchise, coupled with a system of personal or proportional representation, would be most advantageous. Why, then, if such was his opinion, the hon. Member might ask who was about to follow him, did he not vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord? He had already stated the reason why. The effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, if carried, would be to throw out the Bill, and to tell the country that this Parliament, which had been returned in order to deal with Reform, was not even willing to discuss Reform Such a course he considered dangerous, unstatesmanlike, and unwise. He would, therefore, give his cordial support to the second reading. But while he was anxious that an Extension Bill should be passed, he was strongly opposed to passing it in such a way as to leave the character of the redistribution to be decided by a constituency which was never intended to be the depositary of political power. He held that the same electorate which dealt with extension should deal with redistribution also. He, therefore, proposed to support a clause to be inserted in the Bill that extension should not take effect until a date to be mentioned in the Redistribution Bill which was to follow. He was aware—painfully aware—of the objections that could be urged against such a course. He had weighed them and carefully considered them; but he was unable to discover any other means which would give him the security he thought they had a right to ask for obtaining that variety in the representation which was essential to good government. If, however, the Go-
    1330
    vernment could point out any other security less open to objection, he would be very glad; but if they could not provide any other security, he would support such a clause as that to which he had just referred, for, objectionable as it might be, it was still less objectionable than the course of handing over the settlement of redistribution to a constituency which was never intended to be the depositary of political power.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down into all the details of his able and interesting speech. He did not profess himself as a rule to be an especially obedient follower of the Prime Minister; but he intended on this occasion to follow the remarkable advice with which the right hon. Gentleman had concluded the speech in which he introduced this measure to the House. The Prime Minister had offered this measure to the House in much the same way that a physician might offer to a somewhat distrustful patient a somewhat dubious and experimental medicine. It had been taken, he argued, in small doses on previous occasions, and had had a tonic effect on the Constitution. Therefore, an enormously increased dose must now be the logical sequence, and must have a treble stimulating effect. That sequence being once granted as a point beyond dispute, it only remained for them to shut their eyes, to recognize that the longer they looked the more they would dislike it, and to swallow it with as good a grace as might be, and with a determination to avoid over-carping criticism as to unpleasant details either in its composition or manner of exhibition. That was not a very inaccurate description of the arguments or the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman; and he would only say that as far as the arguments went they had not been very materially strengthened by any remarks on the other side of the House, and as far as the recommendations went they had not elicited any servile obedience on that side. For himself, he would not go into any detail, still less recommend any fancy franchise—he would not "wander into the morasses and quagmires of doubt;" but he would give a plain and straightforward opinion—an opinion which was shared by many more in the House than would be likely to avow

    1331
    such views—an opinion that this downward extension of the franchise, which was so euphemistically imposed on them under the lair sounding but false title of "Representation of the People Bill," was a measure which, in its present truncated condition, was not worth having—which was untimely in its introduction, which was not justified by any genuine or general desire on the part of the people, which was absolutely dangerous and unconstitutional in the power it would give to one class, and that the least intelligent and least educated class of i the people. It was to this last aspect of the question he wished as much as possible to confine his remarks. There were other points of objection to this measure, but so obvious that they required but few words of proof. Few words, for instance, were necessary to prove the charge of untimeliness in the introduction of an enfranchising measure which made that introduction coincident with one of the saddest pages of Irish history, and the consequent continued existence of a Crimes Prevention Act. Whether the Bill were from other points of view a good Bill or a bad Bill, every shred of argument that had been be painfully scraped together by Members opposite to justify the inclusion of Ireland had been a most complete and crushing condemnation of the policy which, for the sake of the meanest, most pitiable Party purposes, had insisted on introducing this unnecessary measure at this most untimely moment, and had forced the country, either by the exclusion of Ireland, to fan to fresh fury the flickering flame of discontent, or else, by the inclusion of Ireland, to disfranchise their loyal fellow-countrymen, and to recruit, the ranks of those whose thought by day and dream by night was enmity to England and hatred to her rule, and whose avowed and boasted objects were Separation and Repeal. The Prime Minister said—"The people were to be trusted, and that the voters under the Constitution were the strength of the Constitution;" but would he venture to say that the Irish people were to be trusted for their loyalty to the Constitution, or would he repeat, with all the records of late elections in Ireland to confront and to confute him, that the voters under the present Constitution even were the strength of the Constitution? He had hoped that he might have
    1332
    left to other right hon. and noble Occupants of the Treasury Bench to answer that question, by repeating in the House their well-known and else whore publicly expressed sentiments on this at present disheartening subject. It appeared, however, that what seemed madness in the bracing air of the Provinces seemed to be simple necessity in the enervating atmosphere of the Cabinet Council. Even the noble Lord, however, told them that it would be too sanguine to expect that the extension of the franchise would be followed in Ireland by an increase of loyalty and contentment. It would, indeed, be too sanguine; and he would only add that, if the Prime Minister could still with sincerity avow his belief in the loyalty of the great bulk of the Irish people, that he again possessed in solitude that same unique power of rose-coloured vision with regard to the state of Ireland with which a notorious paragraph in his Mid Lothian orations had made them but too unhappily familiar. It was on other grounds, however, that he wished to question the charge of untimeliness against the present measure. However much theorists in the House, or claptrap orators in the country, might exclaim at such an opinion, he was convinced, and had no hesitation in expressing his conviction, that, as a class, the agricultural labourers were not yet sufficiently educated to justify the House in permitting them to bring their votes in competition on such unequal terms as regards numbers with those which represented education, and the interest inherent in the possession of property. He was not likely to wish to under-rate the qualifications of any class of Yorkshiremen; and having the honour to represent a constituency which comprised 1–24th of the whole area of England and l–30th part of the whole agricultural population, he might at least be supposed to speak as one considerably interested in this question of their enfranchisement. It was only in a secondary degree that he objected to their enfranchisement on the score of their unfitness. That objection each year of our present education system would help to diminish and remove, and even now it held less in the North perhaps than elsewhere, He was sure that at least all hon. Members who represented constituencies North of the Humber would

    1333
    allow that the highest average of natural intellectual development was, like promotion in the text, in that it came "neither from the East, nor from the West, nor yet from the South." the chief point of his objection, and one which time would never efface, was the manner in which the Government intended to concede to the agricultural labourer that trust. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) pointed out the other day, since the Act of 1867 there had been two distinct qualifications for the suffrage—the property qualification in the counties, and the franchise on the basis of population in the towns—and what he objected to in this unconstitutional and unstatesinanlike measure was that, for the sake of that narrow-minded species of Reform which aimed at the removal of anomalies because they were anomalies, and not because they were abuses; it proposed to disfranchise altogether the representation of property. That was a point which the Government had never fairly met. As to the fitness or unfitness of the agricultural labourer to have a vote, he would first say that what he said on the subject in the House he would be prepared to repeat before his constituents; and the very individuals best fitted to possess the suffrage would be the first to understand and to appreciate and accept his reasons. He was perfectly willing to admit that there were many hundreds and thousands, if they liked, in his own constituency, of agricultural labourers who were as well fitted as himself to have a vote—many perhaps better fitted—but they were still in a minute minority, and their votes would be swamped and neutralized by the overwhelming majority of the voters who were not capable of properly exercising the franchise. The enormous majority of the new class of voters, as hon. Gentlemen opposite must confess, would for a long time be swayed by petty interests and by small crotchets. They would be at the mercy of agitators of a superior class—individuals, no doubt, well educated, but influenced by unworthy considerations. Such individuals were now counting on this same mallable ignorance as valuable Party capital, and were eagerly expecting the consignment to their agitation manufactories of the new law-voting material, relying on their skill and power to direct
    1334
    and guide, and, at no distant, date, win the mob-moved machinery of manhood suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the House the other day that it was railways opportune to do good things. That was a beautiful copybook principle, which he should like the right hon. Gentleman to remember and act upon by withdrawing those grossly unjust charges which he made in connection with his Merchant Shipping Bill. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had stated that manhood suffrage was also a just thing; and he would like to know how it was that he reconciled its exception from the category of those good things which it was never inopportune to do, and whether, like the noble Lord the Secretary of state for War, he kept one set of principles for his theories in the Provinces, and another and different set of principles for his practice in the Metropolis? The bulk of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had not yet been educated up to the higher standard of manhood suffrage, but they could still understand their great feeling for a considerable extension of the franchise. The recent elections in York, West Somersetshire, and Cambridgeshire had done very little to lessen their anxiety to efface the present electorate, whose growing political knowledge was showing itself so exceedingly inconvenient. As to the desire for the franchise among the lower classes, he said deliberately that there was no such feeling in favour of it among the classes for whom it was pretended that the measure was introduced. He did not mean to refer to outrages and other violent demonstrations, nor did he wish to add to the retorts that had been bandied from side to side in the House with regard to the significance of the Leeds Conference. He did not care to discuss whether that Conference meant anything more than that a concourse of delegates showed a natural pleasure in spending a week in a beautiful Yorkshire town, and in listening to a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, when his oratory had it all its own way, when his eloquence was not hampered or somewhat distracted by an attempt to answer the unanswerable speech of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John

    1335
    Manners). What he wanted to ask was, had they found a desire for an extension of the franchise in the rural districts? For his own part, he would say that there was a perfect apathy in the rural districts in respect of it. The only feeling evinced on this question was in the big towns, and there, absurdly enough, it was redistribution that was wanted, and not county enfranchisement in itself at all. A proper scheme of redistribution with a considerable extension of the borough boundaries would have fulfilled all their present requirements, and would have met with hearty cooperation and support on the Conservative side of the House. When former Reform measures were introduced there was a distinct requirement for the franchise, an intelligent demand that would have brooked no continual denial—a demand that had its foundation in its justice and its root in the reasonableness and rectitude of its claim. There was no such demand for the franchise at the present moment, and for this reason, that the class proposed to be enfranchised was already amply represented. He would not say that every individual of those classes was represented, but the classes themselves were represented, and as far as individuals went he would say that it was fortunate indeed that they had not been able to bring to bear, in all their overwhelming weight of numbers, their crude intelligence and all their changeful impulses of capricious ignorance. Would hon. Members opposite venture to compare the capability of the class now to be enfranchised with the average capabilities of those who already exercised it? Did they think them equal to that class in political knowledge, in honest conviction, in independence of thought; or did they deny that by this untimely experiment they were further lowering and pulling down that average, that they were increasing the influence of the least capable stratum of political life, and letting loose on the field of politics a flood of ignorance and selfish and unreasoning prejudice? The Government in their foreign policy had got one motto, and a most fatal one—"Too Late." In domestic legislation they had got another and a very different, but as fatal a one—"Too Early." In some 10 or 15 years' time some such measure as this might have been introduced with general advantage to the nation
    1336
    at large. At this moment it would be done without advantage, and it would not be done without risk. Hon. Members opposite might possibly have had their attention called to an anecdote that appeared in the papers some time ago in a letter from a tutor of some College at Oxford, in which he related how he was travelling in the North with some miners, He mentioned in the course of his conversation with them the subject of the franchise, and he asked one of them what he would do with the franchise. The man said—"I don't know. If they are giving away these votes I would as soon have them as anybody else. But I'll tell you what my mates say they will do. They will vote for a general smash." He thought that the ignorance which made that feeling at all possible did undoubted exist among the class for whom Henry George was lecturing, and amongst whom his economic absurdities found an appreciative audience, and he thought that ought to be taken into consideration before in so light-hearted a manner they proceeded to abolish their old system of class representation by the addition of 66 per cent to the electorate—of 2,000,000 fresh voters chosen from among the less educated and intelligent class of the people. It was absolutely pitiable to see the Members of the Government standing at the Table last week one after another arguing in favour of the severance of the schemes for redistribution and extension, and then during the same week to see a Cabinet Minister counterfeiting surprise and indignation at the very idea of being asked to do such an unheard-of thing as separating a measure for the relief of local taxation from an embryo, vague, shadowy, elementary scheme of county government. If he might briefly illustrate this point, he would use another medical simile. There was a class of medicines which consisted of two powders dissolved in water, and which, when intended for remedial use, were mixed together, and when thus mixed formed a valuable and beneficial remedy of an effervescing nature. Separate, however, these two powders, and administer first one and then the other, and the result was of an extremely distressing and indeed, alarming character. He offered that illustration as the briefest and most commonplace example he could think

