Sitting of 9 June 1884

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Lincoln City, v. John Hinde Palmer, esquire, deceased.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — Postponed Resolutions [June 5] further considered.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) (Borough of Aberavon and others) * [242]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14) (Dawlish and Kenton) * [243]; Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *; Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation* [244]; Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment * [245].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11) (Parishes of Bisley, &c.) * [213]; Shannon Navigation [201]; Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment [208]; Irish Land Court Officers (Exclusion from Parliament) [89], debate adjourned; Colonial Attorneys Relief Act Amendment * [228]; County Courts (Ireland) [104].
Second Reading—Committee—Marriages Legalisation [237]—R.P.
Second Reading, and committed to a Select Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) (Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage) * [211]; Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) [167].
Committee—Representation of the People [119] (Clauses 4, 7, 9, 11)—[Sixth Night]—R.P,; Royal Courts of Justice [139] — R.P.; Customs and Inland Revenue [206]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) (Belchalwell, &c.) * [150].
Withdrawn—Post Office Protection [161]; University of Cambridge (Borrowing Powers)* [133].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL— UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOUTH WALES.

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDrose to move the Motion of which he had given Notice, and he asked the House to observe the precise terms of that Motion. It was merely an empowering Instruction to the Committee, and it was not framed in such terms as would finally dispose of the question. The state of the case was this. The Cardiff Corporation had promoted a Bill in certain clauses of which provision was made for contributing by the Cardiff Corporation £10,000 towards the University College of South Wales. The Committee which had been sitting on the Bill considered themselves not empowered to pass, or not justified in passing, such a clause, as it seemed to involve a general principle which might or might not have the approval of the House. He had not been able to gather that the Committee were opposed to the provision in this particular Bill; but, as he was informed, the Committee thought it desirable these clauses should not be passed by the Committee without an Instruction from the House to deal with them. Now, he hardly knew how to proceed, for this simple reason—that it seemed to him that for the House to refuse to allow a Private Bill Committee to deal with this question at all, to pronounce it unreasonable legislation, would be such ail extraordinary proceeding, such a violent interference with the principle of local self-government, such a deviation from precedent, that he could hardly conceive the House taking that course, though he could perfectly well understand the desire of the Committee to have the opinion of the House on the matter expressed. Stating the case as briefly as he could, the position was this. In 1880 the Government appointed a very influential Committee to consider the state of Higher Education and Intermediate Education in Wales and Monmouthshire. That Committee was presided over by Lord Aberdare; and, after a lengthened and searching investigation, they recommended the establishment, under Government patronage, and with

    1743
    the sanction of Parliament, of a University College for South Wales, to be situated either in Swansea or Cardiff, as might be hereafter determined. The town of Swansea subscribed a considerable sum of money, and undertook to give a most valuable site as the town's contribution if the University College were erected there. Cardiff subscribed a very much larger sum by voluntary effort, and undertook through its Corporate body to give a site for the erection of buildings for the purposes of the College. The scheme of the Committee met with the approval of Government, Cardiff was selected by the arbitrators, and in October, 1883, the College was founded, Professors were appointed, and it now educated 150 students, and the whole proceeding of the University College was founded on the faith of the Town Council providing their volunteered support. It had happened, however, that the only site that was at the disposal of the Corporation for the University College was found to be less satisfactory in Cardiff than the actual site on which the College work had been commenced, and where it was now proceeding; and the University College authorities were very desirous of having a change made in the form of the town's contribution to the College—of having a sum of money substituted for the piece of land. That was the proposal in the Bill of the Corporation—that they should be allowed to substitute £10,000 from the Corporation Funds in lieu of the land promised. This proposal, in one form and another, had been before the town of Cardiff for two years past; and not only so, but a Bill, the very Bill in question, with the clauses providing for the contribution of £10,000, had been, under the requirements of the Borough Funds Act, submitted to the ratepayers at a public meeting, and approved without opposition. When the Bill came before the Private Bill Committee there was not known to be any opposition whatever. It had happened, however, during the consideration of the Bill by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), that some opposition to the clause was raised on the part of Lord Bute, who, as owner of docks and other property, was a large contributor to the rates of the town. Now, he would
    1744
    point out, in regard to this opposition, that in common fairness to the College authorities, the town authorities, to the town itself, and everybody concerned, it should have been raised when the question was referred to the ratepayers in accordance with the Act of Parliament; but on that occasion no voice whatever was raised on behalf of Lord Bute or his agent. This was a strong circumstance, which should operate very much against the present opposition of Lord Bute. And, in the next place, he had his own reasons for believing that this particular clause of the Bill would not have been opposed by Lord Bute if it had not been associated with other powers in the Bill, other town questions which Lord Bute would desire to oppose. Now, he believed the great question which had presented itself to the minds of the Committee, so far as he had been able to gather the facts, was this—whether the grant from the Corporation Funds of a sum of money towards the maintenance of the University College was a legitimate application of those funds; at any rate, he understood the Committee thought it was not an application they should sanction without an expression of opinion by the House. He did not know the minds of the Committee; but he had not heard that, either individually or in the aggregate, they had expressed an opinion against the grant. But he wished to point out that his Motion in no way whatever proposed to override any view the Committee might think proper to take; it simply asked the House to empower the Committee to consider the subject. The terms of the Motion were—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations that they have power to insert in the Cardiff Corporation Bill provisions enabling the said Corporation to contribute the sum of Ten thousand pounds to or for the purposes of the 'University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire.' "
    That was what the Committee should have the power to insert in the clause if, in the exercise of their discretion, they thought proper to do so. He hardly thought the Committee would refuse to allow the Corporation the liberty of contributing to the University College of South Wales out of the rates of the town when there was no objection on the part of the ratepayers themselves, though there had been ample oppor-

    1745
    tunity of investigation, and the only opposition now raised was in an unexpected, he might almost say an irregular manner, for it ignored the regular and legal process. Should the objection as now urged prevail, he really did not know what was to become of the considerations by which the House had supported the principles of local government. He could hardly imagine a more extraordinary action than for the House to intervene in this case, where a town was asking for itself to contribute from its own local funds. The University College was to receive under the auspices of the Government £4,000 a-year, for assisting the maintenance of the College. Now, £4,000 at 3 per cent capitalized was a large sum—£130,000—and to say that a College that was to receive the equivalent of £130,000 from the general funds of the country was to receive nothing at all from the funds of the town in which it was advisedly located, after the utmost deliberation, and which town wished to contribute a sum of money, would be an extraordinary interference with local self-government. In saying this, he made no complaint of the action of the Committee, and he apprehended no objection from the Committee itself. The House had a natural regard for precedents, and he should just like to mention that there was a precedent — possibly there were more than one—but there was a precedent bearing most materially on this case. In 1874, the town of Nottingham promoted a Private Bill, authorizing it to erect public buildings, museums, &c., and that Bill became an Act. The town of Nottingham erected out of its funds a University College, with other buildings; but doubts arising whether the Act of 1874 covered the erection of that College, the sum of £10,000 was subscribed by the town to meet the cost of the building, about which a doubt existed. But, in 1878, Nottingham came to the House and asked for authority to contribute that £10,000, and to have authority to grant an annual sum out of the rates for the permanent maintenance of the University College at Nottingham. Now, it would seem to him an incredible thing that the House in 1878 should empower the authorities at Nottingham to make an annual grant in perpetuity for the maintenance of their University College, and in 1884 deny to
    1746
    the town of Cardiff the right to contribute a lump sum in lieu of land promised. He would not detain the House at greater length. He would only add that serious consequences might result from the refusal of the Motion. The College was established and in full working order, and if by the intervention of the House the right of the town to make the promised contribution was denied, the whole established machinery of the College would be upset. Though he thought too well of the people of Cardiff to suppose that even under such an extreme state of things the University College of South Wales would not still remain in Cardiff, he thought the House would be slow to inflict such an injury on the College for which such exertions had been made. He hoped in his remarks he had said nothing of which the Chairman of the Committee, or his Colleagues, could complain, and he earnestly hoped the House would not refuse his very simple Motion.
    MR. RICHARDseconded the Motion. The hon. Member, who was indistinctly heard, said, that he had had something to do with the establishment of the College referred to in the Motion of his hon. Friend, and he naturally felt great interest in the proposal which his hon. Friend had made. The Government had appointed a Committee to inquire into the question of Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales. He had the honour of being a Member of that Committee, and among other questions which came before it was that of establishing one or two or more Colleges in Wales. The Committee recommended, among other things, that a College should be established for South Wales, and soon afterwards there arose a keen competition between the towns of Swansea and Cardiff as to the place in which that College should be situated. The question was referred to arbitration—the arbitrators being Lord Carling-ford, Lord Blackburn, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education. His hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) appeared before the arbitrators as an advocate for Swansea, and made a very powerful and exhaustive statement on behalf of that town. Another gentleman rendered the same service for the town of Cardiff, and the arbitrators ultimately decided that the site of the

    1747
    University College should be at Cardiff; being guided partly, he thought, by the fact that the people of Cardiff, when they heard of the probability of a College being established, at once started a subscription, which amounted, he believed, to the sum of £26,000, for the purposes of the College. The Corporation of Cardiff further agreed to grant a site for the erection of the College. The College had now been established, and it had been singularly successful. As his hon. Friend had stated, it had already 150 day students and upwards of 600 night students; and he understood that the number was continually increasing week by week. Indeed, there was every probability of the College becoming a great success, and a blessing to that part of the Principality. He thought it was very much to the honour of the people of Cardiff that they were prepared to make such great sacrifices for so important an object as the promotion of higher education in Wales, and it would be very much to be deplored and deprecated if that House were now to step in and impose an obstacle in the way, throwing, as it were, a wet blanket upon a work which promised to be so eminently successful. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accept the Resolution of his hon. Friend, which was in itself a very moderate one, being simply to enable the Corporation of Cardiff to contribute a sum of £10,000 towards the purposes of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, in lieu of the site they originally promised.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations that they have power to insert in the Cardiff Corporation Bill provisions enabling the said Corporation to contribute the sum of Ten thousand pounds to or for the purposes of the 'University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire.' "—(Sir Edward J. Reed.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that it fell to his lot, as Chairman of the Committee to whom this Bill had been referred, to ask the judgment of the House upon the Motion now made. In the first place, in order to remove any misconception which might prevail in the mind of any person as to the matter, he wished to assure the hon. Member who had made the Motion that the Committee had not the slightest feeling about Lord Bute
    1748
    and his opposition, and he did not appear there in the least degree as the spokesman of any opponent of the Bill. All he asked was that the House should take the matter into consideration upon its real merits and as a matter of public policy. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), who moved the Resolution, had spoken in most moderate terms, and had rightly said that the Committee desired that the House should determine if this was a provision which they ought to consider with a view of inserting it in the Bill. The hon. Member was perfectly right in that statement, and, speaking on behalf of his Colleagues and of himself, he might say that they all thought that the matter was so grave in its bearings that it ought not to be decided solely by a Committee sitting upstairs. He might further say, at the outset, for the information of hon. Gentlemen who did not know anything of the working of this particular Committee, that it had had a good deal of hard work to do, and it seemed likely to have a good deal more in the future. The Committee was appointed in pursuance of Standing Order 173A. He would not read the Order, but he gave the number of it in order that hon. Members who desired might refer to it. The object of that Standing Order was this. It had been found that in many Private Bills enactments were proposed which very largely extended the scope of the general law. It was thought desirable to put a check upon that system, in order that the House might have an opportunity, through a Committee appointed for the special purpose, of saying how far the general law should be departed from. The Committee had had a good deal of work to do. They found that a number of Corporation Bills were being constantly introduced—the number was far larger than might be supposed—enacting all kinds of burdens, which were proposed to be laid upon the ratepayers—not only pecuniary burdens, but burdens affecting almost the daily life of the population of the great towns. In point of fact, attempts were made by means of these Private Bills to introduce into large towns provisions which he ventured to say were never contemplated, and which had never been proposed, by any Public Bill in that House. Whenever changes of this kind were made, they ought to be made in

    1749
    the face of day, and Parliament ought to have a full opportunity of expressing itself upon such questions, and of determining, with full consideration, the alterations which should be made in the law. But, as hon. Members well knew, many things were done in Private Bill Legislation which he was bound to say were done in a very slip-shod way. For instance, some Bills were unopposed, and might contain alterations of the kind referred to, which might have passed unopposed, unless the vigilance of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, or of some of the officers of the House, had detected in them provisions that were largely beyond the powers conferred by the ordinary law of Parliament. And thus Parliament, without knowing anything of these provisions, which, in some cases, were inserted almost behind the back of Parliament, would find most important powers enacted which had never been really discussed before they became law. He had said so much because he thought it was desirable that hon. Members who did not know very much about the working of this Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations should understand the principle upon which the Business before them was conducted. He now came to the particular question involved in the present Bill, and he contended, in the first place, that it was a matter upon which the Committee ought to have the instruction and judgment of the House. Personally, without speaking on behalf of his Colleagues on the Committee—for he wished to guard himself carefully against doing that, although he knew that some Members of the Committee shared his opinion—he thought that this was a most improper and objectionable proposition, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the Motion. He did so on this ground. He had nothing to say against the University College of South Wales. It might be a good institution, but he had no local knowledge with regard to it. It might be doing good work. They had been told that day that it was an institution of very great value, and that it had already begun its work; but he ventured to assert that it was not an institution which ought to be supported out of the local rates. If it was an institution doing good educational work it had a fair claim to come to that House and to
    1750
    the Government of the day—the responsible Advisers of the Crown—for a grant out of the public funds. It would be perfectly justified in making such an application, and let it take its place with the Scotch Universities, the London University, and other similar institutions; but to impose upon the ratepayers an additional charge to those great and excessive burdens almost daily increasing which they now had to bear, was not what he hoped this House would sanction. It was the duty of the House to remember who the ratepayers of the town of Cardiff were. They were not all of them wealthy people, interested in higher education, but many of them were people struggling on the very verge of pauperism—persons upon whom the burden of local rates was already pressing with the utmost severity. The subject of local taxation was one which had been a matter of much controversy in. the House of Commons. It was a subject on which the Government, strong as it was, had not been able to command a majority in that House. Indeed, the feeling was so strong upon the question of the constant increase of local rates that the Government had already this Session been placed in a minority upon it. If that were so, surely they ought to watch with great jealousy any proposition that might have a tendency to increase local burdens, and he contended that the higher education of the people was not one of those objects for which provision ought to be made out of the local rates. Besides, the question of higher education, there was a further supplementary question involved—namely, whether the particular University College proposed to be established was conducted on principles that would commend themselves to all the community of Cardiff. If not, he would ask the House to observe what was virtually being done by accepting a proposition of this kind. They were saddling, by a mere vote of a majority of the ratepayers, upon the minority of the ratepayers an institution of which they might disapprove. If this was to be done in one way in one case it might be done in another way equally in another case, and in matters of education, where conscientious differences of opinion existed, it would be unwise for Parliament to sanction the imposition of such burdens upon the ratepayers. He saw