    1337
    of, of the manner in which what as a whole might be valuable and beneficial, might become actually detrimental and deleterious in its separated and disconnected parts. It was useless, however, to bring forward arguments which Members opposite refused to meet. Their real arguments took the practical form of Irish bribes. Their real reasons were reliance in their majority. Their logic was the logic of the Lobbies and the strength of the Divisions. In conclusion, he would make an appeal to Members representing county constituencies. They had been elected by a class which not only in after dinner oratory in their country districts were termed by conventional flatterers the backbone of the nation, but which, was very generally recognized to be one of the most important component parts of the British nation; and he would ask hon. Members who had been elected by that class, on the condition that they would maintain its interests and represent its views, not now to allow those interests to be impaired and those views to be obscured by that vast upheaval from beneath which was to mark the new geologic period in the political history of the land. He would appeal to them alike as a point of duty and a point of honour to unite in resisting to the uttermost of their power the present preposterous piece of premature and patchwork legislation.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he was indebted to the hon. Member who had just spoken for having summarized tersely the policy of the Opposition, He had stated that the policy of Her Majesty's Government must either be too late or too early in its action, and that it would be extremely difficult to please the Opposition by any course which the Government might have taken on this particular question. Having carefully followed the speeches that had been delivered in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord, it appeared to him that, in the main, they very fully confirmed the wisdom of the course which the Government had adopted on this matter. There had been a certain affectation of support to the general phraseology of the Amendment. In the main, however, there had been a good deal of make-believe about the support, and there had been an always ill-concealed aversion to enfranchisement in any form whatever. While
    1338
    the Opposition had thus refrained from directly opposing the enfranchisement of those at present outside the bounds of the Constitution, they had not hesitated to give arguments which would seem logically to justify that course. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) on the previous evening said that, the class to be enfranchised was the most ignorant and certainly the most inexperienced class in the country. In saying that he only further accentuated the argument of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who said that the class about to be enfranchised contrasted unfavourably with those persons who were I entitled to receive the suffrage under the Act of 1867. He emphasized the I contrast by stating that those who were within the borough suffrage were men, generally speaking, trained by experience of a practical kind under municipal institutions—that they were men who had a familiarity with the conduct of benefit societies and trade unions, and who were therefore fitted by their experience for the exercise of the functions devolving upon them. It seemed to him I an extraordinary thing that hon. Members with the large experience of the hon. Gentlemen opposite should over look the fact that there were at the present moment outside the Parliamentary boroughs of this country a very large and important body of persons, possessing the municipal franchise, who were intimately connected with local boards of health, and who had a large experience in urban and rural sanitary affairs—persons, in fact, having qualifications and experience very difficult for him to distinguish from those Possessed by the electors in the Parliamentary boroughs The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke with some pride of the county with which he was connected. He seemed to be unaware of the great industrial districts in his county and the neighbouring one of Lancashire. He would mention, as instances, the important towns of Keighley, Accrington, and Crewe. In the last-named town there was, perhaps, the most intelligent class of trained artizans to be found in any part of the country, and they were at present entirely without the franchise. Then, again, the House was familiar with the example of this great and over-extending Metropolis, with its suburban

    1339
    towns, like Croydon, Stratford, and others, and to which the same remark applied with greater force. The right hon. Baronet opposite complained that no reason had been given to the House to justify the necessity for the introduction of this measure. He and many other speakers who opposed the Bill seemed to hold the opinion that there was some reason for complaint that there had been no outside clamour to force the question on the attention of Parliament—that there had been no loud knocking at the door such as they had been familiar with on former occasions. That appeared to him to be one of the strongest reasons that could be urged in support of the Bill, in that Parliament was able to address itself to a serious Constitutional question in conditions of tranquillity which ought to lead to a wise and satisfactory settlement of it. The present state of the public mind was a testimony to the growth of a legitimate confidence by the great masses of the people, in the adoption of an orderly and Constitutional remedy for the grievances which they sought to have remedied, and the claims which they had a right to urge. It had been said that, the occasion for bringing forward the Bill was not opportune; but that objection was mainly urged by a Party in the House who held that no occasion could lid opportune for a measure of the kind. He hoped a Dissolution would not happen before the whole question was settled; but, even if that should happen, he saw no reason why the newly-enfranchised electors should not have a voice in the question of redistribution of political power, or why hon. Members opposite should object to an appeal which might result in their being called upon themselves to define a scheme of redistribution for the constituencies which they claimed to have so largely under their care. The fundamental principle of the Bill, as it was described by the Prime Minister, was to give a vote to every householder; but there was no provision that the franchise should be given to such householders if they happened to be women. They had heard a good deal in the course of the debate of a certain "Old Woman of Warwickshire," and he thought there was something to be said on behalf of that old woman. By an excellent and ingenious
    1340
    device in this measure, a vote would be given, not merely to the poorest householder and ratepayer, but even to the herd and other servants whose rent was included in the weekly wage. It did seem to him rather hard lines that the "Old Woman of Warwickshire" should have to contemplate the enfranchisement of her farm labourer, of her herd, of her meanest servant, while she herself—one of 20,000 similarly situated—should be unenfranchised. The case of the woman landowner was even harder, for, according to a Parliamentary Return, one in every seven landowners was a woman. At present, women having the qualification for the vote excercised every form of local voting. They gave votes for Town Councils, for Local Boards, and for Boards of Guardians, and could not only vote for but actually sit on School Boards. They wore, nevertheless, debarred from exercising the Parliamentary suffrage. Why this should be so he entirely failed to see. No argument that could be held to justify the exercise of these local franchises could fail also to make good their claim to the Parliamentary franchise. They eminently satisfied one of the fundamental conditions of this Bill. They were "capable citizens." It was idle in these days to talk of finality, but this measure did appear to him to have in it the elements of completeness to a much larger extent than any previous measure; and he proposed in Committee to submit an Amendment to the House, which, if adopted, would realize the declared intention of the Prime Minister. He would not anticipate the arguments he would then have to address to the House; but he hoped they would be commended to the House in a reasonable spirit, and would be received in that spirit on both sides. He know the Prime Minister had deprecated the proposal he (Mr. Woodall) intended to make, and as one of the most devoted and loyal of his followers he felt a difficulty in pressing anything that might, in the smallest degree, be contrary to the express wish of the right hon. Gentleman. All he asked was that, seeing this question was one upon which a decided majority of the Liberal Party had already declared themselves, and seeing that it had attracted a large amount of sympathy from other parts of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would so far meet the

    1341
    wishes of the House as, at any rate, rate to leave it an open question. If the measure were passed in the form he would suggest, he felt certain that it would, for a long time, be accepted by the country as a settlement of this important issue, upon a logical and reasonable and sound basis. If his Amendment were omitted, it must be obvious that the House would have to deal again with a still unsettled franchise.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: After what has passed earlier in the evening, I must begin by explaining that, though I speak from the Table, I was driven to take refuge on the Front Bench by stress of misfortune four years since, when I found that to keep my old familiar place below the Gangway I should have to contend not with one. but two whole Parties. The only place under the Crown I have ever enjoyed was one of which the profits were nothing—Steward of the Manor of Northstead. I can assure the House that I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken; but, before I proceed to the main question, I may assure him that I am prepared to stand—metaphorically, of course—before the cannon's mouth, to prevent the "Old Woman of Warwickshire" from obtaining the franchise. But to come to the Bill itself, I occupy a somewhat unusual position towards the question of Reform, for I voted impartially against both the Reform Bill of 1866 and that of 1867, and I see nothing in what has since occurred to make me regret my action. I shall be told that it was no great risk for a Member to do this who sat for a constituency which, with such fine taste, the hon. Member for Aylesbury described as one of country clergymen and non-resident. M.A.'s. But, at the time, I had no prospect of a University seat, and I voted against the Reform Bills, as representing that very constituency which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken now adorns. As Member for Stoke I was willing to imperil my Parliamentary future for what I believed to be political truth, for I was satisfied neither with the Bill of the present Prime Minister nor with that of Lord Beaconsfield. I remember how, in 1866, our tables groaned with pamphlets, especially with the so by the late Mr. Dudley Baxter, a gentleman of great industry and some ability, de-
    1342
    monstrating how fatally the additional voters introduced by that measure would dislocate the balance of property and voting power; and how again, in 1867, our tables groaned with fresh pamphlets by Mr. Dudley Baxter, demonstrating that the far more wholesale lowering of that year, the more prodigious separation of property and voting, would restore the equilibrium to the franchise. Mr. Baxter's arguments had told on me in 1866, but I did not think the sequel of 1867 equally cogent nor absolutely consistent. The 17 years which have since elapsed do not find me convinced that I was mistaken. In 1874, indeed, many Members on this side began exclaiming that, after all, 1867 had been a very fine time. I thought on and kept silent; and I observe that since 1880 my Friends have also been silent. What do we find by experience to have been the action on political progress of the borough franchise created in 1867? I will only criticize it in one respect, but that is a point on which there cannot be a sincere difference of opinion. Under that enlarged franchise, supplemented as it has been by secret voting, the oscillations of public opinion are more sudden, more unexpected, more violent, more uncontrolled than in former times; 1874 and 1880 equally prove this. It may be urged on the other side that this difference proves that the present electorate has a finer and a readier touch than the former one, and that this characteristic would be intensified by the present Bill. I cannot, however, believe that unexpectedness can conduce to wise or moderate government. It must be unhealthy that such surprises should be possible, and the evil will be intensified when 2,000,000 of voters have with a light heart been shot upon the country—like coals down a cellar. I will assume that the chances may be even that the present Bill should produce a strong Tory or a strong Liberal Parliament; but under either alternative I cannot trust its results, or look on it with any pleasure. I object to the present scheme because it affects to do a most delicate job in a most unworkmanlike manner. Here I am brought face to face with the favourite argument on the other side, the argument which appeals ad invidiam, and which, for want of a better name, I may call the "mad-dog argument," for it is merely used to give opponents a bad

    1343
    name. If I mention it, it is to repudiate the imputation that those who oppose the measure do so because they dislike and mistrust their poorer neighbours. That assertion, for it is no argument, is the language of tyranny masquerading in the form of liberty, and the spirit which dictates it is reactionary and retrograde. I venture to say for myself that, in the two parts of England whore I have a foothold, I have devoted much time, much trouble, much outlay to the moral, the social, the intellectual, and the material advancement of those members of the labouring classes for whom I have a responsibility. It is as their friend, and as knowing something of the state of our country districts, that I contest the benefit of bestowing the franchise on these labourers. What is their present condition?—for with that present condition the present debate need only concern itself. I praise them for self-denial, family affections, industry, and love of their country. I grant them every virtue in the world, except the virtues of political forethought and grasp of the relations of public questions. Their condition of living is antipathetic to these faculties. The world to them is bounded by the horizon on which they gaze every day; the village in which they live is the chief place on the globe. The politics which interest them are petty disputes about wages, the events of haymaking and harvesting, and the election of the officers of the village club. Perhaps hon. Members will say that such experiences are a school of political learning, and that the goose club is the pathway to the larger arena of the House of Commons. I protest against the crude recklessness of introducing these 2,000,00 of inexperienced voters into the electorate, for by mere mechanical force of numbers they must swamp and overwhelm all other interests in the country. If all the old women in the country who held the same position as the "Old Woman of Warwickshire" were admitted to the franchise, and every conceivable fancy franchise added, they would muster as an insignificant troop beside the legions of enfranchised agricultural labourers. By way of political education these new voters are to be fed on feverish stimulants like the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, as to which I shall only say that never from
    1344
    the Treasury Bench, under any provocation, have I heard language more incendiary, clothing statements more misleading. The allegation that the poor man had found his commons robbed because he had had no vote, wilfully distorted facts; but what are we to say to the charge heaped upon this, that his endowments had also been robbed? No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that if there is a colourable pretext for, or a shred of distorted truth in, the charge, it is to be found in that which everyone has looked upon as a crowning administrative exploit of the Party to which he (the President of the Board of Trade) belongs—the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, passed by the right hon. Member for Bradford, under which many small endowments, bread doles, clothing gifts, and so forth, have been diverted to higher uses and made serviceable for education. The diversion may in some cases have been a harsh proceeding, but in others it has undoubtedly been beneficial. But to raise the cry of robbery over it, to prop up a democratic revolution, required the audacity of the President of the Board of Trade. Some advocates of this measure try to stop our mouths with the assertion that the enfranchisement of the labourer is a matter of right and justice about which there could no longer be any controversy. That word "right" is an ambiguous and misleading term. I cannot understand how anyone who does not accept universal suffrage as a principle can speak of the concession of any power to the agricultural or any other class as a right. The least limit put to it evacuates the idea of right. Either the principle of universal suffrage must be recognized, and then the present Bill itself is a halting half measure, or practical men must acknowledge that the suffrage is a means to an end, a trust confided to the voter by the superior power, the State, and liable to be dealt with by that power for the benefit of that which is superior to any number of voters—namely, the entire commonwealth itself. Until universal suffrage is recognized as a good in itself this argument of right must, I say, break down. Having regard to the want of education among our rustics, I declare this Bill to be a most rash and ill-considered measure; but I am prepared to

    1345
    answer the question whether I consider that, the agricultural labourers ought to have any share in the government of the country. They certainly ought to have a proportionate one, and they have it, inasmuch as in large numbers they are voters in the agricultural boroughs with large areas, such as East Retford, Eye, New Shoreham, Horsham, Wilton, Aylesbury, Rye, Much Wenlock, Cricklade, and the curtilages of other boroughs. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had the courage the other night to declare that the loyal population of Ireland would be represented by Members for English and Scotch constituencies. This was indirect representation with a vengeance in all its nakedness, and it would ill become I the noble Lord, at all events, to deny that the agricultural labourers of England were represented in a far more direct, real, and complete way by the agricultural boroughs. This indiscriminate enfranchisement, in view of a dark Bill for redistribution which may be passed in this Parliament or in the next Parliament by the Liberals, by the Tories, or by the Mahdi, is playing fast and loose with politics. It is not forethought, it is not patriotism, and I vote against it as a gambling and scrambling attempt of the Government to clutch at the power which is slipping out of their grasp.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he belonged to the class of ex-Cabinet Ministers prescribed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel); but, having regard to the infrequency of his speeches, he hoped the House would pardon him for engaging its attention. He would not on this occasion occupy the time of the House on the subject which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall); but when his hon. Friend moved his Amendment in favour of including women householders, he knew of no consideration which would induce him to falter in supporting it. It had been said on one side of the House that this debate was unreal and languid. On the other the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had said that the country was apathetic, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon had asked for some indication of excitement. Opposition speakers had referred to the
    1346
    insincerity of the Government. That charge might be true or not; but it was the character of the measure, not the character of the Government, that they had to consider at present. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire had said that the action of the Government on this subject was more like the device of an election agent than the policy of a political Party. Well, they on the Ministerial side of the House said that the position taken up by the Conservative Party was a half-hearted position. Many brave and big words were uttered; but the Conservative Party did not traverse the justice or wisdom of this measure, and did not traverse its opportuneness. The assertion made amounted to this—"Because we do not trust the Government we will not consider this Bill until we know the whole mind of the Government on another question—that of redistribution." Therefore it was that the debate had assumed an air of unreality. As to the charge of insincerity brought against the Government, he had yet to learn that it was any discredit to a Government to desire to redeem its pledges—not hasty pledges as had been said, but the deliberate and frequently repeated pledges made at the last General Election. He ventured to say that if the Government had not brought in this Bill this Session, which was the last available one in the present Parliament for the purpose, they would have found a spirit of distrust and rebellion on the Radical Benches which would have been more serious and certainly more painful than any opposition they were likely to encounter from the other side of the House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon objected to this Bill because it would admit 2,000,000 of what he styled the most ignorant and most inexperienced of the population to an absolute control over the machinery of government. Among those 2,000,000 it would be difficult to find one single man so ignorant as to endorse the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman; and he would appeal to hon. Members on the Benches opposite who passed the Reform Act of 1867, and ask them whether experience had not shown as a fact that a generous extension of the franchise to a large mass of the population did not swamp and extinguish the votes of those who previously possessed it. The right hon. Gentleman

    1347
    the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was in favour; of some extension, if not of the extension proposed in the Bill; but whatever extension he sanctioned he refused to grant it in equal measure to the Sister Isle. He could not imagine—among all the impotent and foolish schemes of Reform that had been proposed he confessed he could not imagine—any scheme so devoid of all political foresight as a scheme of partial advance coupled with a refusal to give Ireland the benefit of that advance. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) made no precise objection to the extension of the principle of household suffrage from the boroughs to the counties; but he argued in favour of some principle of proportional representation for the protection of minorities, and he was especially strong upon the necessity of extending some such provision to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to show the House why that was less possible under the present proceeding than under the Amendment of the noble Lord. If they passed the Franchise Bill, simply extending the principle of household suffrage from the towns to the counties, he could not see why the postponement of the question of redistribution should be considered an evil. Upon the Amendment hon. Members opposite were committed to nothing at all. It had been stated that the country was apathetic on this question—and certainly it was not in a condition of excitement—but he could explain the reason, and it was this—that the extension of household suffrage was an absolutely foregone conclusion. It was simply a question of time from the day when the Reform Act of 1867 passed, when the Conservative Party established the principle in the boroughs of the country; and now that the other great Party in the State had taken up that principle, and applied it to the country at large, and had nailed its colours to the mast and declared that it would stand or fall by it, it was useless to take up a position of hostility towards a movement which, within a limited time, must gain its object. He did not blame the Conservative Party for their opposition. The fact was, no political Party could afford to leave such a measure and the manipulation of redistribution in the hands of
    1348
    its opponents. That was the plain English of it. The Conservative Party must oppose it, and he would be ungrateful as a Party man if he wished otherwise. Their opposition did nothing but good to the cause of Reform, to the extension of the franchise, and to the enactment of a large redistribution scheme. If that opposition increased, the apathy of the country would be turned into enthusiasm in its favour. It was said that whatever might occur in that House the Lords would throw it out. If he cared only for the Bill, for the Government, or for his Party, he should not wish it any other fate. The Franchise Bill was safe, and nothing would so certainly help the Liberal Party towards a large redistribution scheme as the determination of the House of Lords to throw out the Bill. As far as the Government were concerned, they had determined to sever the questions of enfranchisement and redistribution for two reasons. In the first place, they desired to prevent defeat by simple discussion and delay. If Her Majesty's Government had united a scheme of redistribution to the present one, not only would other measures have been fatally impeded, but that very complex measure would have found its death in the delays of debate and discussion. Surely, whether hon. Members liked it or not, the Government had a right so to arrange their measures as to give themselves a chance of passing them within the Session. But, besides this, the Government had a right to secure to themselves the advantage that a clear issue should be put before the House and the country. That could not have been done in the case of a complex measure; but now, when the Amendment was defeated, the second reading would have to be voted on, and it would be seen whether the Conservatives voted against the second reading or not. But it was argued that the House parted with a portion of its power of controlling the redistribution question by passing the franchise portion. That was a very favourite argument, and he thought there was a good deal in it; but as the increased knowledge the House would obtain would enable them to deal in a more thorough fashion with the redistribution scheme, what, he would ask, was the power referred to which they might lose? Not the power to enlarge, hut the power to minimize and to maim, He must correct

    1349
    a statement he had just made. He said the House parted with a portion of its power; but he should have said the Opposition. It was a perfectly sound argument among the Opposition, but it could have no effect upon those Members who sat on the Ministerial side. Undoubtedly in the case of a great and complicated measure the Government must make some sacrifice in order to pass it, and the Government would have had to make sacrifices with regard to the Redistribution Clauses. If they had had the two parts in one, they would have had an inefficient, and therefore not a lasting redistribution scheme. Many entertained a strong objection to this measure on account of its inclusion of Ireland. That inclusion had been defended by, among others, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who pointed out that we had only three courses in dealing with Ireland—equality, subjection, or separation. There were two unanswerable arguments for including Ireland in the Bill. The first was the reason or argument of necessity. He fearlessly asserted that neither the present Government nor any Administration which proposed a measure for the extension of the franchise would venture with any prospect of success to make any difference between the case of Ireland and that of Great Britain itself. Again, could we give anything less than justice to Ireland? It was conceivable that the Government might have proposed a simply Irish measure bringing up the suffrage in Ireland to the present condition of the suffrage in England. That, indeed, would be justice; but he had only to mention such a scheme in order to show its absurdity. Justice must precede reconciliation. The old policy of dealing with Ireland was absolutely condemned. It was dead or dying, and could not be revived. Therefore the new policy was simply inevitable. He saw no inconsistency in extending the franchise in a country where the ordinary Constitutional rights of citizens were limited by exceptional Acts of Parliament. Those Acts limited rights which had been abused, whereas the right of the franchise was incapable of abuse if it were freely exercised. If nine-tenths, or even 99–100ths of the population of Ireland were Parnellite, practical statesmen, knowing the strength of the representative prin-
    1350
    ciple, ought not merely to consent, but even to desire, that they should be represented in that House. He firmly believed that the policy of equality between Ireland and England constituted our only chance in the future of harmonizing the two countries. It was impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of the Irish question. Even if they had not wanted such a Reform Bill for English purposes, they ought to have invented it for the sake of extending it to Ireland, for he contended that the extension of household suffrage to Ireland was a positive and absolute good. We had no right to attempt to limit Constitutional agitation in that country, for it was the right of every citizen to speak, to petition, and to agitate for whatever object an Act of Parliament could secure. There were two causes of Irish discontent. The old cause had sprung from race, social, religious, and economic differences, and the oppression of centuries. First we conquered, then we starved, then we oppressed, and then we ignored the Irish population. They multiplied in their poverty as the poor alone multiplied. They emigrated in their need, and then came the new cause of difficulty and danger, the Nemesis. They founded a new Ireland across the Atlantic, larger, richer, more powerful than themselves. From that Ireland had come back to the mother Ireland the sinews and some of the most dangerous, though not only the most dangerous, counsels of war. There was, nevertheless, to his mind, one rift in the clouds—one streak of light, and he hoped it might prove the harbinger of a brighter day. It was this. Emigrated Ireland had learned one lesson in the United States. She had learned to understand and to respect the rights of majorities to govern, and the power of a Government based upon the popular vote. He said—"Present to her these conditions. Adopt the policy of the Government which is to do so. Present to her the popular vote in local and Imperial concerns." By such measures, and such only, this country would do more than by any other measures to disarm violence and to appease the old rancours. By bringing Ireland upon the floor of that House, and by compelling almost the action of Irish Parties to become less violent and more Constitutional than it had been in the past, they would eventu-

    1351
    ally be able to dispense with Coercion Acts, and all the mischievous consequences which followed from their enactment. The two populations would agree in a broader patriotism in place of that narrow and antagonistic patriotism which we ourselves forced into the minds of the Irish population; and the result would be a real Act of Union which would unite the two peoples, respecting each other's individualities and each other's rights, into one Imperial bond for our common safety and our common interest.
    MR. MARRIOTTmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Marriott.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the understanding was that the debate should adjourn at an early hour of the evening, but that the hour had not yet been reached.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that the understanding was that the debate should be adjourned at 11 o'clock, to allow other Business to come on. It was then 10 minutes to 11 o'clock, and the hon. Member for Brighton had moved the adjournment. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary think—did any hon. Member on either side of the House think—that the hon. Member for Brighton could finish in 10 minutes? If not, it would be a breach of the contract to allow him to commence his speech, well knowing he could not finish by the time agreed upon. He should vote for the adjournment.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, that the right hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken for 40 minutes, and there was no reason to suppose that the hon. Member for Brighton would speak for a shorter time. It would he a violation of the understanding to which the Government had been a party if the debate were not now adjourned".
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
    MR. MARRIOTTrose to continue the debate amid cries of "Order!" and I "Spoke!"
    MR. HOPWOOD: I rise to Order. I would submit to your ruling, Sir,
    1352
    whether the hon. Member has not already exhausted his right to speak? The hon. Member moved the adjournment of the debate, which has been carried against him; therefore he has spoken, and has no right to sneak again.
    MR. RAIKES: Upon the point of Order, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it has ever been ruled, when an hon. Member has moved the adjournment of the debate, and that Motion has been negatived without a Division, that he has lost his right to speak? I know that it was ruled on a former occasion, by Mr. Speaker Denison, that a Member who had moved the adjournment of the debate and had been defeated on a Division was precluded from afterwards addressing the House upon the main subject of the debate. But I wish to ask you, Sir, if there is any precedent for excluding a Member from addressing the House because he has moved the adjournment and then acquiesced in that Motion being negatived?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, I presume, was present in the House at an earlier portion of the evening—[Cries of"Order:!"]
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wishes to put a question to me upon a point of Order? If he does he is in possession of the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was endeavouring to bring to your mind, by means of a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—[Cries of Order!"]—if I might be allowed to do so without the disorderly interruptions of hon. Members opposite, who are anxious, I presume, to prove their Radicalism—I was endeavouring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you did not seem ready at that particular moment to answer the question of Order put to you by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge f Mr. Raikes), to bring to the mind of the Home Secretary that the question of Order had arisen in consequence of the pledge given, by the Government in an earlier part of the evening, which pledge has been violated.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): That is not a question of Order. With regard to the questions

    1353
    put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), I have to say that I do not think the question of a Division having taken place is of any material importance with regard to the decision on the point of Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) has precluded himself from speaking. I call upon Mr. Marriott.
    MR. ONSLOW: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, in your place as Chairman of Ways and Means, or as Deputy Speaker, you have over known an instance when the Government has given a pledge—[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The hon. Member is not raising a question of Order, and I call upon Mr. Marriott.
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, he was very sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represented Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion had not allowed the adjournment at the hour desired by the great majority of the House. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Promised !] [Mr. WARTON: It is only spite!] Even if he made a speech of less than the ordinary length, the time would be exceeded. There were a number of Members present who wished to share the education debate. He could only apologize to them; but it would be seen that it was not his fault that they were kept waiting, but the fault of the Government, which they unfortunately trusted. He was afraid that this was only part and parcel of a good deal of the conduct of the Government. The Government were now asking the confidence of the House with regard to that Bill and to redistribution. But they had always found that when they had put confidence in the Government that confidence was misplaced. It was misplaced on the present occasion, and would be misplaced again. It might be that it was his stupidity—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"]—well, he knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite had a high opinion of themselves and of their own ability; but he was going to remark that it was difficult to say whether the last speaker was replying to arguments from his own side, or to arguments from the Opposition side of the House. The right
    1354
    hon. Gentleman tried to combat the opinion that the debate was unreal; but the opinion that it was unreal was expressed by the President of the Board of Trade. If there were any unreality in the Opposition, it arose in the unreality of the advance by the Government. The whole of the debate was more like a sham than a real fight, and no practical results were to be expected from it. He did not mean any disrespect to the Home Secretary when he said that the Government had fired off their biggest guns—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and the President of the Board of Trade. There had been speeches, and speeches from two ex-Ministers—the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a man who had obtained a position on the Reform Question throughout the whole country and the world, and it was his (Mr. Marriott's) good fortune to listen to him with attention, when others appeared to listen to him spellbound under his power, so that you could have heard the dropping of a pin; but that was when he had a real interest and felt strongly on the question of Reform. The recent speech of the right hon. Gentleman fell vapidly, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's proverbial eloquence, and it was evident the true reason was that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman was not in the cause he was advocating. Ono did not expect much earnestness from the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); but there was a touch of nature and of real feeling in his reference to what he called the "absurd, ridiculous, and irritating minority vote," after which he naturally fell foul of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). Then the right hon. Gentleman—who was seldom present when he wasattacked—left the House, called a way by urgent business, or probably to enjoy a cigar in the Smoking Room. However, the noble Lord was not going to stand for Birmingham in the hope of being returned by the minority vote. [Cries of "Question!"] He believed that he was strictly confining himself to the Question. He was referring to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the