    1751
    opposite the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the House would have his opinion upon the matter before the debate closed. The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister charged with the representation of the ratepayers, and was supposed to watch over their interests in order to see that no undue burdens were imposed upon them. He would, therefore, be glad to hear, before the debate closed, whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that a burden of this kind was one that ought to be fairly thrown upon their shoulders. But, whatever the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman might be, he, for his part, contended that this was not a proper purpose to which the rates of the Corporation of Cardiff ought to be applied. If the House chose to give the Committee the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), and which, no doubt, was couched in moderate terms, it would be the duty of the Committee to do their best to carry out the wishes of the House, and to take the matter into their serious consideration, although, personally, he should much prefer that the matter should be kept as it was, and that the Corporation Bill should proceed without this power being inserted in it. It was said that a precedent had been established in the case of the Nottingham Corporation. That there might have been a precedent established in that case he did not deny; but if there was only one precedent, it was obvious that the matter could not have frequently commended itself to the judgment of Municipal bodies. If there was only one precedent for a provision of this kind, he thought he might say that it was almost an exceptional proposition. He might further say that the very fact of the Nottingham Corporation having obtained this power from Parliament was an illustration in substantiation of his first remark—that it had been obtained with very little discussion in Parliament, and that, in point of fact, it was one of those things which had slipped through Parliament without being observed, and in the way he had referred to, without real discussion. He knew that Private Business was not attractive to hon. Members, and that it was never discussed at great length; but it must be borne in mind that this was a question
    1752
    of more than ordinary importance, and he did not think there was any subject to which the attention of Parliament ought to be more carefully given than to questions which involved an increase of the local burdens of the ratepayers. Whatever the judgment of the House might be, he trusted that local bodies would in future be more jealous as to the manner in which they imposed burdens upon the rates. He was much obliged for the indulgence of the House, and he felt bound to oppose the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cardiff.
    MR. WESTsaid, he proposed to detain the House with only a very few remarks upon this very important question. He believed that the Committee which had been appointed to deal with questions relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations had had before them a good many precedents of the very worst kind, and it was owing to the existence of those precedents that the Committee themselves had been appointed, in order to prevent in future such precedents from becoming part of the general law of the land. His hon. Friend who had just sat down asked them to pause before they embarked in what appeared to be an extremely perilous course—namely, that of allowing the endowment of University Colleges by empowering a Municipal Corporation to impose burdens upon the ratepayers. He agreed with his hon. Friend that if they sanctioned such a proposition they would be embarking upon a highly dangerous course. He must confess that he had heard with considerable surprise the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) in support of the proposal. He had always been of opinion that his hon. Friend was personally opposed to religious endowments, and this was either a religious endowment or it was not. [Mr. RICHARD: It is not.] In that case it was open to the objection which was taken to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. It was said that Lord Bute's Petition was the only Petition against the Bill. He did not speak on behalf of Lord Bute. He had had no communication with that noble Lord, and he knew nothing about him, except that he was a Roman Catholic Nobleman, who had a large interest in Cardiff, and that in his Petition he had put the matter very fairly. Lord Bute pointed out that the

    1753
    Corporation of Cardiff ought not to be allowed to impose an obligation on the owners of property in the borough of Cardiff, who were sufficiently burdened with rates already. He further pointed out that they had already very largely contributed towards the establishment of the proposed College, and that he himself had subscribed the sum of £10,000. He added that the work ought to be carried on either by private subscription or by a Government grant, and that Parliament ought not to give power to the Corporation of Cardiff to levy additional taxes upon the ratepayers in aid of the College. The noble Lord further alleged that he himself was one of the largest ratepayers in the borough of Cardiff. He (Mr. West) had no wish to enlarge upon the danger of permitting this grant to be made out of local funds, and it was only because the Institution itself had the sympathy of the Members of that House that such a proposition had been made. If it had been made in respect of some other institution, such as a theatre or a racecourse, however much the ratepayers generally might desire to have it, there would be no sympathy with it in the House and it would not be acceded to. In the case of a theatre, no doubt the interests of a large number of persons might be served by establishing one; but would any great public service be rendered by a granting of the money of the ratepayers towards such an object? There was only one other observation he desired to make, and it was this. If the House of Commons agreed to embark in this dangerous course, they would run the risk, not only in Cardiff, but in other places, of inducing people to refrain from subscribing privately towards educational purposes, because they would consider that the contributions ought to come out of the rates. Even in this case, Lord Bute, who was a large subscriber to the school, said that he would not have given the contribution he had made if he had known that the money of the ratepayers was to be devoted to the same object.
    SIR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he was bound to say that he had never been more astonished than when he found that an opposition had been raised to this grant being made by the Corporation of Cardiff to the University College of South Wales. It seemed to him that
    1754
    the Committee had been appointed to prevent jobs from being perpetrated on the part of Corporate bodies; but it would appear that in addition to that duty they were endeavouring to exercise a kind of paternal influence in guiding those who were elected by the ratepayers of the borough of Cardiff as to the way in which they were to manage their own affairs. In point of fact, the Committee were endeavouring to intervene between the ratepayers of Cardiff and that which was undoubtedly regarded on all hands as a most important and valuable Institution. The ratepayers were almost entirely unanimous upon the subject—indeed, he thought he would be justified in saying that they were altogether unanimous. [Mr. WEST: Quite unanimous.] His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was on the Committee, confirmed him in saying that they were quite unanimous. Then, why should this paternal Committee step in and say—"No, Gentlemen; you do not know anything about your own affairs. You shall not grant this money towards the University College of South Wales. We all know you will be immensely benefited by the establishment of this College, and that you all desire it above all other things. You have already pledged yourselves to support it, and by that pledge you have been allowed to locate this College in your midst. We know that it is going to be of the utmost value to you; but we are a paternal Committee, and we therefore step in and say that you shall not grant this sum of £10,000 out of the rates towards it?" Surely that was an extraordinary position to take up. The Representatives of a great borough like Cardiff were surely the best judges of what it was right for them to do. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) said that education was not a proper subject for the application of the rates, and he likened this University College to a theatre or a race-course. He could scarcely understand what his hon. Friend was thinking about. At this time of day, when the country was granting such enormous sums of money for the support of education, were they to put educational grants on the same footing as grants for theatres and race-courses? He confessed that he was lost in wonder and astonishment. Then, again, the hon.

    1755
    Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was about the last man he should have expected to come forward in opposition to a grant for educational purposes. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) entertained the hope that the establishment of this College would have the effect of inducing a large number of Welshmen to find their way into the University of Oxford hereafter, and yet one of the Members for that University came forward to say that institutions of this nature ought not, in any way, to be suppported out of local rates. It certainly seemed to him to be a contradiction in terms, and he would venture to appeal to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and to ask him whether, when this question was decided by those to whom it was submitted, of whom his right hon. Friend was one, this grant of £10,000 by the Town Council of Cardiff did not exercise very considerable weight upon the judgment of those by whom the decision was arrived at? In regard to the site of the new College, there was a considerable amount of contention between the towns of Swansea and Cardiff. The Corporation of Cardiff said—"If you will give us the estimable blessing of having this institution in our midst we we will contribute £10,000 towards it;" and he had no doubt that that fact did have considerable weight upon the minds of the arbitrators. The town of Swansea came forward very much in the same way, and said—"We will give you a very fine site for the College, which we consider to be worth very nearly as much." Were the Corporation of Cardiff to be told now, at the last moment, that they were not the best judges of the way in which their own funds ought to be expended, and that it was contrary to public policy for the money of the ratepayers to be applied to educational purposes? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward T. Reed) would take the sense of the House upon the Motion. He could not for one moment believe that the House would refuse to assent to it, and that the Town Council of Cardiff would not be permitted to devote this comparatively small sum of £10,000 towards assisting the great educational work which had been commenced in their midst.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he would only detain the House for a few moments. He thought the Resolution which had been submitted raised a very important question. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had let the cat out of the bag. It now appeared that the towns of Cardiff and Swansea had competed against each other, and the Corporation of Cardiff obtained the preference because it promised to pay in aid of the College a sum of £10,000 out of the rates contributed by the ratepayers of the borough, provided that the Institution were established at Cardiff instead of Swansea. He would ask the House to remember what it was they were now called upon to do. They were asked to interfere with and override the decision of a Committee which had been expressly appointed to take note of such exceptional and extraordinary proposals as those inserted in the present Bill.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee had not refused to give effect to the proposal contained in the Bill, but simply asked to have the decision of the House upon it.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the explanation of the hon. Member was not strictly correct. A clause originally appeared in the Bill sanctioning the expenditure of this sum of money, and it had been struck out by the Committee.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it appeared that his information was perfectly correct, and that this was an appeal to the House to interfere with and override, by an Instruction to the Committee as to what their duty was, a decision at which they had already arrived. The House must remember that very large and exceptional powers had been deliberately placed in the hands of this Committee. He was himself Chairman of the Committee two years ago, and he knew, therefore, how arduous and responsible the duties were which were imposed upon that Committee. He thought that in the exercise of their responsibility the Committee were perfectly justified in striking out this particular clause, and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) might fairly complain of this attempt on the part of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies in that House to interfere with the pro-

    1757
    gress of a Private Bill and with the conduct of the Committee in regard to it. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that this would not be an interference on the part of the House with the business of the Committee, but that it was merely an Instruction which would permit the Committee to do a certain thing. Now, the House knew very well what an Instruction to a Committee meant. If the House passed this Instruction, it would be tantamount to a direction to the Committee that the purpose for which the Instruction was passed should be carried out. It must be borne in mind that the Committee in question was not an ordinary Private Bill Committee of the House. On the contrary, it was a Hybrid Committee, which had been placed in charge of the general interests of the public, and of the House, and of the ratepayers of the whole of the United Kingdom. He was certain, therefore, that if the House sanctioned this Instruction, they would inflict a heavy blow against the interests of the ratepayers generally, and that it would be almost impossible for any amount of labour on the part of the Committee itself to recover the effect of that blow. It was said that the contribution of this sum of money towards the University College would be of great advantage to the town of Cardiff itself. He dared say that that would be so; but there might be a good many other things that would also be of advantage to the town of Cardiff—improved railway communication, for instance. Only last year a very important railway proposal was brought before a Private Bill Committee, and if the Committee had been armed with the excessive powers which the Instruction of the hon. Member for Cardiff was intended to give they might have authorized three important towns to carry out an undertaking, which they were quite prepared to carry out, by contributing a sum of £70,000 out of the rates, for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of improved railway communication. The towns in question were situated at some distance from each other, and an improved railway communication would, no doubt, be of advantage to each; but the Committee thought it their duty to strike out of the Bill those clauses which would have enabled that undertaking to be completed, and he thought they were perfectly right in doing so. In the case
    1758
    of the town of Halifax, also, another Committee refused to allow a contribution to be made in this way out of the rates of the borough. Allusion had been made to the Nottingham Bill. His own opinion was that the Nottingham Bill was one of the most flagrant instances of an abuse of Private Bill Legislation ever assented to by the House of Commons. It was a Bill which held over for an excessive number of years the repayment of a loan until it amounted to something like a perpetual annuity charged upon the rates of the town. In the present case, the Town Council of Cardiff were asked to obtain an advantage for themselves by mortgaging the rates of the town. He could hardly conceive a more improper proposal. The ratepayers of Cardiff were not more interested in this College than the whole of the ratepayers of South Wales. It was merely a struggle to get the College established in Cardiff instead of somewhere else. Town Councils and Corporations were not supposed to be possessed of infinite wisdom, and they were not always entrusted by the Legislature with the right of scattering broadcast the money contributed by the ratepayers. If they were now to introduce a new system, where was it to end? What was to become of the Borough Funds Act which now stood between the public and Corporate bodies in order to prevent excessive demands from being made upon the rates in aid of extraordinary projects which might be promoted by particular individuals? He trusted that the House would not permit this Instruction to be passed, but that it would firmly set its foot down upon every proposal of such a character.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he would not occupy the attention of the House for more than two or three minutes; but he wished to state what the question really was. It was a question of establishing in a condition of efficiency a University College in South Wales. As far as local feeling was concerned, the whole of Wales was of one mind. All of the Welsh Members on both sides of the House were in favour not only of the College, but of the present Bill, He had been surprised to hear the observation which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), although he had been quite prepared for the remarks which had fallen from the

    1759
    hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee whose decision was the subject of the present Motion, because he remembered very distinctly that that hon. Gentleman had been from the first a most consistent opponent of the scheme for establishing Colleges in Wales.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked if the hon. and learned Member referred to him?
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that he did.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was bound to say that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member were entirely inaccurate.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his opposition to the scheme. His recollection went back to the year 1879, and to the debate which took place in that House in reference to the establishment of Colleges in Wales on that occasion. He mentioned that circumstance in justification of the observations he had made. He was glad, however, to hear that the hon. Gentleman was no longer an opponent of this College. The hon. Gentleman said that they were establishing a dangerous precedent. Now, it was a precedent that was very unlikely to occur frequently, because it was a very unusual thing for a College of this nature to be established at all, and he believed there was no danger that many other towns would be called upon to follow the precedent. Not only were the ratepayers of Cardiff in favour of the present Bill, but it was universally supported by the Welsh people—at all events, in that part of the Principality; and he trusted that the House would give the Committee another opportunity of considering the question.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYwished to say a word, because he thought that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) were altogether beside the question. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) was in favour of the College, and if he were a landowner in the locality he would be very glad to subscribe to it; but the question was whether it was a proper object for a contribution from the rates. The expenditure of the rates of a town was regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act and the Borough Funds Act, or the Provision for Health of Towns Act; and it was clearly provided by
    1760
    those Acts what objects were to be furthered by the application of the rates of the inhabitants. The Committee to whom it was proposed to give this Instruction were specially appointed in order to prevent any clause being inserted in a Private Bill that would override the general law, unless there were some special reasons for doing so, and, in the event of such special reasons existing, that they should then report them to the House. He thought it was quite clear that the borough rates should not be applied to the endowment of Colleges. In the case of public baths, wash-houses, public libraries, and so forth, a general law had been passed enabling the expenditure to be paid out of the rates; but in regard to the endowment of Colleges no such general law had been passed, and the present proposal amounted to an infringement of the general law. The hon. and learned Member said it was very hard that the Corporation of Cardiff should not be allowed to do as they liked; but the Municipal Corporations Act was passed specially in order to prevent them from expending the money of the ratepayers as they liked. He had no doubt that the Corporation were unanimous as far as they could be, and probably a good many of the people of the town were consenting parties; but the population of Cardiff now amounted to 120,000, and he should like to know how many of the inhabitants were present at the meeting which sanctioned the present application? He was informed that the number present did not exceed 4,000, so that it was quite impossible to say that the meeting represented the feeling of the ratepayers of Cardiff. The House must bear in mind, before they consented to give this Instruction to the Committee, that the Committee itself had been appointed under a special Standing Order to guard jealously all expenditure out of the rates in aid of projects that were in excess of the general law. This was, practically, a test case; and if this precedent were now established, he was afraid they would find something of the same kind in every future Bill that might be introduced by a public Corporation. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had mentioned the precedent of the Nottingham Bill, and if the House consented to legislate exceptionally for particular