    1355
    minority vote, and it was not the minority vote the noble Lord looked to. He expected to be returned for Birmingham by the vote of the majority. He (Mr. Marriott) was not a prophet, and he was not going to speak with certainty of the result of the next election contest at Birmingham; but he might say that the odds in favour of the noble Lord being returned by that constituency had risen very considerably since the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. [Cries of "Question!"] Why did not hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches cry "Question!" when the speech which he was answering was made? The President of the Board of Trade did not allude to the Amendment before the House, but assumed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were opposed to the county franchise. That was a convenient assumption to make. The question was not whether the household franchise was a good or bad thing, and ought to be extended to the counties. The household franchise was conferred upon towns by the Conservative Party; and, therefore, objections to that principle were not likely to come from the Opposition side of the House. The whole point depended upon redistribution; and what the House and the country wanted to know was, how redistribution was going to be manipulated—for manipulated it would be by the present Government—not for the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of those who now happened to be in Office. Hon. Members who had spoken from the Ministerial Benches had urged the House to pass the Bill because the Government were pledged to it. He contended that neither the Prime Minister nor the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had pledged themselves in their last election addresses upon the subject of the county franchise. The Government had not selected this particular time for bringing in the Bill because of any pledges which they were supposed to have made at the General Election; but they had introduced the measure simply to cover their retreat, and to hide from the country the enormous and ghastly mistakes which they had made in other matters—their mistakes with regard to Ireland, with regard to South Africa, and especially with regard to Egypt. The Members of the Govern-
    1356
    ment would be more than human if they did not try to hide from the country the gross mistakes which they had made with regard to their Egyptian policy. So great were those mistakes that, up to the present time, they had never afforded an opportunity to the House to debate the question upon its real merits. Every debate upon it had been on a side issue, upon a Motion for Adjournment. [Cries of "Question !"] He knew that it was a disagreeable question—a question which had brought shame upon the Government, and upon the nation which they misgoverned; and because they had made such mistakes they brought forward one part of this shameless Bill, hiding from the country the most important part. The Government, during the course of their existence, had undoubtedly carried one point—namely, the Clóture, which was never used; and now, when any remarks were made which they did not like, they shouted "Question !" He could sympathize with the Government in their desire to go to the country upon any other issue than that of Egypt. The Prime Minister well knew that the Government tried to shirk the Bradlaugh difficulty, and by shirking it wasted hours and days. They were now trying to shirk the question of redistribution, and they themselves had acknowledged that redistribution was the real difficulty with which they had to deal. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of listening to words which came from that side of the House; but he would read a quotation from the speech of a right hon. Gentleman who sat on the other side of the House with regard to redistribution, which explained what was thought of redistribution some years ago. They were the words of the Prime Minister himself, who, in dealing with the question of the franchise in 1867, said—[Interruption.] Perhaps the House would listen to the words of the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman was on that side of the House he had no doubt they would not. The words of the Prime Minister in 1867 were true words, and might have had almost a prophetic reference to what was taking place now. The right hon. Gentleman said that—
    "In the battle of the franchise there is hovering on the flank an awful phantom. It is I yelept 'the redistribution of seats.' This hobgoblin decided the battle and slew the Ministry

    1357
    in 1866. It may decide more battles, and it may slay more Ministries."
    Those were the words used by the Prime Minister in 1867; and he could well understand how, with this hobgoblin before his eyes, and knowing how, in times past, it had decided battles and slain Ministries, he had now adopted that prudence which was the better part of valour, and had decided to bring before the House, not the question of redistribution, but to fight the battle of the franchise alone. He (Mr. Marriott) did not think that the country would be taken in by any such transparent device. He was happy to say that the country, through the labours of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), whose scheme for education had now had play for 14 years, notwithstanding that that scheme was opposed by the Radical Party, were now able to decide a question of this nature for themselves. The voters read the newspapers, and know what was going on. He, therefore, thought they would thoroughly understand this transparent device of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had expressed a hope that the Opposition would not fear the people, but would rather trust them. It was not that side of the House that feared the people. They did not object to an appeal to the people at once. He was speaking of what he felt certain was the opinion of every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who sat on that side of the House, when he said the sooner an appeal was made to the people the more satisfied they would be. It was hon. Members opposite who feared the people, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, with a real feeling of sympathy for those who sat on his right, suggested that if the Bill were thrown out by the House of Lords that would be no reason for a Dissolution, the suggestion was received with a hearty cheer by hon. Gentlemen who began to see that they might, perhaps, have a few mouths' longer possession of their seats, and that they were not about to be banished to obscurity all at once, but that they might still have a little time before them yet. He could assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that it was not that side of the House that feared an appeal to the people. As to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the
    1358
    Board of Trade, he was always posing as the friend of the people. That was the particular character he liked to display before the public. According to himself, he was the Joseph Arch of the agricultural labourer, the Plimsoll of the merchant seaman, and the Bradlaugh of the anti-pensioner. In fact, he was the admirable Crichton of all the revolutionary classes. He meant no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman; but the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of a certain class of mad doctors who did not trust their patients when they went to visit them, but always took care that they were strait waistcoats. So the right hon. Gentleman never faced the people boldly; he only went to see them when they had been thoroughly drilled and properly fitted with a strait waistcoat prepared for them at Birmingham. He was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had ever faced a real public meeting. Every meeting he went to was arranged by his friend Mr. Schnadhorst, and the persons he generally had in his pay. When the Constitutionalists held meetings, they were genuine public meetings, at which, they were brought face to face with the people, and they did not care to put in force all the complicated machinery resorted to by their opponents before the people were brought into their presence. As he had said, he did not think it was that side of the House that had anything to fear from an appeal to the people. It was those who were perpetually flattering the people, who made them fair promises which they could never fulfil, and who were trying to excite the masses against other classes above them. Those were the men who had cause to fear a Dissolution. He could only say—and he said it with all seriousness—that a more reprehensible charge was never made in that House, or anywhere else, by a Cabinet Minister than that by which the President of the Board of Trade attempted to excite the people of the country when he applied the term "robbers" to the landowners. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was very injudicious in making a comparison between the manufacturers and the landowners of the country. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were not fond of bringing charges against particular classes. To his mind, there was nothing more cowardly than to bring serious

    1359
    charges against a whole class of individuals, whet her landowners, shipowners, or Members of the House of Lords. When a charge was brought against an individual, that individual could meet it; but when a charge was brought against a class, it was very difficult to meet it, because no particular instance was referred to. The right hon. Gentleman did not make a charge against an individual, but against a class; and if he meant what he said, the change he preferred against a body of men was a most serious charge indeed. There were many landowners on the other side of the House sitting by the side of the right hon. Gentleman when he made the charge; and he (Mr. Marriott) would like to know in their inmost hearts what they, his own Colleagues sitting with him in the Cabinet, thought of the charge he made against them. He (Mr. Marriott) was of opinion that it was a great mistake to contrast the comparative merits of the manufacturers with those of the landowners. There might be landowners who had inclosed commons—landowners who had taken land sometimes which did not belong to them; and there might have been manufacturers who had equally robbed the people they employed. There had been going about the country of late a gentleman called Mr. Henry George, who was connected with an Association in this country termed the Democratic Federation. In the view of Mr. George, and of that Association, every manufacturer and every capitalist was a robber, and every monopolist was a robber, and the manufacturers of Birmingham were pointed to as the chief robbers of all. If manufacturers brought a charge of robbery against the landowners they would find that the charge would recoil against themselves with increased force and vigour. As a matter of fact, the landowners made no charge against the manufacturers, nor against any other class; but they were quite prepared to say that they did, as a rule, provide better cottages for their labourers, and attended more to the comfort of the men they employed, than the manufacturers. The reason was a simple one; it was because they know the people better. They lived in villages in which the landowners had possessed property for generations, and the latter had taken great interest in them; whereas in the
    1360
    manufacturing towns the labourer went to a mill and went away again without anything being known of him. Therefore, if a comparison were made between the two sets of employers, it would be found that the landowners paid far more attention to the condition of the labourers than the manufacturers did to the condition and well-being of the men they employed. Such an attack as that which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman upon the landowners was unworthy of a great debate like this, and ought never to have boon preferred by a Cabinet Minister. He was perfectly certain that he was not only speaking the sentiments of hon. Members on that side of the House, but also the sentiments of a great many Members on the other side of the House, if they only dared to say so, when he said that they strongly reprehended the language which had been used from the Front Treasury Bench with regard to a large number of persons who were represented on both sides of the House. Before the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday, he did not think the House had any great cause for trusting Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Redistribution Bill; but since that speech had been delivered they had still less cause, because they knew that if such a speech was listened to with silent acquiescence by those who sat beside the right hon. Gentleman they would be prepared to acquiesce in his views still further, until he became, as he was now, practically the Leader of the Ministerial Party; and the Redistribution Bill would be framed upon the lines which he laid down, and then the Radical Party, who wished to rule the country despotically, would obtain the power they desired to have.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Broadhurst,]—put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday.

MOTIONS.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (PARK RAILWAY AND PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT) BILL.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That Sir James M'Garel-Hogg be a Member of the Select Committee on the Metro-

    1361
    politan Railway (Park Railway and Parliament Street Improvement) Bill."—(Mr. Shaw L)
    MR. SHEILsaid, he rose to a point of Order.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): Does the hon. Member object to the Motion?
    MR. SHEIL: Yes; on the ground that it is not proposed to appoint a single Irish Member upon the Committee.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The hon. Member must object to the names as they are called.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he proposed to move the adjournment of the debate, lie presumed that the first Motion made would be a Motion for the nomination of the Committee.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The hon. Member would not be in Order at present in moving the adjournment of the debate. No question of debate has yet arisen in the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask what was the exact Question before the House?
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The Question is, "That Sir James M'Garel-Hogg be a Member of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Railway (Park Railway and Parliament Street Improvement) Bill."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had not heard the Question put that a Select Committee be nominated.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): Does the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Shell) propose some other name?
    MR. SHEIL: No; I propose to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SEXTONwished to point out, on the question of Order, that this was the first occasion of nominating this Committee. He wanted to know whether, when a Question of nominating a Committee was put to the House, it was not open for his hon. Friend to move the adjournment of the debate?
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the facts of the case. The Motion has already been made for the appointment of the Committee, and I have now proceeded to call the names. The Motion has already been agreed to that a curtain number of
    1362
    Members be named upon the Committee by the House, and a certain number by the Committee of Selection. The only Question now to consider is the names of the Members to be nominated by the House. The name I have called is that of Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he thought he was entitled upon that name to move the adjournment of the debate. The Committee was a very important one, and could not be nominated at that hour after the promise which had been made that all other Business after 11 o'clock should be postponed in order to enable the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) to bring forward his Motion. He might briefly say that he should object to the name of Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, not on any personal grounds, but because he wished to raise the question of the desirability of appointing some Irish Member upon the Committee. One reason why he did this was that the right hon. Gentleman who had undertaken to move the appointment of the Committee was not in his place.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken.
    MR. SHEILremarked, that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had assigned no reason at all for moving those particular names; and on that ground he (Mr. Sheil) would move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR HEALYseconded the Motion, and asked the First Commissioner of Works to withdraw the nomination of this Committee for the present, in order that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) might bring forward the important Motion of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sheil.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREexpressed the hope that the House would allow the Committee to be nominated. He would have no objection to alter the constitution of the Committee, so as to include some Irish Members.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to point out to the First Commissioner of Works that he did not appear to be acquainted with what had already taken place in respect to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said

    1363
    that after the Committee was nominated he would be willing to alter its constitution; but the right hon. Gentleman had no power to alter the constitution of a Committee. The House had already agreed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, five of the Members of which were to be nominated by the House, and four by the Committee of Selection. The First Commissioner of Works said that if the House would kindly agree to the five names now proposed he would undertake to alter the constitution of the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman was evidently ignorant of the Forms of the House, which would not allow the constitution of a Committee to be altered after the names had been agreed to. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, altogether misleading the House. Under these circumstances, seeing the total ignorance of the First Commissioner of Works, who was the responsible Minister in charge of this Private Bill, and upon whom the Bill depended, and whose connection with it was very much to be deprecated, he thought the adjournment of the debate was an eminently proper course for the House to adopt. The question to be put before the Committee raised questions of immense engineering importance; and, with the exception of the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), there was not another hon. Member proposed by the Committee who could claim in any way to be an authority on the various scientific questions which must be raised before the Committee. He thought the Committee was about as bad a Committee as the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) could have selected. Under these circumstances, and considering the extremely inaccurate and ignorant statement which had been made to the House by the First Commissioner of Works, and considering the composition of the Committee, he hoped the House would not allow this most important Bill to be dealt with in this extremely slipshod way.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the noble Lord had lectured his right hon. Friend on his ignorance of the Forms of the House; but he must say that, in the statement made by the noble
    1364
    Lord, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had exhibited an extraordinary want of acquaintance with the usual and common practice of the House. It had happened over and over again that exception was taken to the names proposed upon a Committee, and especially to the omission of names which it was thought desirable to add. That was a most committee practice, and the noble Lord, who had been more than a year or two in the House, ought to be fully aware of it. Only the other day objection was taken to the fact that there was no Scotch Member appointed upon a certain Committee. What took place upon that occasion? He asked hon. Gentlemen from Scotland to agree to the names on the Paper, with the understanding that if they chose subsequently to move to add the names of Scotch Members he would consent to the proposal. Everybody knew that the common practice in that case was to move to increase the number of the Committee, and then to add other names. That was exactly the proposal which his right hon. Friend had made in this instance. Hon. Members from Ireland desired to have a Member on the Committee. If they would allow the Motion, as it stood, to be passed, as was done the other night, there would be no objection, at a subsequent period, to add an Irish Member to the Committee. Instead of being in ignorance of the practice of the House, his right hon. Friend had acted entirety in accordance with that practice. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No!] He begged leave to differ from the noble Lord. It was precisely the same course as that which was taken the other night in reference to the addition of Scotch Members. His right hon. Friend, however, would do whatever the Irish Members desired; he would either adjourn the debate, or follow the course taken the other night in reference to adding the name of a Scotch Member. He thought it would be more in accordance with the practice of the House to pass the names as they now stood, with the understanding that a Member for Ireland should subsequently be added.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not see how the course suggested by the Home Secretary would save the time of the House. If it was decided that there should, be an alteration pro-

    1365
    posed in the constitution of the Committee with the view of meeting the, wishes of Members from Ireland, surely it would be better to adjourn the debate now, and hereafter bring forward a proposition of a more complete character.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was quite ready to take that course.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought the Home Secretary had fallen into the same error as the First Commissioner of, Works. He (Mr. Raikes) had not been able very clearly to grasp the precise point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were addressed, because it appeared to him; that there was a confusion between two propositions. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman took it that the First Commissioner proposed that the thing should be done at once by a stroke of the pen, and then the right hon. Gentleman changed his note and spoke of: its being done on a future occasion. He (Mr. Raikes) wished the House clearly to understand that the proposal which had been made by the First Commissioner of Works was one that could only be carried into effect by varying; the original Resolution by the introduction of a subsequent alteration. Therefore, if hon. Members were desirous that the debate should be adjourned in order that they might see whether it was desirable to vary the original Resolution of the House, it appeared to him that they were perfectly within their right in asking and pressing that demand upon the House. If they were to add the name of any Gentleman from Ireland who might have won the good graces of Her Majesty's Government it could only be done at that moment by; omitting one of the names now upon the Paper. He, therefore, trusted that if the question was to receive the attention which this matter deserved, they would be allowed to adjourn the debate now in order that it might come up for more careful consideration when the House was better qualified to discuss it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that all he had asked was that they should agree to the Motion now, and the name of an Irish Member could be added afterwards. He quite agreed that it would be necessary to alter the construction of the Committee. If, however, the House desired to adjourn the debate, he had no objection to that course being taken.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON,who had given Notice of his intention to move the following Resolution:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in respect to the. Education Code now lying on the Table of tills House, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that regulations shall be made so as to secure the following objects, that is to say:—1. Thai scholars under seven years of age shall not be presented for examination individually, but by class; 2. That greater liberty than at present shall be given to managers and teachers to classify children according to their acquirements and abilities; 3. That a larger share of the Government Grant shall depend upon attendance, and a smaller upon individual examination; 4. That the Government Grant shall not be affected by the withdrawal of ten per centum of the scholars from examination at the discretion of the managers,"
    said, that he intended to move the Resolution with some consideration for the state of health of Mr. Deputy Speaker; therefore, he should not enter into any technical arguments, and he should compress within narrowest limits what he had to say. He did not intend to move No. 4 of the Resolutions he had placed upon the Paper. He understood it might be ruled out of Order; and, though he did not agree that it was out of Order, he did not intend to argue the point. The basis of his Motion was that over-pressure existed, and ought no longer to exist, in the elementary schools in England. That was the substance of the matter upon which hon. Members would be asked to vote that night—namely, whether over-pressure should continue, or whether it should be abolished once and for ever. The Resolution was intended to contain, and did contain, no censure whatever upon the Government, or upon the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. In fact, he believed, if the Vice President were to tell them his honest opinion, the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would be very much pleased if the Resolution were carried, that it would strengthen his hands, and that it would enable him to tread the path he was beginning to pursue with firmer steps and without looking back. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) could bring, if this were the time or the

    1367
    proper opportunity, overwhelming evidence to prove the existence of overpressure; but he did not intend to trouble the. House with that evidence, and he asked them to accept from him the fact, which he said with the conscious conviction of the responsibility it entailed, that over-pressure existed in our schools, and would continue to exist under the Code now lying on the Table of the House, which was actually killing the children and killing the teachers. He could prove this from documents in the possession of the right, hon. Gentleman himself and his Office, which the right hon. Gentleman was afraid produce, and declared to be confidential. If hon. Members supposed that what he said was merely his own opinion, his answer was this—and he would put it against anything the right hon. Gentleman might say—that 15,000 teachers at a meeting, presided over by Lord Shaftesbury, had declared unanimously that over-pressure existed; that the present Code would not remove overpressure; and that the only way to remove over-pressure was to accept the very Resolutions which he had embodied in his Motion. He defied the right hon. Gentleman, or any manager, or any member of a School Board in that House, to place his authority against that of 15,000 teachers, who, much better than they did, knew what the effect of the present Code was. He besought the Government not to treat the question as a Party question; he, besought them not to make a Party question of it by insisting that the Government Tellers should tell against him on that occasion. He asked them to accept the three first Resolutions, and to allow them to be passed nemine contradicente.. If the right hon. Gentleman would not do that, then, of course, he must go to a Division, which would show who were in favour of over-pressure and who were against it. Of this he was sure—that the constituents of every Member in that House would show their gratitude to those who, whileover-pressed themselves, were nevertheless determined that they would, as far as they could, prevent the oppression of others. With this simple, general statement of what was contained in the Resolutions, he begged to move the three first as they stood upon the Paper, omitting the fourth. The first provided that scholars under seven years
    1368
    of age should be presented for examination by class, and not individually; the second, that greater liberty should be given for the classification of children; and the third, that the Government grant should depend more largely upon attendance than upon individual examination. He withdrew the fourth, which proposed to provide that the Government grant should not be affected by the withdrawal of 10 per cent of the scholars at the discretion of the managers.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in respect to the Education Code now lying on the Table of this House, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that regulations shall be made so as to secure the following objects, that is to say: —

    (1.) That scholars under seven years of ago shall not be presented for examination individually, but by class;

    (2.) That greater liberty than at present shall be given to managers and teachers to classify children according to their acquirements and abilities;

    (3.) That a larger share of the Government Grant shall depend upon attendance, and a smaller upon individual examination."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was sure the House would recognize both the motives and the manner in which the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had brought the question before them. Practically, the hon. Member's Motion was only Resolution No. 3; and he thought the hon. Gentleman had acted with great discretion in omitting the 4th Resolution, which would probably have received very little support from the House. The first two Resolutions were quite unnecessary, for it would be very easy to show that the securities desired by the hon. Member already existed. The substance of those Resolutions formed part of the present Code. He (Sir Lyon Playfair) asked the House to inquire what it was they were about to do? They were asked to pass a series of Resolutions, which might have a very simple and pure meaning in the mind of the hon. Member for North Shropshire; but which, if adopted, he thought he should be able to show the House might have considerable consequences which were not in the mind of the hon. Member. It should be borne in mind that the Code was a Code which had been brought into working order by

    1369
    an experience of 21 years. It, had been brought into its present state by consultation among all the Inspectors and persons most interested in education, and every part of it adhered together. It was undesirable, therefore, by a general Resolution, to give a meaning different from that intended by the framers of the Code, for they might dislocate the whole Code and produce consequences which they had not the least intention of producing. Let them see what the 1st Resolution was. The first of these Resolutions stated that scholars under seven years of age should not be presented for examination individually, but by class. But that was what was in the Code now. Children under seven years of age were not examined individually; but the grants were given by a general assessment of the merits of the teaching of juvenile children. An Inspector might say—"I. have no evidence, and I. do not understand what the merits of the teaching are, unless I take one or two children from the class and hear them read or write. Unless I do that, I shall not know how to judge or form a general opinion of the merits of the class." But there was no individual examination of each of the pupils of the class, as there was in regard to larger children who were above seven years of ago. Therefore, the intention of the hon. Member for North Shropshire was entirely secured by the existing Code. It was by a general assessment of merits, and not by the individual examination of the children, that the grant was given. He would ask the House to see what, if the hon. Member's 1st Resolution were adopted, its literal interpretation would be? Its literal interpretation would be, that no Inspector could go to the class, and pick out any child in order to consider him a type of the class, and ascertain whether he could read or write, because the Resolution said there was to be no individual examination; and, consequently, the discretion of the Inspector would be very much hampered. He would be prevented from making a true assessment of the merits of the class. Now, what was the 2nd Resolution? It was that greater liberty than, at present should be given to managers and teachers to classify children according to their acquirements and abilities. He wished to point out that manager
    1370
    had the greatest liberty at present to arrange and classify scholars. The First Standard ought to be passed by a child of eight years of age; but any manager might detain a child who was backward in education, having boon kept away from school, or having had no means of acquiring education, until he was nine, 10, or 11 years of age. He had power to put such a child in Standard I., and classify him in the lowest Standard. Therefore, the manager had the power at present, and the Code could not prevent him from exercising it. The manager had a perfect right to use that power, and to place the child in Standard I. There was only one thing which prevented mischievous action; and if any hon. Member said that it was not right, then he would be justified in voting for the 2nd Resolution. There was a provision that a boy or girl, having passed in one Standard, should not again be presented in the same Standard, but must be presented in a higher one. It would be absurd to allow a manager who had a child passed in Standard I. to present the same child again next year in the same Standard; and that was the whole interference with the power of the managers in regard to classifying children—namely, that when a child had passed in a lower Standard, on the next examination he must be passed in a higher one. Therefore, those two rules, as they were sketched out in the mind of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, were already in the Code, and it did not require new regulations to enforce them. New regulations might interfere with the work now going on. Then there was the 3rd Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman, and upon that he (Sir Lyon Playfair) took issue. He contended that the 3rd Resolution was essentially a bad one, and might produce great mischief to education. Indeed, he thought he could convince the hon. Member himself that it would do so; and he hoped to be able to convince the House that it would, if passed, do more to alter the conditions of the labour of young children than anything that could be done if it were not passed. Now, what was that Resolution? It virtually said—"Let us pay more for mere attendance and less for the results of individual examination." Now, who was it that made this demand? The hon. Gentleman said that 15,000 teachers

    1371
    had made the demand. He (Sir Lyon Playfair) doubted whether good teachers made the demand at all. He wished to obtain some information upon the point. He had road all the speeches delivered at the deputations that waited on the Privy Council upon the subject of education; and he had not seen one case in which an educational society, whether denominational or undenominational, a school board, or a body of school managers, had gone to the Privy Council and made this demand. The demand came from the teachers; but he thought he could show that it would not be for the benefit of the teachers to concede it, and it would certainly be to the detriment of the scholars. In the present state of the question, it was the crudest possible way of disposing of the matter to put it upon the teachers. He had the greatest respect for the teachers, and this was simply a crude method of saying—"Give us more of the public money on easier conditions." That was what was asked for in the Resolution, and he invited the House to sea how it would operate. The average schools throughout the country received 16 s. 8d. per scholar. How much of that 16s. 8d. was obtained by individual examinations? It might be supposed that a great proportion of it was obtained in that was but, on the average, a school only got.6s. 8d for individual examination. The rest of the payment was for attendance, and for class subjects such as English and geography, which were not taken by individual examination at all, and the final portion of it was secured by the general merit of the school. Therefore, all the 3rd Resolution would effect would be the sum of 6s. 8d. given for individual examination, and applicable to the mere elements of education—reading, writing, and arithmetic. The object of the Resolution was to take away, say. 2s. from that gum, and to add it to the4 s. 6d. now given for attendance. In fact, by giving attention to this Resolution the House would take away the great impulse of the teacher, not in regard to larger subjects, such as English and geography, but in reference to the elementary education of young children—the very essentials of education which a child must have—namely, reading, writing, and arithmetic. Was that what the hon. Member intended to do; and if it was, what would be the result? It would,
    1372
    as he had said, take away a great deal of the impulse from the teacher in teaching the mere elements of education—reading, writing, and arithmetic. Class subjects did not come by individual examination; and the effect would, therefore, be to diminish what they desired to have in the school—namely, good reading, writing, and arithmetic. The consequence of that would be very, serious in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, who often complained in that House, and probably with great justice, that the labour tests, as now applied, did not enable children to obtain employment while sufficiently young. This Resolution would largely postpone the time for passing the tests now imposed. At present they were not allowed to employ children who had not passed Standard IV., and in some cases Standard V. was enforced by bye-laws and some Acts; but if they took away the impulse to make the children pass the Standard when young, they might not be able to pass them until they were 12 or 13 years of age. While, therefore, it was desired to liberate the children in order that they might add to the earnings of their families, the House, by passing the Resolution, which they were asked to do, would do that which they did not wish to do—namely, diminish the efficiency of the elementary teaching, and make the poor children lag a long time behind before they would be able to pass the labour test. There might be, though be did not believe it, some interest to the teachers in the proposed change; but it was certainly hostile to the interests of the children. The State, which had imposed the labour test on children, was bound to see that it should press upon families as lightly as possible. He had tried to convince the House that, with the best intentions in the world, the hon. Member was not justified in proposing these Resolutions. The first two were in the Code already, and therefore, the insertion of them in a different form of words would only injure the Code and produce difficulties. The 3rd Resolution would not do what the hon. Member intended in regard to over-pressure, because, if there was over-pressure at all, it was in the higher subjects, and not upon the mere elementary education—reading, writing, and arithmetic. He thought the hon. Member was wise in not having attempted