    1761
    localities, they would find increased demands made upon them year by year by different Corporations. Other towns, jealous of the privileges conceded to Cardiff, would endeavour to do something of the same kind for themselves. He, therefore, thought this was a matter which ought to be carefully and jealously watched by the House; and he trusted the present Instruction would not be adopted. Of course, if the House said that it ought to be adopted, the Committee would do it; but, without a special Instruction from the House, the Committee had no power to do it.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was unable to accept the statement of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down—that the general law, as at present framed, prevented the application of the money of the ratepayers in this matter. He could only say that the Conservative Corporation of Liverpool had recently given more than double the amount the Corporation proposed to give for purposes that were somewhat similar. No objection had been raised to their action, and he did not see why what the Corporation of Liverpool did the Corporation of Cardiff should not be able to do. He was quite sure that both the Corporation of Liverpool and the Corporation of Cardiff were doing a good stroke of business for the ratepayers.
    MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERsaid, that he was a Member of the Committee, and he desired to express an opinion upon the very important principle involved in the Motion. As a Member of the Committee, he was prepared cheerfully to carry out any order that might be given by the House; but, as far as his own private opinion went, he felt that it would be a mistake to pass this Instruction, and for this reason—that it would raise the whole question of local taxation. Although the ratepayers were ready to provide elementary education, and they were bound to do so, they nevertheless very much objected—and he thought justly objected—to be called upon to provide higher education. There was another point which deserved mention. Anyone who looked into the question would be astonished to see the extraordinary amount of indebtedness of the Local Authorities which had grown up within the last generation. Nowadays the towns were vieing with each
    1762
    other in the grandeur of their new streets, in the magnificence of their Town Halls and their school boards, public buildings, and other improvements. It was now proposed that the ratepayers should provide funds for establishing Universities. He thought it was necessary to impose some limit upon this kind of expenditure; and, although the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that the town of Cardiff had decided upon spending this money, he would ask what was the use of coming to Parliament for any money at all if such questions were to be decided locally? Another point was that hereafter the ratepayers might be called upon—he did not say more in regard to Cardiff than any other place—to provide for religious education, which would certainly give rise to a considerable amount of bickering and difficulty.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had not been aware when he come down to the House that this question was about to be brought before it, and until he heard himself appealed to by his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) he had not intended to take part in the debate. What he knew of the matter was that when Lord Carlingford, Lord Blackburn, and himself were appointed arbitrators to decide whether the site for the new College should he fixed in Cardiff or Swansea, both of those towns offered a site worth £10,000, and the decision of the arbitrators was in favour of Cardiff. Ultimately, the South Wales University College was established on the site of the old Infirmary, which was preferred to the site offered by the Corporation of Cardiff; and then the Corporation, in order to keep their engagement with South Wales, Swansea, and the University College, came to the House of Commons and asked to be allowed to rate themselves to the extent of £10,000, the value of the site. Those he believed to be the facts of the case. At any rate, they were the facts which came before him. He might say further that no new precedent was proposed to be established. It was quite true that the Borough Funds Act was in existence; but the Borough Funds Act simply provided that expenditure of this kind should not be undertaken without the

    1763
    consent of the ratepayers. It did not matter whether the whole of the 120,000 inhabitants of the borough were present at the meeting, or only 4,000 or 400. One man alone could raise an objection; and, as a matter of fact, he believed that at the public meeting convened on this question some of the clauses of the Bill were modified, after which the Bill passed without further opposition. Liverpool had recently voted £20,000 for a University College, and the town of Nottingham came to the House of Commons in the last Parliament and obtained powers, in a very extensive Local Government Bill, for establishing a Free Library, an Art Museum, and a University College. Further than that, he believed that Birmingham was at that moment building an Art Gallery and furnishing it under its powers of rating.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Yes; with unlimited powers.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that several other towns were following a similar course and doing the same thing. The town of Cardiff was bound to enjoy very great advantages under this scheme. Already there were a large number of day students who came from a distance, and in addition there were about 700 night students, who were receiving some technical education under this scheme. These were no small advantages for a town like Cardiff, and it was a matter of the highest importance that these facilities should be afforded. If hon. Members would turn to the Report of the Commissioners on Technical Education they would see how strongly they recommended that Corporations should exercise their powers of rating for the encouragement of education of this kind. Already some of the chief towns in England were exercising the right of spending their own funds for educational purposes; and as the Corporation of Cardiff, supported by the population whom they represented, wished to expend their own funds for such purposes, he thought the House would do well not to stand in the way by overriding the desire of the locality.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for Education as well as the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone) had pointed out that
    1764
    Liverpool and other towns were already exercising their right to expend the funds of the ratepayers in this manner. If that were so, those hon. Members had given the strongest possible reason against the introduction of this clause into the Cardiff Bill. The real fact of the matter, however, was that the question came before the House because the Corporation of Cardiff know perfectly well that they had no power to expend this money without the assent of Parliament. The question submitted to the House appeared to him to be a most serious and important one—namely, whether the policy which had prevailed of late years as to what was to be done with rates raised by a compulsory process, as defined by Act of Parliament, was to be departed from when there happened to be a chance majority for the time being? The fact that a Museum and Free Libraries had been established in Nottingham did not affect the particular question now before the House, because in the case of Nottingham the expenditure was not incurred until after legislation had taken place in regard to it.
    MR. MUNDELLAwished to point out that all he had said was, that an Art Gallery Museum, a Free Library, and a University College had been established under the rating powers of the Corporation.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to speak much more generally. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had explained the matter, it did not appear to be the very best precedent to follow. Everyone who knew anything about the history of Municipal Corporations and the legislation which had been applied to them of late years, knew that one of the principal objections to the exercise of the powers of such Corporations was that from time to time they got money from the ratepayers and applied it to purposes that were beyond the objects for which local self-government had been conferred upon Corporate Bodies. It had, therefore, been thought right to impose certain restrictions upon the powers of Municipal Corporations, and Parliament had deliberately enacted restrictions. The question was, whether in a Corporation Bill, the principal object of which was to im-

    1765
    prove the supply of water, powers ought to be introduced to enable the Corporation of Cardiff to redeem a promise which it was admitted they had no right to make? The Corporation of Cardiff had no right whatever to promise a contribution of £10,000 out of the rates of the borough towards the establishment of a University College.
    An hon. MEMBER: What was promised was a site.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that was quite true; but when the site the Corporation offered to give was not selected, they promised a contribution in money of £10,000, and they had distinctly no right to make any promise of the kind. The College declined to move out of their present quarters in order to occupy the site selected by the Corporation, and therefore the Corporation asked Parliament to sanction their contribution of this sum of money. No doubt there were many people in Cardiff who would have lodging-houses to let, and who could easily raise an agitation upon a question of this nature; but the point was, whether Parliament should not interpose its authority in order to prevent the ratepayers from being offered up as a sacrifice in such interesting transactions as those which the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) and the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) had described? There had been a race between the two towns of Cardiff and Swansea, and now that Cardiff had won the ratepayers of Cardiff were called upon to bear the expense. He sincerely hoped that the House would refuse to pass the Instruction.
    MR. CARBUTTsaid, that as Monmouthshire had been referred to in the course of the debate, he rose for the purpose of cordially supporting the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed). He thought that the question was purely one for the ratepayers. He understood from hon. Member's opposite that all they desired was to protect the ratepayers. His own impression was that the ratepayers were fully competent to protect their own interests; and if hon. Members opposite would devote their time to the consideration of larger and more Imperial interests, it would be more for the advantage of the ratepayers
    1766
    generally. When the University College was fully established at Cardiff, it would necessarily attract a large number of people who would have to live in the town, and thus the town would be materially benefited. In addition, the sons and daughters of the poorer ratepayers would be able to obtain the educational advantages offered by the new College at a cheap rate, and others would be prevented from expending considerable sums of money in obtaining higher education elsewhere. Therefore he trusted that the House would support the proposal of the hon. Member for Cardiff. Something had been said to the effect that the Marquess of Bute would not have subscribed so large a sum if he had known that the Corporation of Cardiff intended to contribute anything towards the establishment of the new College. It was a well-known fact that the Corporation promised to give a site long before the Marquess of Bute sent in his subscription; therefore that argument fell to the ground. Reference had been made to the Borough Funds Act. That Act was passed in order to prevent Municipal Corporations from spending the money of the ratepayers improperly. In this instance, there was not a single ratepayer in Cardiff, with the exception, perhaps, of the Marquess of Bute, who was opposed to this contribution; and he thought the House might well allow the people of the town to be the best judges of what would be advantageous for themselves.
    SIR EDWABD J. REEDsaid, that in the course of the remarks of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) he (Sir Edward J. Reed) had made a correction, and he wished to say that he had made it in perfectly good faith. He had been assured that when the Committee presided over by the hon. Gentleman took action with regard to the clause contained in the Bill of the Corporation of Cardiff, it was quite understood that the matter should be left open for the consideration of the House itself, and that the Committee would be guided by the decision come to by the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 141: Majority 44.— (Div. List, No. 108.)

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) (LOWER THAMES VALLEY SEWERAGE SCHEME) BILL.
  (Mr. George Russell, Mr. Chamberlain.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) (LOWER THAMES VALLEY SEWERAGE SCHEME) BILL.

    [BILL 211.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; and he thought he was in Order in making that Motion now.
    MR. SPEAKER: The regular course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then for the hon. Member to bring forward his Motion.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he hoped that before the Bill was read a second time some explanation would be given on behalf of the Local Government Board of what was intended to be done with it. It was a Bill which provided for pouring an enormous quantity of sewage, amounting, he believed, to 10,000,000gallons daily, into the Thames at Kew; and after all the expense which had been incurred in endeavouring to keep the River clear and pure, he hoped the House would hear something about the Bill before they consented to read it a second time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEtrusted that the House would not take its opinion of the Bill from what the hon. Member had said. The object of the Bill was not to pour sewage into the Thames, but to prevent sewage being poured into the River. He, however, asked the House not to discuss the Bill at this stage, because an understanding had already been arrived at. It was intended to adopt the proposal which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff); and he hoped, upon that understanding, the House would consent to read the Bill a second time.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would only explain that the Motion which he now begged to move was in the shape of a compromise, which had been accepted by the Government, and which, he thought, would be satisfactory both to the promoters and to the oppo-
    1768
    nents of the Bill. His proposal was to refer the measure to a Select Committee in the nature of a Hybrid Committee, with power to hear the evidence of certain persons who would not otherwise have a locus standi. He thought he should best consult the convenience of the House by simply moving the Motion; but he ought to state that there had been one or two verbal alterations made in it since it had been placed on the Paper, and he begged to move it in its amended form.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee to consist of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three to be added by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, or Orders, which have been presented be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into and report upon the scheme of Sewerage in connection with which the lands are proposed to be taken under the Bill.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—SMALL ARMS—REGULATION SWORDS.
  MR. C. PHIPPSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that many of the swords lately supplied to the 15th Hussars were found, when tested by the regimental armourer sergeant, to be soft, notwithstanding the fact that they had been passed at Woolwich as fit for service; whether any of the swords that have been lately supplied to any other cavalry regiment have been found to be of a similar character; and, whether more effectual steps cannot be taken to render the issue of defective arms an impossibility?
  MR. BRAND (for The Marquess of HARTINGTON): The new swords issued to the 15th Hussars were, I understand, irregularly tested by an armourer sergeant, who subjected them to an undue pressure. There is every reason to believe that the quality of the material of which the present swords are made is excellent.

  INLAND REVENUE (SCOTLAND) — IN COME TAX—THE TARBERT FISHER MEN.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that among the 47 Tarbert Fishermen who have memorialized the Commissioners of Inland Revenue against the imposition of Income Tax, on the ground that, on their appeal to the local Commissioners of Income Tax, they were not allowed to know the evidence on which the assessment was based, and were consequently deprived of an opportunity of rebutting it, are Alexander Macfarlane, aged 17, and Donald M'Niel, aged 19, lads who had never been to a season's fishing, and who had only joined the crews last December; whether, out of a crew of eight fishermen, each receiving an equal share of the profits during each consecutive year, Robert Campbell, John M'Lachlan, and Alexander M'Lelland, have been assessed, and Duncan Campbell, John M'Farlane, Donald Leitch, John Johnstone, and Alexander Marcus exempted; and, whether, if such be the facts, he will direct further inquiry to be made into the matter?
  MR. COURTNEY: The information supplied to my hon. Friend differs in several particulars from the recorded facts. The Alexander Macfarlane who appears to be referred to was relieved on appeal. Donald M'Niel described himself as having been a fisherman for a year. Seven of the eight men referred to in the second part of the Question belonged to three different crews, and the eighth, Donald Leitch, is not known. Of these seven, five were duly assessed. Duncan Campbell was relieved on account of separate losses; and further inquiry will be made as to Marcus, whose name was not returned for assessment, as it should have been. I have already explained that there is no power to interfere with the decisions.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT — TELEGRAMS IN DUBLIN, WITHIN TWELVE MILES RADIUS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, If he could state approximately the number and value of telegrams annually despatched from Postal Telegraph offices, within a radius of twelve
  1770
  miles from the central office in Dublin, to addresses within the same radius?
  MR. FAWCETT: I have ascertained that the number of telegrams despatched in the district referred to by the hon. Member in a twelve month is about 27,100, and that the amount received for these telegrams is about £1,390.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE TREATY OF TIEN-TSIN.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the article in The National with regard to the recent Treaty of Tien-Tsin, in which it is stated that the French
  "Do not plume themselves on an exaggerated Liberalism in tariff matters; and, though, they will not shut out Foreign trade from their new markets, yet they will make it pay its share of the expenses of the conquest and occupation;"
  whether the freedom of commerce in the provinces of Southern China will, in future, be hampered by prohibitive duties, and henceforth dependent on the goodwill of France; whether China has infringed the letter of her engagements with other Powers by her concession of exclusive rights to France; and, whether he will take any steps, and, if so, what, to prevent the destruction of British interests?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I returned to a similar Question asked by my hon. Friend a few days ago—namely, that the Commercial Treaty between France and China has not yet been negotiated, and that meanwhile the subjects adverted to by my hon. Friend are receiving the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  In reply to a further Question,
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, as he had already informed the House, the Commercial Treaty would not be signed until three months after the signature of the Political Treaty.

  EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND) — NOTICES BY POST.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that a man named Archibald Steele recently obtained from the Post Office at Lochboisdale, South Uist, two registered letters containing summonses of eviction, addressed to two crofters who were not

  1771
  anxious to receive them, and delivered them at the houses to which they were addressed; whether Steele had any authority to possess himself of letters technically the property of the Postmaster General; if he had authority, why the Post Office interfered in the matter; and, whether he will take steps to prevent unauthorized persons possessing themselves of registered letters not addressed to them?
  MR. FAWCETT: It is the case, as supposed by my hon. Friend, that two registered letters were inadvertently delivered by the Postmaster at Lochboisdale. He has been cautioned, and steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of the irregularity.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ARREST OF MISS KELLY, OF BALLICUDIHY, CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. MARUM)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged improper conduct of certain bailiffs, furnished with a police escort for their protection, in effecting the arrest of Miss Kelly, of Ballicudihy, in the county of Kilkenny; that whereas, upon the death of her father Michael Kelly, intestate, and possessed of 500 acres of landed property, and other assets, Miss Kelly remained in occupation of the premises, and entitled thereto, share and share alike with her two married sisters; that an attachment order having issued in an administration suit, for the arrest of Miss Kelly, two sheriffs' bailiffs demanded admission at her aforesaid residence at Ballicudihy, on Friday the 9th instant, at the hour of four o'clock a.m.; that Miss Kelly, having got out of bed, only partially dressed, to answer the summons at the door, thereupon was immediately seized upon by the bailiffs, dragged across rough pavements, injuring her bare feet, and forced upon an open outside car in a semi-nude condition, to which she was strapped down by a strong cord round her waist, and her hands tied with cords, with such violence that the police escort remonstrated with the bailiffs to have the cords relaxed; that, without permitting this lady to dress herself, or procuring a closed vehicle to convey her, the bailiffs, accompanied by the police escort, drove her, in this condition, a distance of ten miles, through the streets
  1772
  of Kilkenny city, to the railway terminus there, whence she was conveyed by rail, in a third class compartment, with the bailiffs, to the gaol of Waterford, in the adjacent county, being a further distance of some thirty miles; whether a report of this action has been furnished to the constabulary authorities; and, if so, whether he will state its substance, and the course he intends to take thereon; and, whether the Prison Board will be requested to reopen the gaol for female prisoners in Kilkenny city, and avoid sending them some thirty miles to the adjacent county gaol of Waterford?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that Miss Kelly is defendant in an administration suit in which, for disobeying an order of the Court of Chancery, a writ of attachment was issued for her arrest. Two attempts were made to execute the writ. The sheriff was obliged to abandon the first, owing to Miss Kelly's violent resistance. On the second occasion, which is probably that referred to in the Question, the bailiffs went early to the defendant's house; but they made no attempt to enter, until a servant opened the door at half-past 6, and they waited until Miss Kelly came down stairs at half-past 7 before they arrested her. She was not in the condition described in the Question, but had her boots on, and was fully dressed. She again resisted violently, and the bailiffs found it necessary to tie her to the car upon which they took her to Kilkenny, a distance of four miles. It is not the case that they tied her hands. At Kilkenny a covered vehicle was obtained, in which she was driven through the city to the railway station, and taken thence by rail to Waterford. This is the account which is given by the police, and from it it appears that the bailiffs were only doing their duty in arresting Miss Kelly, and that any additional annoyance she was subjected to was entirely owing to her own violent behaviour. This case affords no reason why Kilkenny Prison should be re-opened for female prisoners. Waterford, where the prisoners are now taken to, is only one hour and a quarter distant by rail.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVER- PRESSURE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS —DR. C. BROWNE'S REPORTS.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on

  1773
  Education, Whether he will be able to lay before the House the Reports of Dr. Crichton Browne and others on Overpressure in Elementary Schools, in extenso, before moving the Education Votes in Committee of Supply?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Reports on Over-pressure have not yet all come to hand, and the Bradford Report has only just been received, so that I shall not be able to lay any summary of them before the House before the Education Estimates are moved, as I believe they will be, next Monday. During the Recess I have had an opportunity of reading the voluminous and highly controversial letter of Dr. Crichton Browne, and I certainly could not make myself responsible for its publication in extenso.
  MR. RAIKESasked whether, in consequence of the statements made by Dr. Browne and others, the right hon. Gentleman did not think that the system of education was being unduly pressed?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see the Reports.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether any modification would be made in the New Code in consequence of Dr. Browne's Report?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly not, Sir.

  THE CIVIL LIST—THE ROYAL PALACES.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Agreement entered into with the Crown at the time when Her Majesty came to the Throne, under which the Government undertook to maintain and keep certain Royal Palaces in repair?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, if the hon. Member would move for this he would have the copy of the Agreement laid upon the Table.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSIAN GENE RAL STAFF MAP.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will place in the Library of the House a Copy of the Russian General Staff Map of March 1884?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There will be no objection to place a copy of this map in the Library.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—PRO MOTIONS.
  MR. ACLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. Maclean, principal clerk in the Customs at Leith, has been appointed collector at Sunderland, over the heads of almost the whole of the collectors in the service; whether he is aware that this setting aside of the claims of these officers to promotion in this instance, and in the case of the recent appointment of Mr. Walpole, late assistant secretary of the Customs, to the collectorship of Dublin, and that of Mr. Smith, a clerk in the London Custom House, to the collectorship of Hull, has excited a feeling of discontent and distrust among the staff; whether several of the junior collectors have been degraded to the position of superintendent and placed under district collectors, in consequence of the reduction and grouping of some of the out-ports; and, whether the Board of Customs has accepted the responsibility of these changes?
  MR. COURTNEY: These appointments were made by the Board of Customs in the interests of the Public Service, and the Treasury does not interfere in them. The Board are not aware of any feeling of discontent among the collectors. None of them have suffered pecuniary loss owing to the changes in the Customs organization; but in some cases, where there is no revenue to collect, they have been styled superintendents instead of collectors.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ADMINISTRA TION OF THE BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. ROEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any steps have been taken to remedy the grievances complained of in the Memorial presented to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 12th of December 1883, with reference to the administration of the Government of the British Colonies on the West Coast of Africa?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY): The local Government is being consulted; and Correspondence on the subject will be included among a batch of Papers on the subject of the Gold Coast which will be laid before Parliament at once.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, MOUNTMELLICK UNION —CLAIM TO VOTE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, before the late election of a guardian in the Kilcomban Electoral Division of the Mountmellick Union, Mr. Mathew S. Cassan, a justice of the peace for the Queen's County, lodged a claim to vote out of property in the said Electoral Division; and, whether after the election, when the matter was investigated by the returning officer of the Union, attested copies of documents on the files of the Court of Lunacy were produced wherein the said Mathew S. Cassan declared that he had no right, title, or interest in the said property?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Returning Officer reports that Mr. Cassan claimed to vote as owner and occupier of certain property. At the scrutiny of votes an objection was lodged as to Mr. Cassan's right to vote as owner; and in the course of the discussion some document connected with a lunacy matter in the Court of Chancery—the precise nature of which I am not informed of—was produced. The person who produced it did not leave it with the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer was not satisfied as to Mr. Cassan's right to vote as owner, and decided the legal point raised in this respect against him, but allowed him six votes as occupier.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY — AL LEGED ILL-CONDUCT OF SERGEANT M'GRATH AT OOOLRAIN, QUEEN'S CO.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiries to be made into the conduct of Sergeant M'Grath at Coolrain, Mountrath, Queen's County, and especially with regard to alleged misconduct towards Mr. John Prescott, licensed publican of that place, in returning to his house after it had been closed at the legal hour, frequently knocking and a waking the family during the night unnecessarily entering the house, and forcing his way, in spite of protestations, into the sleeping apartments of the female members of the household?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that, owing to well-grounded suspicions that breaches of the Licensing Arts were taking place, Sergeant M'Grath was directed to keep a special watch on the licensed premises mentioned, and that in the execution of this duty he has occasionally gone to the house after closing hours; but he never went later than half-past 10 o'clock, and never acted in the improper manner described in the Question.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION REPORT.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to send the Report on Technical Education to the Free Libraries and Public Libraries throughout the Kingdom?
  MR. COURTNEY: The suggestion of my right hon. Friend is new to me. Three hundred copies of the Report have been placed at the disposal of the Royal Commission for distribution, besides 200 each of the Reports by Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Mather. I should think this number would be sufficient to meet all the cases in which free gifts would be proper. I may add that copies can be bought at a small price, and a general distribution seems uncalled for and inexpedient.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX SUR CHARGES.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to complaints from various towns of the Income Tax Surveyors having surcharged residents who, on previous occasions, had proved by appeal the accuracy of their returns; and, whether he will discourage such exercise of authority?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have heard nothing of any such complaints; and they are not known at the Inland Revenue Board; but if any be made they will be duly considered, so far as the law allows any appeal from the decisions of the unofficial local Commissioners.

  ARMY-DRAINAGE OF THE NAAS BARRACKS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of frequent remonstrance,

  1777
  the barracks at Naas are still drained into a stream used for drinking purposes; and, whether he will give immediate orders for the abatement of the nuisance?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am informed that it is not correct to say that the barracks at Naas are drained into a stream used for drinking purposes; but there is no doubt whatever that the sewerage of the town of Naas is in an unsatisfactory state, and the War Office are quite prepared to aid the town in carrying out an improved system of sewerage works.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, in the meantime, steps would be taken to abate this nuisance?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid he could not speak on that matter. He was informed that the Local Sanitary Authority were aware that the War Office were prepared to give assistance to any satisfactory scheme for the improvement of the sewerage of the town and barracks.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)— INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that there is only one industrial school for boys in the province of Connaught; whether any representation has been lately made to him on the subject; and, whether the Irish Government will afford the same facility and aid towards the establishment and maintenance of industrial schools in Connaught as are now afforded elsewhere in. Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is at present only one industrial school for boys in Connaught. There were formerly two others, which were closed in consequence of mismanagement. An application for a certificate for a boy's school at Letterfrack, in the county of Galway, is at present before the Government. It is desirable to remember that industrial schools are not merely local institutions, but are open for the admission of children from any part of Ireland, and that, therefore, children from Connaught may be received into schools in other parts of the country. At the present time the Government feel great difficulty as to granting certificates for new schools anywhere. The proportion of payments to industrial schools in
  1778
  Ireland, as compared to those in England, is nearly three to one as compared with the population.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSIAN GENE RAL STAFF MAP—THE AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that the Russian Government has published a new General Staff Map, which places the new frontier of Russia within fifty miles of Herat, and includes within that frontier territory hitherto always recognized as Afghan; whether any practical steps have been taken for the delimitation of the Afghan frontier; and, when he proposes to lay upon the Table any of the Correspondence with Russia upon this subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have seen the map to which the hon. Member refers. I beg that I may not be understood as in any way admitting the accuracy of this map if I add that his description of it is not quite correct. It is true that it traces the Afghan boundary line at about the distance from Herat which he mentions; but a large extent of territory to the north of that line is loft uncoloured, and is not included within the Russian boundary. As I stated on the 26th of May, in answer to the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks), communications are proceeding with the Russian Government as to the delimitation of the frontier of Afghanistan; but I am not able at present to give any details, or to make any promise as to laying Papers upon the Table.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask if, in regard to this proposed delimitation, the Ameer of Afghanistan is represented, or only England and Russia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said communications wore proceeding, and I cannot at present enter into details.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: In regard to the answer of the noble Lord, may I ask him whether any portion of the territory recently occupied by Russia—namely, Merv and Old Sarakhs, is coloured on the Russian Staff Map as belonging to Russia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think that is a Question which can be said to quite arise out of my answer.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: If the noble Lord is unable to answer the Question now, I will repent it, with Notice.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Sarakhs and the adjoining line of frontier has been occupied by Russia in accordance with any Treaty with Persia; and, if so, when Her Majesty's Government first became aware of the existence of such a Treaty?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If by Sarakhs is meant the place on the Western bank of the Heri Rud, it has not been occupied by Russia; and we are not aware of the existence of any Treaty by which Russia is authorized to occupy it. As I stated on the 26th of May, a report has reached us that the Russian Commander-in-Chief was about to take possession of lands on the right bank of the Heri Rud at Old Sarakhs, and to make them over to the Turcomans.
  MR. BOURKE: Is there any Treaty with Persia with regard to the latter Sarakhs mentioned by the noble Lord?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Foreign Office have no information.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— MILITIA RECRUITING.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether certain Militia Battalions in the Home District are still allowed to recruit upon the old system of paying 10 s. to recruits upon enlistment, while Officers commanding other Militia Battalions are not allowed to act upon the same system; if so, what is the reason for the absence of uniformity; and, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take steps to place all Commanding Officers of Militia on the same footing in this respect?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Under present Regulations no bounty may be paid from public funds on enlistment of Militiamen, and since the issue of this Regulation payment of such bounty has not been allowed in any case. I understand, however, that a practice exists in one regiment, at all events, of making an advance for enlistment from the pay of recruits, which is subsequently recovered; but this practice is not authorized by Regulations, and the question is now under consideration.

  THE UNITED KINGDOM — DEFENCES OF THE MERCANTILE PORTS— THE CLYDE.
  MR. J. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to erect defences at the entrance to the Firth of Clyde, and so to give security to the large amount of shipping and other property which, in its present defenceless condition, would, in the event of war, invite attack?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Report of the Committee on the Defences of the Mercantile Ports of the United Kingdom, which was presided over by Lord Morley, was referred for detailed consideration by the Departments concerned. I believe these detailed Reports are now practically completed. They have not, however, yet been submitted to me; and until they have been so submitted, I am not prepared to state what action is proposed to be taken by the Government in consequence of the Report of the Committee.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — THE PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT OF TERMONFECKEN, CO. LOUTH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, at the time of the appointment of the last Protestant magistrate in the Petty Sessions district of Termonfecken, County Louth, there resided in the district a Roman Catholic who owned considerable fee simple property there, and whose valuation was more than twice that of the gentleman so appointed; and, whether he would consider such Roman Catholic a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the Commission of the Peace for a district almost exclusively Catholic, and with a local magistracy entirely Protestant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The gentleman referred to as last appointed was appointed so far back as 1881, and has proved a most excellent magistrate. Appointments to the Magisterial Bench cannot depend on a contrast between two gentlemen as to the respective amounts of property they may possess. The fitness of any particular person for the Commission of the Peace is for the Lieutenant of the County and the Lord Chancellor to consider.

  RAILWAYS (METROPOLIS) — METRO POLITAN URBAN DISTRICTS FOR RAILWAYS—THE MAP.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the map defining the Metropolitan urban districts for Railways, as settled by the Board of Trade, has yet been issued to the various Railway Companies; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of such map upon the Table of the House; and, whether such "urban districts" have been certified as being—
  "Within areas which have continuous urban, as distinguished from a rural or suburban, character, and contains a population of not less than 100,000 inhabitants?"
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There will be no objection to lay the map referred to upon the Table of the House, and it will be accompanied by a certificate that will show that the district has been defined in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—RETURNS OF LANDS HELD BY UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVANTS, &c.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Returns of lands held by Madras Uncovenanted and Military Officers in Civil employment, referred to in the Letter of the Government of Madras to the Secretary of Slate, dated,30th January 1884, and promised on several occasions during last Session?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Returns referred to have not been received in the India Office. On the 9th of April, last year, I informed the hon. Member that the Government of India would be requested to furnish a Report on the whole question of the concessions granted in Mysore. This Report has now been presented, and will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

  INDIA (MADRAS) — BREACH OF INDIA OFFICE REGULATIONS, 1879.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India has received a complaint from P. Rungiah Naidoo, a Vakeel of the High Court, and Municipal Commissioner, Madras, to the effect that, in contravention of the India Office Regulations of 1879, the Govern-
  1782
  ment of Madras on 30th April gazetted Mr. Tarrant and another European to certain appointments; and, whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned these appointments?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The communication referred to has been sent direct to the India Office, and has been returned to the writer for submission through the Government of Madras in accordance with fixed Rules. A letter from the Madras Government relating to these appointments has also been received, and is at present under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

  IRELAND—THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Kennedy, the temporary Collector General in Dublin, has recommended Mr. Burke for a special addition of £60 per annum to his salary; whether Mr. Burke is a second class clerk, and if such an addition of salary would not give him a higher rate of remuneration than the first class clerk immediately above him; whether, if Mr. Burke were to retire, this addition would increase the retiring allowance payable to him out of the rates; and, whether, finally, such recommendations for increase of salary are not outside the functions of an officer employed temporarily like Mr. Kennedy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated, except in the last paragraph of the Question. It is the duty of the head of the Collector General's Office, whether permanent or temporary, to make such recommendations as he considers desirable for the proper conduct of the business; and Mr. Kennedy's recommendation will, therefore, be duly considered by the Government.
  MR. GRAYasked whether the Government still adhered to their intention of bringing in a Bill to deal with the collection of rates in Dublin; and was the appointment of Mr. Kennedy still a merely temporary one?
  MR. TREVELYANanswered both Questions in the affirmative.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— CHARGE AGAINST SERGEANT GALLAGHER.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1783
  of Ireland, Whether District Inspector Saville, of Ballymahon, county Longford, who was a member of the court of inquiry lately held in the case of Sergeant Gallagher of the police force, and who took a favourable view of Gallagher's conduct, has been since removed from the county; whether Police Constables Shanaghan and Spillane, who were witnesses for Gallagher in the same inquiry, have also been removed; and, whether he can give the reason for the removal of these men from the county where they had served for a long time?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already stated that the Court which heard the case against Sergeant Gallagher considered the charge against him fully proved. District Inspector Saville was a member of that Court, and the Inspector General has no reason to suppose that he held any other view of the case than that expressed in the finding which he signed. Mr. Saville has, on his own application, made long before and with no reference to this case, been transferred to another county. The constables who were witnesses have not been removed from the county. They have been transferred to another station within the county to meet the requirements of the service. The fact of their having been witnesses at the Court referred to had nothing whatever to do with their transfer.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— GRATUITY TO THE FORCES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention to lay a Supplementary Estimate upon the Table, to enable the Crown to pay a gratuity to its Forces employed in the late battles in the Eastern Soudan; and, if so, on what day it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There are certain charges on account of special expenditure in the Soudan which have come in course of payment during the current year, as well as the proposed expenditure for gratuity and medals. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented when it has been ascertained that the Votes for the year 1884–5 are insufficient to meet these extra charges. This cannot be determined yet.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I beg to give Notice that when the House goes into Committee on that Supplementary Estimate
  1784
  I shall move the Vote of Thanks to the men engaged of which I have given Notice.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE LONDON GOVERN MENT BILL.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the London Government Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In answer to this Question, I have to state that it is proposed to go on with this Bill on the earliest day possible; but we cannot interrupt the progress of the Representation of the People Bill.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN) — THE GARRISON AT SUAKIN.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the strength and components of the garrison at Suakin; and, whether it is true, as reported, that reinforcements of Marines have been despatched to that town?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As the defence of Suakin is at present intrusted to the Royal Marines, and to the Egyptian troops, this Question should more properly have been addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am informed, however, that it is not considered desirable that the exact strength of the garrison should be stated; but there is a considerable force of Marines there and a battalion of the Egyptian Army. A reinforcement of 500 Marines is on its way, and it is also stated—I am not aware of the particulars—that another Egyptian battalion is about to be added to the strength of the garrison.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND, &c. (PERMA NENT CHARGES REDEMPTION ACTS, 1873 AND 18S3)—COMMUTATION OF THE MARLBOROUGH AND PENN PENSIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it be not the fact that the terms on which the two £4,000 pensions have been commuted would still cost the taxpayer £6,420 per annum of interest, leaving the debt of £214,000 to the Savings Banks still unpaid; and that, if the

  1785
  £1,580 saved every year were put into a sinking fund, it would take about 55 years to pay the debt; whether the transaction is not thus, to the taxpayer, equivalent to giving the pensions an assured continuance of other 55 years; whether, in order to end the payment sooner, and to recoup the Post Office Savings Banks the £214,000 taken from them, and the interest on it, he is to create ten year terminable annuities; and, whether it will not require for those ten years an annual payment of about £25,000, in place of the £8,000 now paid?
  MR. COURTNEY: My hon. Friend's arithmetic appears to be correct; and he is also right in supposing that it is intended to create 10 year annuities for this purpose.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What was the purport and effect of the Despatch sent by the Government to General Gordon on May 21st; when will it be laid upon the Table of the House; is there any, and, if so, what reason to believe that General Gordon has yet received it; and, was there any Despatch sent to General Gordon between April 23rd and May 21st; and, if so, what was its date?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The despatch in question gave General Gordon full permission to adopt at the first proper moment measures for his own withdrawal, and for that of the Egyptians who have served him, by whatever route he may prefer. He is also allowed to make free use of money rewards. The receipt of the reply from General Gordon will probably be the first Her Majesty's Government will hear of the receipt of their message by General Gordon. No other despatch was sent to General Gordon between the dates mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It will be laid before Parliament at once.
  MR. GIBSON: How soon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ORDER BOOK.
  MR. HICKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has
  1786
  been drawn to the fact that, on Monday May 19th, there were thirty-six Orders on the Paper, of which twenty-six were Government Orders; and, on Thursday, May 22nd, twenty-eight Orders, of which twenty-one were Government Orders; and, whether he will, with a view to the convenience of the House, and to the reduction in the cost of printing, consider the propriety of limiting the Government Orders (involving, as they frequently do, a great number of amendments) to such measures as they really purpose, and have reasonable expectation of being able, to bring forward?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rather presume that the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers to our having before the House a larger number of Bills than we can expect to pass. I am not quite sure whether that is the intention of the Question. If it is so, no doubt, at a certain period of the Session, it is the practice for the Government to consider its position, and endeavour to relieve the Order Book of such measures as it thinks it has no reasonable hope of passing. Beyond that I cannot go at the present time, because that period of the Session has not arrived; and I do not think, until we have made considerable further progress with the Representation of the People Bill, that we should be in a position to say anything on the subject. The hon. Member also referred to the practice of adjourning Orders for only a short time. That is a question of considerable difficulty; because it does sometimes, though very rarely, happen that the House, which usually labours under a plethora of Business, finds itself, owing to the sudden disappearance of the principal subject of the night, with a famine of Business, and the House naturally resents a contingency of that kind very much. I recognize the excellent intention of the Question of the hon. Member, and I quite think it is not right to place on the Order Book for any given night a number of measures which there is no hope of proceeding with.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE —THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now communicate to the House any information with respect to the recent negotia-

  1787
  tions with France on the subject of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I am able to state that great progress has been made in the communications with France, of which I have on previous occasions spoken to the House. They have, in fact, readied a point which is such as to allow us to hope that, before many days are over, we may be enabled to proceed to that second step in the process I described to the House—that is to say. to the step of consulting the Powers; and though I cannot frame any precise and positive estimate of the number of days that may be necessary for that purpose, I think, on the whole, it is reasonable to hope that in the course of next week we may be in a condition to make the promised statement to Parliament; and of course that statement will be made before the first meeting of the Conference. In the meantime, Sir, I would respectfully counsel hon. Members, and gentlemen elsewhere, to be on their guard against erroneous and misleading statements, sometimes made with considerable confidence, as to the nature of the arrangement which is in contemplation. But I can make one material addition to what I have said, which is, in truth, simply to give more point to something which I have formerly conveyed to the House in more general terms. I can now undertake to assure the House that it will have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the arrangement itself, of which I spoke, before anything is finally concluded, so as to bind the country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Are we to understand that the communications now taking place with France will be communicated to the Foreign Powers, and discussed with them before any communication is made to the House on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I stated on a former occasion was that the Powers will be consulted on the subject; and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that I have not asked for any unreasonable limits of time in giving the opinion—not an absolute opinion, but an opinion founded upon a reasonable estimate of the necessities of the case—that in the course of next week our consultations with the other Powers
  1788
  will be in such a state as to enable us to make the statement to Parliament.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The point is this. The consultation with the Powers may lead to much correspondence, and that would take up time. If it is to be understood that the correspondence is to be concluded before this House is to be put in possession of what is going on we may be kept waiting for a very long time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that in respect of time it is not in the contemplation of the Government to enter into communications with the other Powers of the same nature and in the same detail as with France. I should not have been so imprudent, had this been the case, as to say that we had a reasonable expectation that in the course of next week we may be able to make the statement.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Papers to be presented to Parliament will be presented at the same time as the promised statement is made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  EGYPT—NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: With respect to the negotiations with the Government of Turkey, will the right hon. Gentleman give a similar pledge to the House as he has given with respect to the negotiations with France — namely, that no Turkish troops shall be despatched to the Soudan before the terms of the negotiations with that Power are laid before Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able really to say that there are negotiations with the Porte on this subject; but if the noble Lord likes to place the exact terms of his Question upon the Paper, I will take care to give him an answer.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—INTER NATIONAL CONTROL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to place the finances of Egypt under International control, and to specifically limit the term of the British occupation of Egypt; and, whether the Conference is to meet upon this basis?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I really think, Sir, that after what I have said the hon. Gentleman may consider that I am fairly and reasonably dispensed from making any specific answer to his Question.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—THE NEWRY PROCESSION.
  LORD ARTHUR HILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Times of this day of the proceedings at Newry yesterday to this effect:—
  "Several innocent persons returning from places of worship were struck and kicked by the constabulary, who appear to have become excited, and in some instances to have acted indiscriminately. Two of them were reported to their officers and placed under arrest."
  Further, I wish to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman will cause instant inquiry to be made into the alleged unnecessary violence on the part of the police?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question he should like to ask him whether the Correspondent of The Times in Dublin, who had furnished the report in question, was Dr. Patton, the well-known, editor of the Orange organ, The Daily Express?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; he is. In answer to the noble Lord, I beg to state that I took very good care to be provided with a Report of the proceedings from the County Inspector as full as could be given by telegraph. I will read that Report to the noble Lord, because probably it will throw some light upon the Question to which he desires an answer. The first portion of the report I will not read, as it contains nothing of public interest. [Cries of "Read."] Nothing of particular interest. [Cries of "Why?" from the Opposition.] Very well, I will read the whole of the Report—
  "I have to report that about the hour of 2 o'clock P.M. this day a large procession from the neighbourhood of Hilltown and Mayo Bridge, county Down, with bands and banners, passed through the principal streets of the town as far as William Street, which is at the extreme end of the town, where they were joined by another procession which had formed on the Mall. The entire body, numbering about 8,000, having seven bands and 16 banners, turned up Castle
  1790
  Street, and again marched through the principal streets and went to the place of meeting, about one mile from the town. The banners bore the inscriptions 'God save Ireland,' 'For God and your country,' 'The Land for the People,' &c. The meeting lasted until about 5 P.M., and was addressed by Messrs. T. D. Sullivan, J. P. Small, M.P., John Dudley (Belfast). O'Brien, M.P., John Ferguson (Glasgow), Iver M'Guiness (Pontypass), Father O'Neill (Rostrevor), and Father Quin (Camlough). The meeting lasted two hours and a quarter. It terminated at 5.15 P.M., when the procession returned to town, reaching it about a quarter to 6, and shortly after it passed the Orange Hall some stones were thrown at it by some members of the opposite party, who were dispersed by the police. The contingents from Camlough and Newry, who had escorted the Mayo Bridge party some short distance outside the town, were attacked with stones when returning. I was in rear of the procession at the time, and had the parties dispersed by the police. Mr. Wray, County Inspector, was more in front. On the procession approaching the Orange Hall several shots were fired out of the windows and doors. This exasperated the Nationalist Party, who retaliated by throwing stones at the windows, breaking 10 panes of glass. More shots were then fired from the windows of the Protestant Hall, and one of the bullets, which passed through a shutter of a window on the opposite side of the street, has been found. Mr. Wray, County Inspector, ordered District Inspector Green and party to force their way into the Orange Hall, and all the persons therein, 67 in number, were placed under arrest. Five revolvers were found in the room and one outside, under the window. Some presented the appearance of having been recently discharged, and some of the chambers of them were still loaded. Two of the prisoners—namely, Charles Kernaghan, publican, Newry, and George Morrison, keeper of the Orange Hall—have been fully identified by the police as having fired shots from the window and door, and Kernaghan had a number of revolver cartridges in his possession. A third man, William Orr, clerk. Newry, was observed throwing a revolver out of the window by District Inspector Green, and he has been discharged, on a guarantee given by his solicitor to appear to-morrow. Kernaghan and Morrison have been committed to gaol until Wednesday next. All the other prisoners have been discharged, to be summoned if necessary. When the procession, was returning towards the Orange Hall down Sandy Street some stones were thrown at it over the tops of houses. As far as I can ascertain no person has been injured. I consider the prompt lotion taken by County Inspector Wray and District Inspector Green deserving of the greatest praise, as the course they pursued will be the means of bringing some of the guilty parties to justice. The magisterial inquiry did not terminate until 12 o'clock midnight. H. G. Gary, County Inspector."
  MR. GIBSON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if the authorities took any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent the procession, either in going or

  1791
  returning, from marching in close and direct proximity to the Orange Hall?
  LORD ARTHUR HILL: I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he has not answered a single point in my Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have told the noble Lord that I sent for a Report, and that that Report states that certain people had thrown stones at the procession, and had been dispersed, but that no one had been injured. That is as much information as I have hitherto been able to obtain on the subject. If the noble Lord wishes I should specially refer the report in The Times to the authorities, I am perfectly willing to do so.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to print and to lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has recently taken place between the Lord Lieutenant and the noble Lord (Lord Arthur Hill) as a Parliamentary Paper?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If it is thought by the House desirable that I should do so I have no objection to do it.
  MR. GIBSON: I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have not yet got an answer to the very plain Question which I have asked. Everyone know where the Orange Hall was. Were any, and, if so, what, steps taken by the Executive or local authorities to prevent the procession either going to or coining from Newry from marching in direct proximity to the Orange Hall?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that any steps were taken to prevent the procession from marching in proximity to the Orange Hall. The Orange Hall is in the main street of the town; and I think it is a very strong thing to say that because the Orange Hall stands in the main street of the town, and has within it men armed with revolvers and prepared to break the law, that any procession permitted by the law should be ordered not to pass that way.