    1373
    to raise a debate upon over-pressure. He (Sir Lyon Playfair) could only say, from his own experience, that he had seen the Code and watched its operation during the 21 years it had existed. There had been continued attempts to modify and remove the evils of over-pressure, and no Code had been so satisfactory in that respect as the present one. The Code very largely removed the danger by giving to the schoolmaster an excuse in almost every direction he might desire. He could make an allowance with regard to the children on account of illness, on account of inevitable absence, and for mental or bodily defects. The schoolmaster was entitled to make an allowance on all those matters, in order that a boy should come up for examination without detriment to the grant to the school; and, as a matter of fact, there never was a Code which could be less the subject of attack on account of overpressure than the Code now under consideration. He would not, however, discuss that question, as he had no doubt there would be full discussion upon it hereafter. He was quite satisfied that the hon. Member, when he considered the effect of his Resolutions, would see that they would not carry out the object he had in view. He was quite sure it would not be of benefit to good teachers, and he was equally certain that it was not for the benefit of the State that any indifferent teachers should be withdrawn from that control which the House of Commons and the Education Department had hitherto exercised over the £3,000,000 of public money which was now annually voted for education.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that the regard he had for the health of Mr. Deputy Speaker would prevent him from entering into anything like a prolonged debate; and he felt bound to express his regret that the question had not been reached at an earlier period of the evening. The House was now in this position—that instead of commencing the debate at 11 they had not commenced it until after 12 o'clock; and they were, consequently, much hampered in discussing it. In his opinion—and he knew he spoke the feeling of the entire House—they were extremely unwilling to do anything that would subject the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, on any account, to personal inconvenience.
    1374
    He felt himself called upon to take exception to the speech which had just been addressed to the House by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). These Resolutions were asked for not only by the 15,000 teachers to whom reference had boon made, but by the great majority of the managers of the elementary schools throughout the country. In point of fact, there was a general consensus of opinion among the teachers and managers who were thoroughly and practically acquainted with all the details of the matter, and assuredly there was much to be said for that which they demanded. He would very shortly deal with the throe points raised by the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House told them there was nothing in the first point, as to undue pressure on scholars under seven years of age, because the Inspectors had met and consulted together, and because it was the intention of the Education Code that the children should not be so presented for separate examination. That might be the intention of the Code; but that intention was certainly not expressed in it. [Sir LYON PLAYFAIR: Yes; in Article 116.] The right hon. Gentleman said the intention was expressed in Article 116. That was one of the difficulties hon. Members were met with at that moment. The Code had only been recently laid on the Table; it was full of minute and intricate detail; but, on reference to it, he certainly failed to see anything in Article 116 which affected the question, or in any way justified the contention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that the First Standard ought to be passed by every child of eight years. The whole system of the present Education Code was to regard all the children of the nation as so many feet pounds of engineering science. But the intellectual abilities of children could not be so defined. There were differences between the town and rural children. For instance, with regard to the possibility of attending school their positions were very different. In the case of thickly-populated districts, the school was generally within a few hundred yards or so of the place whore the children lived, and everyone of them, therefore, could easily attend; but in

    1375
    rural districts the child had to go miles to school, in all seasons of the year, and sometimes under circumstances attended with the greatest difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman said that all that the Education Code laid down was that the managers had no right to put a child into lower Standard who had once passed a higher Standard. Now, that was the great ground of complaint. Children, by over-pressure, were forced to present themselves for examinations, which possibly by good luck they might scrape through, and were then put into a Standard for which they were unfitted, and for which their mental capacities might be unequal. But having scraped through a certain Standard in one school, and subsequently being transferred to another school, the manager of the latter, instead of placing the child in his proper position, was unable to do so, because the child had been forced into a higher Standard than he was fitted for in another school. If he believed for a moment that the 3rd clause of the Resolution of his hon. Friend would have the effect of removing the impulse to teachers of getting their children through the elementary stages of rending, writing, and arithmetic, he would not for one moment think of voting for the Resolution; but he believed there was no ground whatever for the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that this impulse would be destroyed. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the teachers and manager had no interest in developing the intellects of the children under their charge, and seeing that they were taught in the best possible way during the limited number of years they were to remain in the elementary schools? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not mean that, and therefore he (Mr. R. H. Paget) said he had no right to make an assertion of the kind unsupported either by facts or argument. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that it was a matter of the greatest ease—that all the children who had passed through the early Standards in reading, writing, and arithmetic, had done so without any difficulty whatever. But he (Mr. R. H. Paget) knew, by the admission of those who had had opportunities of forming an intelligent opinion on the subject, that the Arithmetical Standards were so high that they were clearly above the average intelligence of
    1376
    the children as a whole who attended the elementary schools. He was told that if they took the average of those who passed through the schools it would be found that the Arithmetical Standard, as at present fixed, was too high to be demanded as a necessity of the whole class of children who passed through the schools. In conclusion, he said that his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion deserved the thanks of the House. The question of overpressure was one which was gradually ripening in the opinion of the public, and it was to that question that the Resolutions which had been brought forward were chiefly directed. The proposal of his hon. Friend for dealing with the over-pressure of which intelligent teachers universally complained appeared to him perfectly reasonable, and he trusted it would be acceded to. He believed that the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education was himself ready to lend a willing ear to the suggestions made to him in the interests of education; he believed he was the last man to do anything unreasonable; but the Department over which lie presided had rules and precedents, and his hope was, nevertheless, that the right hon. Gentleman would have the hardihood to tear himself away from the rigid rules of the Department, and accede to the very reasonable proposals which had been put forward.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I may state at once that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) on one point—namely, that the question of education is one which, above all others, ought not to be made a political question, but dealt with as one affecting the intellectual and physical welfare of the children of the nation. It is a question in which every Member of this House ought to be interested; and we ought, therefore, one and all of us, to be ready to do anything which shall tend to the improvement and preservation of the health of the children from whatever side of the House the proposal may come. Now, the hon. Gentleman, in moving his Resolution, has given an example of a rather inconvenient practice —namely, of moving a Resolution without advancing any reasons in support of it; whereas it is incumbent upon me in my reply to find some reasons for differing

    1377
    with him. In the first place, I must point out that both the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this Resolution have in their minds not the present Code, which we have to consider, but the Code of the last 10 years. The hon. Member who has just spoken can, I think, hardly have read the present Code, because he spoke of cast-iron rules, and of the children being expected to pass all the Standards at one time. Sir, there is not one word in the Code which justifies that statement. On the contrary, we have swept away—we have entirely abolished—the age clauses of the former Code: age is scarcely mentioned in the Code, and even where it is mentioned, there is the greatest amount of elasticity associated with it. It does seem to me, therefore, that hon. Members who have put forward and supported this Resolution are placing on this Code the sins of its predecessors. Now, I have no hesitation in declaring that the first two objects set forth in the terms of the Resolution are perfectly reasonable, and that I quite agree with them. But, Sir, it was expressly to accomplish those objects that we revised the Code. The former Code required children to be classified according to age, and also to be individually examined; whereas we have abolished the age clause, and determined that children under seven should not be examined individually. The instructions to Inspectors have been laid upon the Table; and I think the House will perceive from them that an Inspector who should examine the children individually would be acting contrary to those instructions. I will not say that this has never been the case, but it is contrary to the instructions; and if managers will make us acquainted with cases of the kind they will find the Department ready at once to deal with them, although, as hon. Members will be aware, it is no easy thing to bring into conformity with a revised practice the practice of those who, for 20 years, have been a law unto themselves the House will see, under Article 106 of the Code, that the grant for infant schools would be computed on the average attendance—
    "And not, as heretofore, on the number of children presented at the examination. … The children above six, however, should be individually examined"
    1378
    That was the position last year; and the directions to the Inspectors were now, that a sufficient number of children above six should be examined to satisfy them that the necessary condition have been fulfilled. Does the hon. Member moan to say that the Inspector is to judge of a child without asking it to open its mouth; is not the child to point out letters on a card; or, in short, to be examined at all? What would be the use, of Inspectors under such circumstances?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I complain that three-fourths of the children presented at examinations are to be examined individually.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Where does it say so?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: It is in the instructions to the Inspectors on page 4.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Exactly. But that only applies to upper schools. We began last year by saying that only children above six years of age should be examined individually. We have put a Code on the Table much more elastic; and we are resolved this year to give exact expression to the wishes of the hon. Member. As stated in his first Resolution—namely, that children up to seven years shall not be presented for individual examination, but shall be examined by class. What can be more reasonable than that concession? And it is a concession on our part, because it was in our minds before these Resolutions were brought forward. In the interest alike of public economy and of the children themselves, the Department wants to get rid of this system of individual examination of children under seven years of age. Having reduced individual examination last year, I pledge myself to this House that not only shall there be instructions given that the individual examination of children under seven years of age should cease, but I will insist on these instructions being carried out; and will repress, as far as possible, any attempts which may be made to break through them. Then let me say something upon the second part of this question. I quite agree that children who enter the schools should be classified according to their abilities. But, Sir, is not that already the case? I have visited a hundred schools within the last six

    1379
    months, and I can affirm that if the children of any particular Standard are asked to stand out, that Standard will be represented by children of various ages; there will be a certain number of 10, 11, 12, and 13, years of age. How, then, can hon. Members come down to the House and say that there is a cast-iron rule by which children are bound down to one Standard? We have provided an abundance of excuses, in order to enable teachers to with hold from examination, or not to put in the higher Standards, scholars who are obviously, intellectually and physically, deficient; and, again, if a scholar has failed in two subjects, or twice in one subject, he may be re-presented in the same Standard. Surely hon. Gentlemen do not want more than that; they cannot desire that children should be presented over and over again. I want to know what the parents would say if that were done? I have promised the House I will not detain it long. I hope there will be other and better opportunities than this for hon. Gentlemen to bring forward not only the present question, but also the question of over-pressure. I should like to have the last-named subject discussed, as the Education Department have taken precautions to guard against the evils which are dreaded—precautions which have never been taken before, and which may fail more seriously on the Treasury than hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House may be disposed to allow. I come now to the third provision in the Motion—
    "That a larger share of the Government grant shall defend upon attendance, and a smaller upon individual examination."
    The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) proposes to change the incidence of the grant. Now, is it really reasonable, considering how large is the proportion of the grant now given for average attendance, to demand that a still larger proportion shall be given for merely having the children driven into the schools? We must remember that we are no longer under the voluntary system, under which children are very often brought to the schools by something like missionary effort on the part of the school managers. The compulsory system has taken the place of the voluntary, and children are now forced to enter the schools under a penalty for disobedience. It is necessary to give
    1380
    every inducement we can to teachers to instruct the children well. The hon. Gentleman has quoted the grant to infant schools. It is only fair to say to hon. Members who are interested in small schools that, in the change made this year, I have done everything I could to take care of those establishments. The large schools I have always felt can now take care of themselves; it is the small ones in the rural districts that form the difficulty, and I have increased the grant to them, giving them now. a-head, in order to encourage them. This increase, however, is not given for individual examinations. The;9s. per head is to be paid on average attendance only, and5 d 6d. is to be awarded for the general merit and efficiency of the school. Not one farthing is to be given for individual examination, and no more than that 14 s. 6d. is given in the case of any infant schools in the country. My right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) has said that 16 s.2d is the grant for higher schools. That is the calculation which the right hon. Gentleman has made; but I am afraid the grant will come out this year more like 16 s. 6d 4s. 6d. being given for attendance, 3s. for singing and class subjects, 2s. for merit dependent on efficiency, not on passing at all, and 7s., out of the total, for individual examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. If we are to reverse that order of things, and give 7s. for attendance, instead of 4s. 6d., and 4s. 6d. for individual examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic, we shall be doing everything we possibly can to discourage the children in that standard of work which is the first essential to them in enabling them to pass from half to full time labour. I think I have given the House all the information I can on this subject. I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman, on the Education Estimates or on some other occasion, would take an opportunity of bringing before the House the question of over-pressure. "With regard to the fourth recommendation—
    "That the Government grant shall not be affected by the withdrawal of ten per centum of the scholars for examination, at the discretion of the managers,"
    if the hon. Member means to move it, I shall be glad to discuss it; but I will say this—that not one of the 15,000 school teachers who have been quoted,