  EGYPT—ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT—MISSION TO THE KING OF ABYSSINIA.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government is in a position to give any further information with regard to Sir William Hewett; whether he is still at the capital of Abyssinia,
  1792
  or on the way back to the coast; and, whether the negotiations have had any result?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I made a very full statement on this question on Friday, and no new subsequent intelligence has been received at the Foreign Office.
  Subsequently,
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid: I have been informed by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that he has just received further intelligence at the Admiralty of a favourable kind.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — PURCHASE OF LAND (IRE LAND) BILL.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is a Question, which, perhaps, the Prime Minister will answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the position in which we stand in regard to the Representation of the People Bill I am not able, at the present moment, to make any engagement in reference to any other Bill. When we have closed the Committee upon that Bill and see our way to its further stages, then I hope to be able to make a further statement with regard to the other Business of the House.

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]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th May.] [SIXTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Prohibition of Multiplication of Votes.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, in page 2, to omit the 1st subsection, which provides that subject to the saving for existing voters—
    "A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any

    1793
    rent-charge except the owner of the whole of the tithe rent-charge of a rectory or vicarage."
    He wished to ask for some reason why the owners of rent charges were to be disfranchised? It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in one of the speeches he had made on the Bill that property qualifications were to be retained; and a few days ago the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, speaking at Bury, confirmed that view of the Prime Minister, and stated that for the present, at least, the property qualification should remain. That being so, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wished to know why the owners of rent-charges were to be disfranchised? This really was a point of very great importance. He also wished to draw attention to the marginal note upon the clause, where what he must call the slang term of "fagot vote" was used. Could there be found in any great Act of Parliament a slang term used such as was used here—"Restriction on fagot votes?" The Government had been asked more than once to explain what a fagot vote was, but no satisfactory answer had been given to that inquiry. A fagot vote, as was well known among those who used the term, was a case where the registered voter had paid no consideration whatever for his qualification. It was to all intents and purposes a fictitious vote, and applied to any qualification. But he was utterly at a loss to understand why the owner of a rent-charge —a bonâ fide owner — should be disqualified. He would ask the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to this point. In his opening speech on the Bill the Prime Minister spoke of incorporeal hereditaments, and said—
    "We strike at incorporeal hereditaments where there is no reversion to the person who takes the benefit."
    But, if that were so, how did it affect the owner of a freehold ground-rent? And what was the substantial difference between the owner of a freehold ground-rent and a rent-charge? It might be said, "the one has a reversion in the land, and the other has not;" but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not hold that view himself. Yet the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, while it disqualified and disfranchised the owner of a rent-charge, at
    1794
    the same time allowed the owner of a freehold ground-rent to remain upon the Register where there was an infinitesimal reversion at the end of 999 years, or even of 99 years, for a 99 years' lease in London was looked upon pretty nearly as a freehold. They had never heard, either from the Prime Minister or from the learned Attorney General, any intelligible principle to show why the rent-charge should be disqualified. He ought to be a voter just in the same way as anyone who held a feu in Scotland, or anyone who held a head-rent in an Irish county, for he could devise his title by will in all these cases. According to the Government clause as it stood in the Bill, the owner of the feu in Scotland or of the head-rent in Ireland would still continue on the Register. Why, then, in the name of all that was sensible, if the owner of the head-rent or of the feu was to remain upon the Register, why was a new purchaser to be disqualified? The clause as it stood was most unfair, for it applied only to such owners as derived their interest by descent or marriage; and while they were to be retained on the Register, and supposed to be capable bonâ fide citizens, any individual who bought at the market price was to be disqualified. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle the Government had arrived at their decision in the matter, and therefore he felt bound to move his Amendment, He could not understand why a rent-charge should be regarded as only giving a fictitious vote, when it might represent £1,000, or, in some cases, many thousands a-year. There was no particular machinery attaching to a rent-charge which made it easy to multiply votes. This extraordinary bugbear of fictitious votes, or fagot votes, was a very singular argument to come from the mouths of Her Majesty's Government, who were now engaged in extending so-called household suffrage to counties, and who were putting an instrument into the hands of any man who chose to use it to create any number of fictitious votes by what was called the service franchise. By means of the service franchise anyone could easily add 100 or 200, or indeed any number, of voters to the Register. All he had to do was to take a house, pay rent for it

    1795
    himself, let every room out separately, and give to every tenant a key of the street door, and all the tenants would then become voters. Under such a condition of things it would not be necessary to resort to rent-charges, or to sub-division of freeholds, when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had placed such an instrument in the hands of anyone who desired to create fictitious votes. The real fact of the matter was this, that these owners of property were likely to vote against the Liberal Party, while the so-called householders would probably vote for them. He asked, then, that Her Majesty's Government should give some reason for the course they were adopting in this matter, and to afford them that opportunity he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out sub-section (1).—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished, before the hon. and learned Attorney General answered the question which had been addressed to him, to ask for some explanation as to what limits were intended to be placed by the Government upon the proposals contained in the Bill. He did not find in the Interpretation Clause any interpretation of the phrase "rent-charge." Now, there were rent-charges and rent-charges—there was the rent-charge which was bonâ fide purchased by an individual with the view of securing it to him, and which passed at his death to his legatees and executors. That was such a piece of property as had been understood to give a man a vote just as well as if he were a 40 s. freeholder in the ordinary sense of the word. He had in view the case of a gentleman, a friend of his, who had purchased for some small sum a rent-charge to qualify him for a vote for the county. Upon his death it went to his son, and that son was now a registered voter. Was that son now to be disfranchised under this clause? If so, it would be most unjust, for the man had just as much a freehold in it as anyone else could have in anything else.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks
    1796
    for the view of the Government on this point. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that whenever a pecuniary interest is obtained, however dissociated that interest may be from anything except the possession of a certain amount of money, there the vote is perfectly legitimate, and there is no reason for disfranchisement. However, I will say this, that we cannot undertake to maintain a property qualification if that doctrine is held and is to be applied in the unlimited manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has stated it. It is an ancient part of the electoral system of this country, no doubt; but I did not at all state, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) seemed to think I had stated—I did not at all state, in making our proposals on the introduction of the Bill, that we proposed to retain the property qualification, I cannot undertake to say that it is to be eternal; there is no utterance on the part of the Government to that effect. But if it is to be retained it ought to be associated, in our opinion, as a rule with something more than a merely pecuniary interest of a very limited amount, for if you allow that wherever a pecuniary interest can be obtained to an extremely limited amount, quite dissociated from every natural interest—from every moral and social interest—then we must consider what is the effect On a country like this where there is a very largo class of rich men with vast disposable funds—we must consider what may be the effect of laying open to their operations such a property as a rent-charge. This is not a theoretical question. There are many cases. I could quote many cases in other counties too. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is conversant with one particular case where an appropriated rent-charge of £90 was made to qualify 41 voters, without such voters having any residence or natural connection with the place in which they were registered. The Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all that objectionable system should be retained. We join issue on that point. We are quite willing that the property connection should be retained, but by property connection we mean something more than the mere possession of a sum of money. Let me take a case, no doubt

    1797
    undesirable in itself, but, at the same time, not so bad as the case of a subdivided rent-charge. Let me take the case of a particular plot of ground. There is something done in regard to the management and disposal of that particular plot of ground, and it is turned to account in some way besides the mere receiving of a sum of money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says why not prohibit the special division of votes in reference to a plot of ground of that kind? I hope he will not drive us to answer the question, because he might be more likely to compel us to extend our proposal than to limit it. We have endeavoured to take a very Liberal, and, at the same time, a most Conservative, view of this question of property qualification; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is discreet, I think he will do well to accept our proposal. We wish it to be understood that this kind of property vote—if it may be so called—which is merely a pecuniary interest, dissociated from every other interest, and capable of indefinite multiplication by a peculiar description of machinery, is not the kind of vote we wish to maintain.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to one point in his remarks. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between a rent-charge of a personal character and a rent-charge which devolved upon an individual by inheritance, or in various other ways. He hoped the question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman would receive an answer before the matter was disposed of.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had objected to the qualification by rent-charge, because the rent-charge was not, in his opinion, sufficiently identified with property. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) imagined that the rent-charge-was liable to Income Tax, and if the tax collector could trace the property, he did not see why the difficulty of tracing it should be insuperable to those who were charged with the due and proper registration of voters. But he held that it was quite possible to avoid any abuse, or, otherwise, how were abuses avoided under the Income Tax? He had adhered to the present provisions of the law for this reason—that he felt
    1798
    with the Italians, that no one should be entitled to vote unless he had proved that he had contributed something towards the taxation of the country. That was the principle of the Italian Constitution, and was the Italian system of enfranchisement, and he had not heard that in Italy any difficulty had been experienced in tracing the qualification. Then, why should they have any difficulty here? And when they were about to enfranchise under another section of the Bill—namely, the service franchise—persons who were not identified with property except by service, which was a qualification terminable at the will of another, surely a Bill which went as far as that towards manhood suffrage should attach value to a property qualification, inasmuch as property was a source of taxation. He held that the old principle was a just one—namely, that the payment of taxes should be the first qualification for those who were to vote for the election of those who were to be the imposers of taxes. He held that the old principle of the English Constitution was perfectly fair and just; and inasmuch as they had seen it preserved in the most recent Constitution which had been adopted in Europe, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who proposed to retain this property and taxable qualification, was perfectly justified in doing so.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he thought that some modification might be made in the sub-section without getting rid of it altogether. He thought it might be made perfectly clear that fagot voting, or fictitious voting, in the proper sense of the word, should be put an end to; and also that species of new fagot voting, which the Prime Minister had described as the creation of rent-charges for the purpose of conferring a vote. The right hon. Gentleman complained that in regard to that class of voters they did not even reside on the property from which their rent-charges were drawn, and it would in some cases be a difficulty for them to do so. But, while admitting the desirability of preventing this new kind of fagot voting, he thought it would be possible to give votes to the bonâ fide rent-chargers who had obtained their rent-charges by inheritance, descent, marriage settlement, or some other properly acquired interest. For

    1799
    instance, he might mention the case of copyholds and fee-farm-rents acquired from the Crown. Enfranchisement was about to be very much extended throughout the country, and a great number of persons would find themselves in the possession of rent-charges created by the Commissioners under the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. He presumed that when the Prime Minister had considered the case of those individuals, which probably he had nut done hitherto, because the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill had not been permanently passed, he would find that a great number of cases would arise in which the persons enjoying property of this description would be entitled to a vote. He certainly thought a distinction ought to be drawn between the purchase of a bonâ fide estate and an estate cut up for the purpose of multiplying votes. This would apply to the case of lay rectories and vicarages which sometimes came into the market and might, undoubtedly, be made into a machine for the multiplication of votes. He could quite sympathize with the desire of the Prime Minister to prevent property of this description from being employed for the multiplication of votes; but he thought the case was very unlikely to occur in future, and although it was undoubtedly desirable that rectories and vicarages should not be purchased for the purpose of conferring votes, still it would not be just or right to abolish all votes for rectories except one single vote for each, because, as was perfectly well known by everyone who had been in the habit of dealing with ecclesiastical estates, they were sometimes not altogether composed of the rent-charges arising in the same parish. He himself was acquainted with a case in Shropshire where the rectory was divided into three or four portions, and there were chapelries and separate portions of the tithes which in ancient times had belonged to the monasteries. His own opinion was that each separate estate forming a portion of a rectory or vicarage ought to have a vote if occupied singly, and he could not help thinking that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would turn his attention to the question, he would see that there was considerable force in the arguments he had ventured to put forward.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the Attorney General would know very well that copyhold land formerly gave no vote, and it would only give a vote now when it was of a certain value. In a large district of the county in which he resided the property was copyhold, and all the tithes were appropriated to copyhold land. It was now provided that a copyhold should be of £5 annual value before the holder obtained a vote; but there were a variety of small copyholders in regard to which the tithe rent-charge was a certain element in regard to estimating the value. He thought there should be some words inserted in the Bill to provide that where the copyholder was also holder of the land from which the tithe rent-charge was derived he should have a vote; but he was afraid that as the Bill was at present drawn that privilege was not conceded. A person would get a vote as copyholder and tithe rent-charger to the extent of £5 annual value; but if he had no vote in respect of the tithe rent-charge itself, a large number of persons would be practically disfranchised.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not answered the objection which he had taken in regard to the anomaly of allowing this ancient qualification to remain, oven when the land had been practically disposed of, because the position of a reversioner who hold a freehold ground-rent which would revert to him on the completion of a lease for 999 years could not be said to have a very large interest in the property, and he could not see why such a holder should be preferred to a rent-charger. He considered it most unfair that while one had a vote the other should be disfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his observations upon that point, nor, also, the observations he had made with regard to the injustice with which innocent purchasers were dealt. Under the circumstances, he conceived that the only object of the right hon. Gentleman was a political object, and that he desired to get rid of a certain number of voters. Indeed, the measure appeared to him to be entirely a political move from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken in saying that n rent-charge was not associated with the land. The rent was distinctly a charge