    1381
    not a single school board out of the 3,000 in the country, and none of the Educational Societies—such as the National and the British and Foreign—have asked the Education Department for the change.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I presented a Petition from some of those the right hon. Gentleman has named only yesterday.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am not aware of that fact. Was it addressed to the Education Department?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Yes.
    MR. MUNDELLA: At any rate, so far as I am aware, from not one of the Educational Societies of the country, and from not one of the school managers, have we had any Petition or Memorial in favour of such changes as the hon. Member advocates. I trust the House will not, in a matter of this grave importance, endeavour, for the first time for 20 years, to disarrange the Education Code, which hangs together in all its branches, and to settle not only the amount of the grant, but the incidence of it by an act of the House. Before sitting down, I should like to make just one more remark, and it is this. I am sure, if there had been anything in the proposals of the hon. Gentleman, they would have found the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) in his place to support them. It is very significant that the noble Lord is not present. The noble Lord has had experience at the Education Department, and has always discussed these matters in a fair and straightforward manner in the House; and there can be no doubt that we should have seen him in his I place had it not been for the fact that he knew the Resolutions, the third particularly, to be fraught with danger, and I therefore to be such as he could not support.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he owed an apology to the House, and a special apology to the Deputy Speaker, with whom the House must feel great sympathy in the trying circumstances under which he was presiding over the House, I for intruding any remarks of his at this time. The fault that he rose at this late I hour, however, was not his; and he would; remind the House that it had been understood that the debate was to begin, as I nearly as possible, at 11 o'clock. It was owing to circumstances, over which they
    1382
    on the Opposition side of the House had no control, that the debate did not begin until 12 o'clock; however, he would not waste further time by following that point up. The intentions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) in the matter of the Education Code were, no doubt, excellent; but it was a pity his action was not so excellent as his intention. The right hon. Gentleman told them he was going to do what the hon. Member for North Shropshire asked the House to ask him to do; and, that being the case, the House might as well adopt the Motion.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I said it would be done in the Code by instructions, to the Inspectors.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he trusted the instructions to the Inspectors would be observed this year better than they were last; because, if the House would bear with him for a few minutes, he would be able to show that these officials had acted in a manner directly contrary to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman said they ought to have acted. One of the Inspectors in June last, at a large meeting of school teachers and managers, said—"With regard to infants"—and the House would remember they were talking about infants—
    "Every child in the six-year old class would be examined individually, and would be expected to write all the letters, large and small, to read two easy primers, to add numbers from one to 20 mentally, and to subtract numbers from one to 10 menially. They ought also to have regular lessons in form, colour, and on familiar objects—vegetable, animal, and mineral. Below this age the work should be preparatory, and for those under four"—
    remember, he was reading the words of an Inspector—
    "he thought they should be taught to speak English."
    He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had a child of his own under four; but if he had, all he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) could say was, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the circumstances when he road those remarks, if it had not caused him to change his opinion.
    MR. MUNDELLA: What is the name of that Inspector?
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was referring to what had fallen from Mr. Rooper, Inspector of one of the Yorkshire

    1383
    districts. The Inspector had used those words in his private capacity—that was to say, when not, at the moment, acting under instructions. The instructions given last summer were in Circular 212 (Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors). In them it was stated—
    "The children apparently above six should, however, be individually examined, and a sufficient number of the others to satisfy you that the elements of rending, writing, and arithmetic are properly taught."
    ["Hear, hear!"] He was sorry to hear Liberal Members cheer such a sentiment as that. He hoped the cheer would be confined to the Liberals, how ever—that no Conservatives wished children under the age of six to be separately and individually examined. All he could say was, that if hon. Gentlemen would go into the crowded districts of this great city and examine the sort of children under the age of six who were brought into the Board and other schools, or go to Manchester and Liver pool and see the children under the age of six who were subjected to individual examination——[Laughter]
    MR. MUNDELLA: Nothing of the land.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that if hon. Members could only see the children who were examined in this way they would find nothing in it to laugh at. The instructions issued to the Inspectors last year were that a sufficient number of children under the age of six should be examined to show the Inspectors that the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic were properly taught. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] And the instructions also said—
    "When not less than three-fourths pass the individual examination well, the mark 'good' should be awarded."
    Although there was nothing in the Code, or in the Instructions, with reference to the classification of children by age, it was well-known that many Inspectors had a distinct syllabus for children above three, above four, above five, and above six respectively. Liberal Members were ready that these poor, unfortunate children of three, four, and five years should be individually examined, ["No, no!] Yes, that was so; in order that Her Majesty's Inspectors might be satisfied that the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic were properly taught to them. [A laugh.] Hon. Gen-
    1384
    tlemen laughed—he said, again, that that laughter came from only one side of the House. The mark "good" was to depend on whether three-fourths of the children in infant schools passed the individual examination. He did not want to labour this matter further. If the House were not satisfied with what he had read, nothing, he was sure, that he could say would satisfy them. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who was not now in his place, had, in defending the conduct of the Education Department, said that the unfortunate children were not examined individually. How could the right hon. Gentleman know that the children were not examined individually? All he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) knew was that last summer these instructions were issued to Inspectors. It might be that it was the intention of the Vice President that children under six years of age should not be subjected to individual examination in the time to come; but what he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) wished to say that night was that hon. Members were so dissatisfied with the way the matter had been managed hitherto that the House of Commons should say that there should not be a repetition of the old state of things. They feared the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to have his good intentions carried out. As to the request made in the second section of the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman told them that that was practically done at the present moment. Well, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman wished it might be done; but, as a matter of fact, it was not done. The children were forced up from Standard to Standard, independent of their attainments and fitness for promotion. He appealed to Gentlemen who had children themselves how they would like those children to be pushed up from form to form in the public schools to which they were sent, whether they were fit for it or not? The teachers, it might be said, would take care that no harm came to the children in this matter; but he asked the House of Commons to do for the poor children of the country what well-to-do parents did for their own children. The third part of the Motion asked—
    "That a larger share of the Government grant shall depend upon attendance, and a smaller upon individual examinations."

    1385
    They knew that 4s.6d. was the only fixed grant that depended upon attendance, and they asked that that should he increased. Why did they ask it? Because up to this time it was found that the extra pressure put on children had largely resulted from the teachers having been running a race, as it were, one against the other to obtain high results of teaching. What hon. Members wanted was that the main object, the main reward, which was given by the State to the schools should be given for the hum-drum which did not make a bright show in the public eye, but which was the real, sound substratum on which education should be based. He and his Friends had felt that in discussing this matter at this hour, and under these conditions, they were under the greatest possible disadvantage, because it was impossible for them to urge all the arguments they might wish to urge. If the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said, that he was going to meet hon. Members by due instructions to the Inspectors, and by carrying out those excellent intentions he had expressed in his speech—which he had put into words, but which had not been hitherto put into action——
    MR. MUNDELLA: They are in the Code.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wanted to see them somewhere else, because Inspectors hitherto had not acted on the instructions contained in the Code. The hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Acland), he saw, had the Code in his hand, and no doubt he was satisfied that Her Majesty's Inspectors would act on it. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot), however, could not have the same confidence in the matter as his hon. Friend. He wished to see in black and white that the Inspectors, in the future, should not act on their own whim and fancy; but should be bound by a Resolution of the House of Commons, expressed in the very moderate terms of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am not going to detain the House more than one or two minutes. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says it makes very little difference whether this is in the Code or not. I understood the real reason why we have the debate under difficult circumstances so late at night, and without the possibility of the sub-
    1386
    ject being thoroughly examined into, to be because it was thought desirable that the House should express an opinion which would alter the Code. It appears clear that individual examination of children under seven is no longer to be made. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has said about his desire that no Members on this side should express approval of individual examination of children under seven, I must say this—that I think any Inspector would fail in his duly if he went into an infant school and was to give an opinion of that school without finding from the examination of any of the children how they were taught. That is a very different thing to the individual examination of each child; and I should like to ask, from persons with any experience whatever in education, how the Inspector is to give any notion whether or not any education is given—whether elementary teaching of children under seven is or is not carried on—if he is not to examine any of the children? "What is objected to, and I think quite rightly, is the actual examination of each child. If this Motion is accepted, a much more important decision must be made than anything affecting the first of the Resolutions, and that is as regards the third. The third is of immense importance, and it is that a larger share of the Government grant shall depend upon attendance, and that will involve a great change in the expenditure of public money, and, I believe, also a great change in the results, and we ought not to agree to any Resolution of this House without far more reasons than the hon. Member has felt himself able to give to-night. I have never been so much in favour of making the payments of grants depend upon results as some other persons of great experience have been; but the whole tendency for the last few years has been to make the grants depend less on results. We may very well go too far in that direction, and may get back to the state of things existing before the Code was passed. My opinion was that Lord Sherbrooke went too far; but if we do not take care that there is a good deal of individual examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, we shall get back to a state of things in which the masters must look merely to the clover children, and the great body of the children will not be taught reading, writing, and

    1387
    arithmetic, which is what we most care for. It would be a most serious thing; for the House in this hasty manner to assent, to this great change. We Might to give the question a great deal more consideration; and hon. Members opposite, quite unintentionally, would find that they were doing great injustice to children, and causing a great waste of public money.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he should be very glad to make one or two remarks if the House would allow him to proceed. He wished to point out that a larger share was given under the new system for attendance than was given under the old system. When it was remembered that the Code of last year was regarded on all sides as a great concession to the teachers, he was surprised at what was now said, when the Code had been made more indulgent. Reading, writing, and arithmetic were the only three subjects which were paid for on individual examination. It might be possible to give a larger share on the class grant, or on the merit grant; but that would tend to increase, not diminish, the amount of instruction, and so the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion might apprehend an increase of over-pressure. If the Code were altered so as to pay more, independent of examination, the Department would have to take other securities for efficiency in return for public money by increasing the staff and otherwise.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, it seemed to him that Resolutions 1 and 2 were perfectly legitimate, because they pledged the House to do nothing whatever except what the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to do. But he had great doubt as to the propriety of the 3rd Resolution.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member not to press this matter to a Division, for if a Division were taken he should be obliged to vote against the Resolution. So far as this debate had gone, he thought the charges made against their educational system had entirely broken down. No answer had been given to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), which seemed absolutely to destroy the argument of these Resolutions, especially the third, which was
    1388
    the one the House would have to vote upon. The House was asked to upset the Code on the case presented to the House by the hon. Member; but he I would ask those who had listened to the debate whether a case of any sort had been made out for so grave a step as that? It might be that there was overpressure; but he was not satisfied that the charges had been proved. They might be capable of proof; but they should be clearly proved before the House voted upon them, and upon the I showing of the hon. Member himself he had not, on this occasion, had an opportunity of fully stating his case to the House, He wished to press it upon his hon. Friend that no good purpose would be served by voting upon this subject now; and he must, at any rate, vote against the Motion.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSwished to know whether these three Resolutions ought not to be put to the House separately? He could support the 1st and 2nd; but not the 3rd and 4th.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The articles of the Resolutions are embodied in the Address to Her Majesty; and, therefore, they need not be put separately.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 184: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 54.)

    POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Protection of the Post Office, and to offences committed in relation to the Post Office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT and Mr. COURTNEY.
    Bill presented, read the first time. [Bill 161.]

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY [ADDITIONAL OFFICERS, SALARIES, &c.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to empower the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to appoint certain additional Officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of their Salaries and Allowances.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment (43); City of Norwich (Mousehold Heath) Provisional Order* (35): Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (36); Isle of Man Harbours (47); Dublin Museum of Science and Art* (38).
Report—Intestates Estates* (46).

FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 43.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 43.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to extend the powers of Boards of Conservators in fishery districts, for the better

  1253
  protection of fresh water fish. The meshes of nets were frequently so small that immature trout and young salmon were destroyed in the operation of catching larger fish, and the Bill was intended to prevent this. It enabled Fishery Boards to make bye-laws for determining the mesh of nets, and the instruments to be used in fishing; it also extended Section 6 of the Fresh Wafer Fisheries Act, 1878, thereby enabling a Board to be formed for the protection of coarse fish. Clause 3 extended the powers of water bailiffs from the districts marked out by the Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1868, and the Salmon Fisheries Acts, 1861 to 1873, to the districts intended to be protected by the Bill. It was not to extend to Scotland or Ireland, or to the counties of Norfolk or Suffolk.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwas understood to say, that the Bill would affect many private rights, and would prevent small fish being caught for bait. He did not wish to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he now gave Notice that it was his intention to propose some limitations in Committee, so as to secure the rights and privileges of those who possessed several fisheries.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to n Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley)
ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.

  (No. 47.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to amend the Acts of 1872 and 1874, as some of the provisions in those Acts bad been found impossible to be carried out. Under the Act of 1874 harbour dues might, with the approval of the Board of Trade, be imposed on all vessels using the harbours of the Island. It had been found impossible to impose these dues, as it would seriously interfere with the trade of vessels calling at the ports of the Island on their way from England to Ireland. If these vessels were charged
  1254
  with dues on their tonnage it would not be worth their while to call, as the amount of freight was often very small, and the result would be that a large amount of shipping would be kept away; altogether from the Island. To remedy this it was proposed by Section of the Bill that when tonnage dues were imposed they should be charged on the cargo landed, and not on the registered tonnage of the vessel. In Section 3 power was taken to levy tolls on docks, piers, or quays. A costly iron pier was lately erected at Ramsay, and was used for landing passengers and as a promenade. A local Act was passed authorizing its construction and contemplating the tolls; but it had been found advisable to have the insular legislation confirmed by Parliament. There were also clauses I relating to ferries. The Bill was warmly supported by the local Legislature, and a Resolution approving it was carried without a dissentient voice.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether a copy of the Report from the School Management Committee of the London School Board in February last can be laid upon the Table of the House; also a copy of the Memorial forwarded to the Education Department relative to the examination of young children in schools.
  Moved for—
  "Copy of the Memorial forwarded to Education Department relative to the examination of young children in schools; with the answer of the Education Department thereto."—(The Earl DE La Warr.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, the Memorial to the Education Department can and will be laid upon the Table, together with the answer which the Department has made. With respect to their Report from the School Management Committee the case is different. I have no doubt that the noble Earl is

  1255
  entitled, as a ratepayer, to see it if he pleases, though, if there is any difficulty about it, I shall he glad to assist him in the matter; but it would not be usual to make these Reports Parliamentary Papers.
  Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— INTRODUCTION OF BILL INTO, THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEYinquired of Her; Majesty's Government, Whether, in consideration of the present system of transacting the Public Business, it might not; be expedient to introduce such Bills as did not interfere with the Privileges of the House of Commons or touch the imposition of taxation, more frequently in the first instance into the House of Lords? The noble Lord said, he asked; this Question because he found in Her Majesty's Speech a large number of Government Bills mentioned, and he supposed that the Government intended to proceed with them during the Session, and carry them through Parliament. They had now arrived at the end of the second month of the Session, and, with the exception of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, they had had no measure of any importance introduced for their consideration in that House. He thought that there were a good many questions brought forward in Her Majesty's Speech which they might fairly claim to have had brought under their consideration in the first instance. The result of the present system was that the Empire was deprived of a part of its legislative force. He did not lay claim to any spirit of prophecy; but no one could shut his eyes to the fact that there was a movement going on around them of unknown forces in unforeseen directions, and he thought that their Lordships would do well not to overlook the tendency of the public mind.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in reply, said, he feared that the answer he was about to give would hardly be satisfactory to his noble Friend, although he quite sympathized with the object of the noble Lord's Question. The fact was that for 25 years, whenever he had been in Office, he had had to answer the same sort of Question at least once, and generally twice in the Session. He never
  1256
  omitted any opportunity of impressing upon his Colleagues the question of whether some particular measure might not be introduced into their Lordships' House. He did not believe that there was any disinclination on the part of his Colleagues to take that course; but, somehow or other, there was always a reason given why it was more advantageous that a particular Bill should be introduced into the other House. He did not think that this was attributable to any prejudice on the part of the present Administration, for he remembered that some 30 years ago Lord Aberdeen, in answering that identical Question, had said that he had heard that Question asked in the House of Lords 50 years before. That being so, he thought there must be some idea that important measures were not so well received when they came down from their Lordships' House as when they were specially introduced into the other House in the first instance.

THE NEW EDUCATION CODE—ARTICLE 107 B.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the Education Code, which is laid on the Table of the House till Wednesday next; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that after the word 'Examination' in Article 107 B. of the new Code of Regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education the following words be added 'but infants till they have attained the ago of five years shall be exempted from examination in reading, writing, counting, and needlework,'"
  said, that he must apologize for the short Notice of that Motion, he having only within the last few days become aware of the fact that the time which the document to which he was about to refer lay upon the Table of the House had nearly expired. He wished to ask their Lordships' attention to some few points connected with it. It appeared that the Privy Council derived their authority to issue a document like that upon the Table from the Elementary Education Act of 1870. It was clear that the avowed object of that Act was to give what was usually understood by the term "elementary education," and in the regulations issued by the

  1257
  Education Department of the Privy Council in the Code elementary education was defined to be instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic, and needlework. That seemed to be very well. But what did they find further? There were what were called optional subjects. They were singing, English, geography, elementary science, history, algebra, Euclid, and mensuration, mechanics, chemistry, physics, animal physiology, botany, principles of agriculture, Latin, French, and domestic economy. But not content with that it was also added—
  "Any other subjects, other than those mentioned in this Article, may, if sanctioned by the Department, be taken as a specific subject, provided that a graduated scheme of teaching it be submitted to and approved by the Inspectors."
  He was at a loss to know how schools in which all those subjects were taught could come under the class of elementary schools, as intended by the Elementary Education Act of 1870. It was true those higher subjects were called optional; but if they were to be taught at all, the school must be provided with a class of teachers who were competent to give the instruction. It really amounted to this—that the education given in those schools was sufficient to prepare for any profession—he could not suppose that the Elementary Education Act was intended for that—schools, let it be remembered, which ratepayers were compelled to support, and in which there were children whose parents were receiving an income, in some cases, as they were informed, of.£400 or £500 a-year. Then there was another evil attending that discretionary power vested in the Education Department of the Privy Council. The regulations which were issued periodically were perpetually changing. The Lord President, or the Vice President of the Privy Council, might hold entirely different views about education from their Predecessors in Office, and changes were made. Thus they found the Code of 1882 required less than the Code of 1884—teachers and children were overworked, and serious consequences were the result. The Code of 1882 required that a child should have attended 250 times before being presented for examination by the Inspector; but the Code of 1884 required only that the name of a child should have been on the register for 22 weeks in the year before it was presented for examination. The attend-
  1258
  ances in the 22 weeks might have been comparatively few, and to enable the child to pass the examination great pressure must probably have been used. And as regarded over-pressure and the system of cramming children, often to the injury of their health and that of their teachers, in order that they might pass the examination, there could be no doubt that the system which had been adopted of payment by passes lay at the root of the evil. The object was to gain as large a grant as possible by getting the largest number of children through the examination without reference to anything else. There were other matters connected with that subject to which, at a future time, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention. But there was the important question which he desired to bring before the House, whether the education which was then being carried on at so large a cost to the country, and was becoming a serious burden to local ratepayers, was an education that was based upon sound principles? The Return of the Education Department showed an expenditure for 1883 of £2,846,000 being an increase of £44,000 over 1882. He asked whether, with that enormous cost, they were acting upon principles which would benefit the moral and social condition of the people? The principle of the Education Act seemed to exclude that. The dread of religious education had led to the consequent exclusion, also, of moral education. The Inspectors of schools were forbidden "to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects" given in schools; and could moral teaching be separated from religious? An Inspector did not inquire whether a child even knew the Ten Commandments, or what the Bible was; and it was asserted that since the passing of the Education Act of 1870 many young persons, from ignorance of the Bible, had arrived at mature years unfit to be sworn in a Court of Justice. Previous to the Act of 1870 it was indispensable to the obtaining of a Government grant that the Bible should at least be read. He might quote the words of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who stated that—
  "In one large town of this country there were more than 12,000 children in Board schools who receive no week-day religious instruction of any kind."
  He left that question, then, with the

  1259
  hope that it might meet with their Lordships' serious attention. On referring to Article 107, it would be found that all scholars—that was including infants—must be presented to the Inspectors for examination, and that this was carried out was shown by the Reports of School Boards. He believed he might mention the London Board, for the Reports of which he had that day asked. He found it stated—
  "That the Committee were of opinion that the examination of infants in reading, writing, counting, and needlework should be discontinued until they have reached their fifth year."
  And that—
  "A large proportion of the time of infants between three and five be devoted to healthful recreation, lively occupations, games, and physical exercises."
  A statement relative to this question was recently made, as reported in the public Press, by Dr. Forbes Winslow, whose name must be well known to their Lordships. He said—
  "As one who had had many opportunities of observation, he was able to bear testimony to the direful effect of the over-pressure which was going on at the present moment in ruining the health of young children, and that the lunacy statistics were a sufficient evidence of the evils resulting from endeavours to force into the brain knowledge which it was incapable of holding."
  The view of the question which he had stated seemed to be consistent with common sense, and he hoped the noble Lord opposite would not object to the Amendment in the Code which he now begged to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that after the word 'Examination' in Article 107 B. of the now Code of Regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education the following words be added 'but infants till they have attained the ago of five years shall be exempted from examination in reading, writing, counting, and needlework.'"—(The EARL De La Warr.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, the noble Earl had seized the last moments allowed for criticism of the annual re-edition of the Education Code. He pointed out that to-morrow was the last day on which this now edition of the Code would lie on the Table of the House, after which its fresh alterations would become law. There was not a single instance in which the annual edition had not included
  1260
  alterations of a character to make that which was already complicated enough still more complicated from year to year. Each edition had been recommended to Parliament as intended to contain the last changes on the subject. He agreed generally with the criticisms made by the noble Earl. He had brought to notice, in his speed, one particular effect of the working of the present Code. Any reasonable man, he thought, would consider it a defect in this Code that it attached educational grants to the intellectual performances of children of three years old. There was no country in which such an absurdity was adopted. In Germany—a country which was always favourably compared with ours in educational matters—such a thing was not attempted. Infants of this tender age were left either to nurses or crèches, or infant asylums, or to little schools kept at private cost. A public receptacle for the care of children three years old was little more than a foundling hospital. It was taking babies away from the care of their mothers, and placing them at schools at the public expense under the pretence of giving them education. But this was only one of many bad features imseparable from a system of education based on a radically false principle—namely, that of providing for national education by the payment of the teachers by grants upon detailed results of performances in various kinds of instruction. He could hardly conceive a more ridiculous scheme for national education than ours, which proposed to give 1s. grant for every child taught needlework; 1s. for singing, or 6d. if taught by ear;1d. for elementary subjects, among which the art of reading was enumerated as a subject; then passed on to higher grants for higher subjects still as elementary. These schools were supposed to be elementary, yet elementary subjects were paid for much lower than subjects not elementary. Thus, 2s. were given as a grant for what were called class subjects, and 4s. for specific subjects including science and foreign languages. Now, he wished to impress upon their Lordships that nowhere else in the world did a school grant system like that of England exist. He believed that the noble Viscount (Viscount Sherbrooke), whom he did not See in his place at that moment, was the author of this very quaint

  1261
  system. The noble Viscount had taken, it would seem, a commercial view of the subject. The idea was a fear of value not being secured by uncertain tests of the teachers' work and of the teaching paid for. There was a wish, to secure a quid Pro quo—to ascertain that they should get their money's worth. But he should like to point out that the quo meant the expenditure of millions for the general education of the working classes; the quid was only specified performances by specified groups of children, which was anything but the national education wanted. The complaints which were now being made, not of over-education, but of over-pressure in bad education, sprang entirely and necessarily from the action of this false principle. It was an obstacle to all that was worthy of the name of education. The teacher had to make an income to pay his last year's bills by getting up some of the children to earn for him, as the phrase was, the highest grants, and the highest grants were attached to the highest subjects. For this, teachers and pupil-teachers were straining, and children were worked over hours, and were crammed instead of being educated. Those children who could not be so crammed, or backward scholars, were neglected as unprofitable earners of grants. Most irrelevant answers were made to these complaints—such as that there was no over-expenditure, that room was still wanted for more children, and that a few richer children wanted higher education, who were taking the poorer children's bread. But the question was not of too much education, but of the system of school-managers farming little children for grants on sham education and calling it a national system.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he remembered, as a former member of the London School Board, that a number of children under five years of age were sent to school simply because their parents were away working, and these children mostly passed their time lying on the floor. The by-laws provided for the education of children between the ages of five and 13 years. That was quite right, though in some cases five might be somewhat too early; but the present proposal of individual examination of infants under five seemed to him to be extraordinary, and therefore he trusted some explanation would be given of it. He could see
  1262
  no advantage of children under five years of age being presented to Her Majesty's Inspectors for examination. Such a course was not only objectionable and useless, but it was positively mischievous to the health and intellect of tiny infants.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the discussion that had taken place was a striking illustration of the way in which certain noble Lords in that House travelled from the Notice of Motion under discussion. He had innocently come down prepared to deal merely with the question relating to infants under the age of five, and whether they ought or ought not to be examined. But two of the noble Lords had travelled over a number of questions that arose under the Code. It never occurred to him that these would be started. The noble Earl had raised the question whether there should or should not be a Code at all, or very nearly that, and, if any Code, what Code; whether pay meats by results were or were not good; whether all the world was right or the noble Lord. It was strange that the noble Lord had not discovered that the Code introduced by Lord Spencer and Mr. Mundella last year, and altered this year, as the result of experience, by the Circular of Mr. Mundella, was entirely in the noble Lord's direction. It was no doubt true that the Education Department were not able to go far on the same road with the noble Lord. With respect to the treatment of the younger infants, he was in hearty sympathy with the noble Lord, who was preaching on this subject to those who were already converted. His Motion was an anachronism. It might have applied to past Codes, but it did not to the present. The noble Earl did not I appear to understand the effect of the existing Code. It gave no individual I grant to children in infant schools, and it did not require the individual examination of infants under five.
  EARL DE LA WARRremarked that the Code required that the infants should "present themselves for examination."
  LORD, CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)repeated that this did not mean individual examination. There was no obscurity on this point among those who administered the Code. It merely meant that the infants should attend, and that the Inspector should

  1263
  have an opportunity of seeing them and ascertaining whether they had been properly attended to. That was a necessary provision, unless they were prepared to allow the teacher to work his own sweet will; but it was only a muster, and there was no attempt at individual examination. The Department and the Inspectors knew quite well what was meant, and that it did not imply an individual test. The payments in infant schools were fixed grants on attendance, and there was also a general merit grant earned by the teacher upon the general character of his school; but there was no unwholesome stimulus to earn a grant upon the results of the examination of these infants. Whether there was or was not an objection to the system of payment by results, it could not arise in the case of these infant schools. There was no such system in those schools. There were some 400,000 little children below the age of five in the schools of this country earning, no doubt, a very important contribution for the schools. He supposed the noble Earl did not wish there should be no inquiry or inspection as to whether those children were neglected. The inspection under the present Code was only of a general character, and he could hardly think the noble Earl could desire that those children should be absolutely ignored by Her Majesty's Inspectors, considering the large amount of public money paid in respect of them. The noble Earl might rest assured that the provisions of the new Code need afford him no anxiety on this particular point, and that there was no reason for any such change as that proposed in the Motion.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he believed it was evident that individual examinations had really taken place. What he asked was that such a practice should be discontinued.
  LORD CARLINGFOED (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it was merely a matter of fact that nothing was to be earned by individual examinations. A particular Inspector might think it his duty to examine the children one by one; and there had been a habit among Inspectors—in the belief of the Education Department carried beyond the necessities of the case—to insist on that kind of individual examination, although it earned no individual grant. It was,
  1264
  however, by no means desired that that habit should be encouraged.
  Motion (by leave of the House) With drawn.
  House adjourned at quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.