    1801
    upon land, and, in the event of its not being paid, the charger had a right to enter upon the land and distrain. The right hon. Gentleman now raised a new point as to whether the Bill was a Conservative measure or not. He (Mr. Cavendish Bcntinck) certainly did not feel that it was a Conservative Bill; and, most assuredly, if it were a Conservative Bill, it would not have been pressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and so energetically supported by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House. He contended that this clause was a disfranchising clause, and that, like the whole of the Bill, its object was to gain a Party advantage.
    MR. WARTONprotested against the manner in which the Bill had been drafted. He objected not only to the wording of this section, but to the marginal note at the side of it. They all knew perfectly well that the marginal note did not form part of the clause; but, at the same time, he thought it extremely wrong, and positively indecent, for those who drew up the Bill and for those who supported it to introduce such a note as this "restriction on fagot votes." Those words were misleading:, and had no business to be there at all. The draftsman could not have been led to the expedient of using these words from the want of any better, because he had chosen as a prefix to the section other words which were not of an objectionable character. He thought similar words might well have been employed in the marginal note; and before the clause was passed he would take the opportunity of asking the Chairman what could be done to get rid of this abominable expression, which could have been inserted only for political purposes. It was a phrase which had no legal weight whatever. ["Question!"] He contended that he had a perfect right to discuss this point.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYrose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was discussing the marginal note, and not the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he was discussing both at the same time, as the hon. Member would have discovered if he had only the sense to see it. The point he desired the Committee to consider was the words used to describe the clause; and he wanted to know how
    1802
    far such words as these were justified in a Reform Act? He contended that every rent-charge was not naturally a fagot vote; and he thought the error into which the Government had fallen, was in effect that there was no distinction whatever between what was usually called a fagot vote, and what was really an important rent-charge. He thought this had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that this is not the time for objecting to the marginal note; but the proper time will be upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he had already left that point. He was now addressing his remarks to the words "rent-charge" in line 6, and he was pointing out that in the statement of the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman had confused a trumpery interest in land, which might be called a fagot vote, and a genuine and important rent-charge. Did the Prime Minister mean to tell the Committee that a man who had a rent-charge of £1,000 a-year, and who had had to pay for it— probably 30 years' purchase—was not a capable citizen? Hon. Members were voting for the Bill because it was proposed to enfranchise capable citizens, and he would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he was of opinion that a man who was worth £30,000 was not a capable citizen? Whether a capable citizen or not, he was to be disfranchised, and the reason appeared to be that he was a man who was not very likely to hold opinions in accordance with those of the Prime Minister. He did not know whether it was altogether fair for the Prime Minister to turn round to the Attorney General, and appeal to him whether he was not acquainted with a particular case in which fagot votes had been created. He did not doubt for a moment that a property worth £90 a-year might be cut into 41 votes, and perhaps three or four more, if proper ingenuity had been exercised. He believed that the Attorney General himself had lately acquired a vote for one-half or one-third of a property in some county or other. That, however, was not a fair way of putting the matter. There were other rent-charges besides

    1803
    those, and what he wished to see was some modification of the section which would enable those who had a bonâ fide and important interest in property to exercise the franchise. They might make it £15 or £10, or any amount they liked, and that would be far more reasonable than the disfranchisement of the owners of every description of rent-charge. Where was the line to be drawn? The copyholder of the annual value of £5 was to have a vote, and under the Chandos Clause £50 was the limit imposed. All the arguments which had been adduced about the owners of these rent-charges not being connected with the county for which the voting was to take place were all arguments put forward in order to prevent votes from being given to persons who were legitimately entitled to them. As a protest against the wholesale disfranchisement effected by the clause, and on the ground that it would prevent people with property from ever obtaining political influence, he should vote against the clause.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to point out to the Committee that the Government have not given any answer to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), which I consider to have considerable bearing on the question before us. The suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) is to leave out the whole of the sub-section, because the sub-section will have the effect of not only doing that which the Government wish to do—namely, of preventing fagot voting; but it will go beyond that, and will prevent any vote from being given by any bonâ fide rent-charger whatever. There have been certain cases mentioned in which such a prohibition would amount to a very serious disfranchisement and a very unreasonable disfranchisement—cases in which rent-charges have been created for perfectly legitimate objects, without having any regard to the vote at all. I could mention myself, from my own personal knowledge, several cases in which the owners of estates have given up the property and taken a rent-charge for life—a rent-charge of £100 or £200 a-year. That has been done without the slightest view of conferring electoral
    1804
    privileges; but, at the same time, according to this Bill, if the owner had no other property than that rent-charge he would lose the vote, although the property itself really conferred it upon him before. I want to know whether the Government will consider the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, and agree to some modification of the clause, so that while fagot votes are prevented, rent-charges created under ordinary and legitimate circumstances will afford a vote to the possessor? My own opinion is that the two descriptions of rent-charges should be kept perfectly distinct and separate—one being made for the simple purpose of conferring a vote, while the other is made for entirely different purposes. If the Government would give a satisfactory answer to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, I am satisfied that the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would be contented with an arrangement on that basis, and would not desire to press his Amendment. Our only desire is to attain the object I have pointed out, and I think that it would be attained by accepting the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) would do more than the hon. and learned Member de-sirecl, for, if it were adopted, the only way of preventing a rent-charger from having a vote would be by proving that it was the intention of the person holding and the person succeeding to the rent-charge to create a vote. Thus it would be necessary to prove the state of men's minds, and clearly, if he accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton), he would be allowing all rent-chargers to enjoy the qualification. In this clause they were only going back to a provision enacted as far back as the Reign of William III., which prevented the conveyance of land and tenements in any corporate town, &c., for the purpose of multiplying votes, and which also prohibited devices for splitting up property for the mere purpose of enabling votes to be given in the election of a Member of Parliament. The words contained in the present clause would have the same effect; but if the Committee accepted the Amend-

    1805
    ment of his hon. and learned Friend, they would really allow the principle of a rent-charge to remain as a qualification. The Government had been strongly urged to abolish all property qualification as distinguished from occupation, and to proceed upon the principle of one man, one vote. They had not, however, gone to that length, but they had come to the conclusion that where a man had a large stake in the country it was desirable that he should be represented in the locality in which his interest was situated. Therefore, they had given way to the extent of allowing property to be represented; but they had come to the conclusion that that property should be really property— that it should be property having a real interest in the locality, and that it should not be property perfectly distinct from, the locality, which might be held by a non-resident having no interest whatever in the management of the property or in the locality from which he received his rent-charge. A rent-charger might have no special interest in the locality in which the property was situated, and in such cases the Government intended to prevent in future such a course as the creation of fictitious votes from being held in contemplation. The reason why they disqualified incorporeal hereditaments was that it was found that incorporeal hereditaments were the most convenient form in which fictitious votes could be created. It was difficult for a man to give a false qualification if he was himself required to be in possession of the property; but it was very easy to give a rent-charge of 40 s. a-year, which might be paid or not. Therefore, what the Government said was that where the interest was clear and real the owner should be represented, but not where he was simply possessed of an incorporeal hereditament. It was believed that the adoption of this principle would, in future, prevent a practice which everyone admitted to be a great evil—namely, the creation of fagot votes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to withdraw his proposal?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it would be a pity if they were not able to come to
    1806
    some understanding upon this question, especially after the amount of courteous feeling the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had displayed in considering beforehand what would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). With a view of bridging over the difference between what might be called fagot votes and the mere 40 s. qualification, he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General if he would object, afterthe word "rent-charge" were adopted, to insert words to provide that the rent-charge itself should not be less than £100 per annum? His (Mr. War-ton's) object was to draw a distinction which he thought ought to be drawn. A rent charge of £100 per annum, would represent a considerable amount of money, and would not be a mere matter of form. He contended that a person who was possessed of a rent-charge of £100 a-year was a person of considerable importance, especially when they took into consideration the low scale upon which they were admitting other voters. He hoped the Government would take time for reflection, and that they would not say in the end that a person of that condition was not entitled to a vote, or that he had obtained a rent-charge of that description without intending it to be real and bonâ fide property.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WARTONasked the Chairman whether he would now be in Order in moving the Amendment he had suggested?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Not yet.
    MR. ELTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said nothing about the case he (Mr. Elton) had put to him, of a person who by accident became possessed of a small rent-charge on ecclesiastical property—that was to say, a person who became the owner of a small portion of a tithe rent-charge. He thought there ought to be no difficulty with regard to that point, and he trusted that the Government would accept his suggestion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENHY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept it.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He believed that there was no Question before the Committee.
    MR. ELTONthen formally moved an Amendment in the same clause, with the object of providing that a man should not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rent-charge
    "Created or sub-divided for the purpose of conferring a qualification as a voter on any person, or in respect of the ownership of any tithe rent-charge."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "created or subdivided for the purpose of conferring a qualification as a voter on any person, or in respect of the ownership of any tithe rent-charge."—(Mr. Elton.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 162: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
    MR. WARTONmoved, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "of not less than £100 per annum." The effect of that Amendment would be that persons having a rent-charge of £100 a-year and upwards would be qualified to vote, and surely persons in that position were of sufficient importance to be regarded as capable citizens and to enjoy the franchise. It was not the case of a person qualifying in order to obtain a vote, but it was the case of a person who must have a substantial interest, because a person who was the owner of a rent-charge of £100 a-year would have been called upon to pay £2,000 or £3,000 for it. It was not the case of a man who possessed a rent-charge of £2 or £3 a-year for which he had paid nothing whatever. He thought it was only fair, if they were to give a vote to the owners of these rent-charges, that they should require a certain income to be derived from the rent-charges, and therefore he proposed to fix the limit at £100 per annum. For his own part, he would prefer to fix a much lower limit, because he was of opinion that persons possessing a rent-charge of much less value than £100 a-year would have a sufficient interest in the property of the locality to justify them in enjoying a vote.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to add, after the word "rent-charge,"the words"of not less than £100 per annum."—(Mr. Warten.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I feel that it is not in the power of the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. We have no wish to recognize in the prospective arrangements of the country those purely money qualifications which have no connection with the different places or districts which are to be represented. Of course, we are perfectly aware that there is a great deal of property in this country of this character, such property, for instance, as the Funds, and a great mass of other property upon which people who have invested in it receive an interest for the capital invested; but, at the same time, that description of property is not represented because it has no genuine connection with the particular place or district to be represented. In the same way, there is no genuine connection in the case to which the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member applies, and it would certainly enable a rent-charge to be acquired for the mere purpose of obtaining a vote. As my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has already shown to the Committee, if we admit the principle of a rent-charge at all, we must open the door to the acquisition of fictitious votes. The main objection which the Government entertained to the proposal on which the Committee have just voted, applies also to this Amendment, and the Government have no choice but to oppose it.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ELTONmoved to strike out, before the word "vicarage," in line 7, the word "or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ELTONmoved to insert, after the word "vicarage," in line 7, the words—
    "Chapelry or benefice to which an appointment of tithes rent-charge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes."
    MR. GLADSTONEassented to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished now to raise a point on the 2nd sub-section of the clause. That sub-section ran thus—

    1809
    "Where two or more men are owners either as joint tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any laud or tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if his interest is sufficient to confer on him a qualification as a voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be entitled (in the like eases and subject to the like conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election."
    He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the Government in regard to this sub-section. He proposed to move formally to omit the word "where," at the beginning of the subsection, in order to raise n point which he did not think was at all settled by the Bill as it stood. Where there were two or more tenants in common or joint tenants, how was it to be decided which of the joint tenants was to be entitled to the franchise? As the Bill now stood, it appeared to him to be left entirely to chance who might be the first to apply, because the Eevising Barrister would scarcely be entitled to refuse to insert a man's name upon the Register, on the ground that some other person might apply who had, perhaps, a larger interest in the property than the man who claimed to be registered. It would be obviously unfair that a man possessing the minor interest should, by the mere accident of having made a prior application, be placed upon the Register, whereas the person who had the larger interest was entirely shut out. The question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, how they proposed to meet that objection? and in order to enable them to give an explanation, he would move formally the omission of the word "where" from the beginning of the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "where."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not at all surprised at the right hon. Baronet raising that question, because he quite admitted that a theoretical difficulty did present itself. But they were now following old legislation in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Act of 1867. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] At any rate, the right hon. Baronet was
    1810
    associated with the Party who were responsible for it, and under the 27th section of the Act of 1867 the number of persons entitled to vote as joint occupiers in a county was limited to two. No more than two persons could vote as joint occupiers in a county. The section did not refer to boroughs; but in the Bill of 1867 under the £12 Occupation Clause, two occupiers only could vote even if there were 10, 12, or any other number of occupiers. The same provision was contained in the Scotch Reform Act of 1868, that two occupiers only were entitled to vote. From that time to this no practical difficulty had been experienced in settling the question as to who was entitled to the vote. Seventeen years had, therefore, elapsed, and as there had been no difficulty the matter in some way had settled itself, and he could not find that any objection had ever been made to this provision of the Acts of 1867 and 1868. If more than two persons did apply, the first comers were placed on the Register, and so long as they were there no other person could be placed upon it. He presumed that if any difficulty ever arose in the registration the first applicant would be the person whose name was inserted upon the Register, and it was obviously impossible for the Revising Barrister to decide that only the man who had a greater interest than another should have a vote, and that the man who had the minor interest should be kept off the Register. Parliament was well aware of what had been done in the Act of 1867, when they applied the same principle to the Act of 1868 for Scotland, and, as no practical difficulty had ever occurred on the subject, it had been thought wise to follow the existing rule, and to make no distinction of persons.
    MR. BULWERasked whether a practical difficulty might not arise in the case of property being left to two sons by a father—say, for instance, a farm worth £500 a-year? Both might go into occupation as farmers and joint tenants; but brothers, as hon. Members well knew, were not always of the same political opinions. One might be a Liberal and the other a Conservative, and he wanted to know what would be done in a case of that kind?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that no such case

    1811
    could arise, but both would come under the provisions of the Bill and be entitled to votes. It was only in cases where there had been a conveyance of property to tenants in common, or joint tenants, that the difficulty arose.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had failed to explain how, under the Scotch Act of 1868, if several claimants equally entitled as joint tenants to be placed on the Register made a claim, their application was disposed of.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, he had only answered the question which had been put to him by his hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer), and he had intended to point out that no difficulty would arise except in the case of the conveyance of the property, because where the names of more than one person appeared on the occupation rate as occupying a farm for the legitimate purpose of cultivation, every tenant who made his claim would be entitled to a vote; but in other cases of tenants in common or joint tenancy, the persons whose names would appear on the Eegister would be those who made the first application. He believed that no difficulty had occurred on the subject of occupation under the Scotch Act of 1868; and with regard to other matters, it would be necessary in Scotland to exercise in future the same discretion which had been exercised without difficulty in the past.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would move the omission of the subsection altogether.
    THE CHAIRMA.N: The Committee have not yet reached the point when it would be regular to move the omission of the sub-section.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that in that case, he would move the omission of the next words in the subsection — namely, "either as joint tenants or," although he thought, as the Amendment appeared on the Paper, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) was entitled to move the next. He objected altogether to the disfranchisement of joint tenants. He was unable to see on what grounds those who held a material
    1812
    interest in the country, and were capable citizens, were to be deprived of their right of voting.
    MR. BUCHANANrose to Order. He wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot tell yet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, however, perfectly in Order.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought it was a great pity that the hon. Member had not waited to hear what he had to say. An objection had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to joint owners or rent-chargers, on the ground that they had no interest in the land. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that property should really be property, and that the owner should have a genuine connection with the district for which he claimed to be qualified to vote. But how was it possible to argue that joint tenants of a property and tenants in. common had no interest and were not connected with the land? It was not the abuse of a thing to which they should have regard, but the use of it. The fact that here and there instances could be found where joint tenancies and even tenancies in common might have been created for the purpose of giving voting power, was no reason whatever why the principle should be done away with altogether. The abuse of a principle was no justification for getting rid of the principle itself. Nobody would contend that joint tenants or tenants in common were not capable citizens, and why should they be disfranchised when Parliament was about to enfranchise a large number of persons who paid little or nothing for their holdings? They proposed to disfranchise joint tenants and tenants in common of an estate worth £10,000 a-year, while they were enfranchising others who might only pay an occupation rent of 20 s. a-year. More than, that, they were establishing a service franchise.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. He asked the Chairman whether the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were regular, and had any bearing upon the sub-section before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or," and as long as his re-

    1813
    marks are addressed to that point they are perfectly in Order.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), instead of interrupting the proceedings, had better go to dinner. The Bill proposed to place upon the Register a vast number of electors, and yet, while doing that, and enfranchising persons who had a very small stake in the country, this clause proposed to exclude and disfranchise the owners of joint tenancies and tenancies in common who were largely interested in the property of the country. What would be the result of passing the new service franchise? He presumed that in Scotland thousands of persons would be enfranchised under it, including shepherds, gamekeepers, and others in domestic service, and while those persons were to be put upon the Register, tenants in common and joint tenants were to be excluded. He knew himself of more than one case where, in order to avoid the payment of heavy duties, a father and son had purchased together a considerable estate, and yet only one of them was to be allowed to vote, the other losing his right and capable citizenship. He did not think that the answer of thehon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to which of the joint tenants was to be preferred was at all satisfactory. The hon, and learned Gentleman had referred to an old Act of Parliament, and then to the Acts of 1867 and 1868, in which a similar provision appeared to have been got in by hap-hazard, and he said that no inconvenience or difficulty had been experienced in consequence. On the other hand, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had heard of cases where very great inconvenience had taken place in this respect, and he thought that in new and important legislation of this kind it would be better to prevent any anomalies or difficulties of the kind. But the existence of anomalies did not affect the principle of his objection that they were about to disfranchise the owners of property who were associated with the district for no reason whatever except that the Government thought that, in some cases or other, the rights and privileges of joint tenants or tenants in common had been so dealt with as to lead to inconvenience. He begged to
    1814
    move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the words "either as joint tenants or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Committee would hear some reasons from Her Majesty's Government for retaining the provision proposed to be omitted from this subsection. He was quite ready to admit, as all of them must admit, that there had been great abuses in the way of creating fagot votes, under a system which the sub-section was intended to check. He would venture, however, to point out that these abuses had not been brought about so much by the facility of creating the joint tenancies or tenancies in common referred to in the section, as by the fact that the constituencies had been small in numbers, and that, therefore, the creation of fagot votes conferred a large power on the holders, and might have a material effect upon the result of an election. But if the franchise were extended as Her Majesty's Government proposed, this would no longer be the case, for it would be perfectly absurd for any person owning an estate to create these joint tenancies or tenancies in common simply for the purpose of placing persons upon the electoral roll, because it was obvious that the number of these persons would be so very small in comparison with the new electorate that it would really not be worth while to enter upon such a course in order to swamp the opinions of the resident and properly qualified electors. That, he believed, would be the real safeguard against these abuses in the future; and, therefore, he thought the Committee ought to have some reason from Her Majesty's Government why it was that they proposed to make a change in the law, which, even according to the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, might possibly prove an injustice as between the joint owners of property—an injustice which the hon. and learned Gentleman also admitted that he did not see his way to remedy,

    1815
    but which, by the omission of the subsection now under discussion, would be guarded against. He must say that it seemed to him Her Majesty's Government had gone quite far enough in the way of disf ranehisoment by passing the 1st sub-section of the clause. He did not deny that it dealt with a matter which the Prime Minister rightly said was not in the nature of a corporeal hereditament. But the present sub-section dealt with another matter altogether. It was a case of a bonâ fide form of ownership, in respect of which a joint owner or an owner in common ought, in all fairness, to be as well able to vote as if he were the sole owner. If there had been no abuses, no one would have ventured to propose the disfranchisement of these owners. His own opinion was that abuses would be sufficiently checked by the mode in which it was proposed to extend the franchise, and, therefore, the retention of this sub-section was really unnecessary.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there was a broad distinction between joint tenants and tenants in common. In the first case, there was no partition, and the estate passed to the survivor of them. They, in fact, constituted one ownership; and it might be reasonable to treat them on that footing for the purpose of the franchise, giving, in fact, one vote only for the entire property. But with respect to tenants in common, the case was different. They had separate and independent estates and intei'psts in. the propeity, which they could alienate, or which passed to their heirs or devisees on their respective deaths, and they had a right to call for and enforce an actual partition of the property at any time; and he therefore thought that tenants in common were fairly entitled to enjoy the right of voting, and that their claim ought to be considered in dealing with the franchise.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that he was in favour of retaining tenants in common, and of striking out joint tenants; but he was unable to say that he agreed in the views of the hon. Gentleman. In order to save time, he might say that as far as the Government were concerned they regarded the present discussion as representing the discussion upon
    1816
    the whole of the sub-section. He would, therefore, say at once that the Government would adhere to the sub-section. They were willing, as he had said before, to give a vote to a property qualification even although it might include non-residence, and even although, in, some cases, the persons enfranchised might have very little interest in the locality. In that way, property would be represented; but they desired to surround that representation of property with certain safeguards, and not to allow it to be used simply as a pretence for obtaining the vote. How was it that fagot votes had been created? They had been created by giving votes to many persons who had only an interest in one tenement. The Government endeavoured to get rid of that difficulty by taking a provision contained in an old Act of William III., which enacted that not more than a single vote should be permitted for one and the same house or tenement. Words to that effect had been introduced into the present clause, and the Committee were asked to go back to the wisdom of the legislation adopted 200 years ago, and to give one vote only for a single tenement. The Government, however, had been more generous than, the Legislature in the time of William III., because in certain cases they had allowed one tenement more than one vote—namely, where the right accrued through inheritance, marriage settlement, or will; but wherever attempts were mane to split up the qualification by transference of the property to a great number of persons so as to give votes to those who had no real or substantial interest in the tenement, they went back to the old legislation of the time of William III., and said that only one such person should be entitled to vote, whether the persons in question were joint tenantsor tenants in common— the intention was to allow one vote, and one vote only, for a single tenement. As he had pointed out, the Government had recurred to the legislation of the Reign of William III.; but in 1867 the Bill of the Conservative Government said that only two occupiers should vote for a single tenement, and all that had just been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might, with equal force, have been urged against the legislation of 1867. The only alteration

    1817
    made by the present Bill was that, whereas by the Act of 1867 two occupiers were allowed to vote for the same tenement, the present Bill took only one owner instead of the two occupiers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember that the Prime Minister had already referred to an instance in Scot-land in which 40 votes had been created for one tenement. Her Majesty's Government wished to put a stop to such a state of things, and to prevent the creation of fictitious votes for the sole purpose of conferring the franchise on persons who had no real interest in the property.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that a technical distinction existed in England between joint tenants and tenants in common. Although precisely the same distinction did not exist in Scotland, the same objectionable practice had been resorted to for the purpose of creating fagot votes. It had long ago been discovered that a similar description of tenure afforded peculiar facilities for the creation of the same evil of fagot voting. All that was necessary was to divide the annual value among the number of persons it was wished to enfranchise. An indefinite number of votes might be created in that way, and in Scotland they had become so familiar with the system that there were instances in which 40 voters qualified for what would be called in England a single tenement. In the present Bill the Government endeavoured to preserve the rights of property, and all the legitimate claims of property were carefully safeguarded in the later part of this provision. Where the acquisitions of interest were not fictitious, and where there were evidences of good faith, the Bill preserved to them their capacity of conferring the vote. Rights obtained by descent, by marriage, by co-partnership, or by will, were preserved; but in other cases, where they were obviously fictitious and only acquired for the purpose of giving the vote, they were done away with.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was a very strong one against the general principle of the Bill—namely, the extension of household franchise to counties, and, so far from being a protection
    1818
    against fagot voting, the provisions of the Bill would afford ample opportunities for the creation and multiplication of fictitious votes; all that it would be necessary to do was to pay the rates and give a man a key of the street door, and they would be able to create at once as many fagot votes as they liked. Indeed, he thought the Bill ought to have had a provision inserted in the Preamble to this effect — "Whereas it is desirable to extend the principle of fagot voting." He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment, because he desired to enter his protest against this disfranchising process, whereby joint tenants and tenants in common, who were associated with the land itself, were to lose the rights as electors which they had enjoyed from time immemorial.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Government had now enunciated their views with regard to the extension of the franchise, and had fully exemplified what the real principle of the Bill was. They refused to acknowledge any of the rights or privileges of property in the franchise, and spoke of them as incorporeal hereditaments. Surely, the Public Debt of this country had become a property; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister emphatically declared that he would not acknowledge that kind of property as entitling the owners of it to enjoy the franchise. This was a very serious declaration, because the right hon. Gentleman also excluded taxation —either general taxation or local taxation—as an element of qualification. The right hon. Gentleman established this rule and principle when he was about to add 2,000,000 to the electorate —2,000,000 of persons who were certainly not be identified by their possession of property. He was ready to admit that he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had formerly written—that the tendency of this democratic change would probably be in the direction of establishing again the principle of the protection of labour in this country; and he trusted that that protection would not be limited to protection for the property of the country, but would be extended to the competition of foreign nations.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must request the hon. Gentleman to confine himself

    1819
    to the Amendment, which is to omit from the clause the words "either as joint tenants or."
    MR. NEWDEGATEapologized, raid said, he would bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. At the same time, he thought it was only fair, seeing that these arguments had been adduced upon the subject-matter of the clause, to make the observations he had made. He would now sit down, subject to the authority of the Chair, by repeating that he had learnt a lesson from the discussion which had taken place.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would make an appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaveu (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) not to press his Amendment. His object in making the appeal was this. There was a distinction to be drawn between the case of joint tenants and tenants in common, as had heen pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be bettor to keep tenants in common in the Bill, and to strike out joint tenants. He thought such a course would fully accomplish the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to treat joint tenants as if they were in precisely the same position as tenants in common, which, as a matter of fact, was not the case. If the Government were in favour of giving the vote to one of these classes of tenants, then those who ought to have it were tenants in common and not joint tenants. Personally, he did not see why several persons who enjoyed the same rights as tenants in common should not have the privilege of the franchise. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, so that the Committee might be in a position to proceed at once with the discussion of the real question at issue.
    MR. BULAWERsaid, he had gathered from the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that they were now really engaged in a discussion of the merits of the entire sub-section, and that the vote they would be asked to give, as accepted by the Government, would be upon the Amendment to leave out Hub-section 2.
    1820
    The Amendment of his right hon. arid learned Friend the Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) applied to a portion of the sub-section only; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had also an Amendment upon the Paper lower down, for the omission of the subsection. As it did not seem to be generally understood, he wished to know from the Attorney General if he was right in the impression that they were now engaged in discussing the entire sub-section?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought it was understood that the vote would be taken upon the entire sub-section.
    MR. GREGORYsuggested that the Division should be taken upon the word "either." The object of those who agreed with him would, he thought, be best attained by the withdrawal of the Amendment now before the Committee, and the substitution of an Amendment to omit the word "either." That would leave it open to retain joint tenants, or tenants in common, provided that the Committee agreed to take one or the other, but not both.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is to omit the words "either as joint tenants or." Does the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) press that Amendment?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No; I will withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYmoved to omit from the sub-section the word "either."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "either."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question put, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 24; Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had an Amendment which he should like to move at the end of the clause, with the object of making the clause clearer.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he rose to move the Amendment standing in hia name, the object of which was to limit the number of owners of land or tene-

    1821
    ments proposed by the clause to be entitled to vote by reason of their carrying on trade or business as partners on such land or tenements. It occurred to him that the term "partners" was a little too comprehensive. In that county of Scotland represented by the Prime Minister (Edinburghshire) there was a large number of oil-making Companies, and he could see nothing in the Bill, as it stood, which would prevent the partners in those Companies, however numerous they might be, from being put on the Register and voting. The words of the clause wore—"and are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon." His object in proposing this Amendment was to prevent any possible abuse of the intention of the clause by a large number of partners carrying on trade or business, and with that view he had in his Amendment put down the number of persons who should be entitled to be registered as voters at six, which number was taken from the Joint Stock Companies Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, after the word "and," insert the words "not exceeding six in number." —(Mr. Anderson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were not disposed at present to accept the Amendment. So far as the persons forming Joint Stock Companies were concerned, the Company as such would be the occupier, and no member of the Company simply because he had shares in it would be entitled to vote. The clause contemplated people who were engaged as partners in trade or business personally on the conditions specified, and not as members of a Company. Then with regard to partners not members of Companies, bearing in mind the safeguards contained in the clause, the Government saw no reason why the number of persons entitled to be registered and to vote should be confined within the limit proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, inasmuch as they considered that in practice the abuse apprehended by him would not arise.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYpointed out that the wording of the clause was alternate; it was "or"—not "and"—
    1822
    where they occupied the land or tenement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Attorney General to the wording o£ the clause which rendered it necessary, for the purpose of this franchise, that certain businesses or trades should be carried on. He had no doubt that the intention of the Government was to include the class of persons whom he was about to refer to; but the words of the clause were—
    "Where" (such owners) "occupy the land or tenement, and are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon."
    Now, it was clear that this wording covered the case of owners occupying land for the purpose of farming; but he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that it might not be sufficiently comprehensive, because he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) conceived it possible that owners occupying land as woodland, or for grazing purposes, might not be held to be carrying on business as farmers. If his view were incorrect, he should be glad to hear a statement from the Attorney General on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were quite at one with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire not to exclude from the franchise persons occupying the land for purposes of the kind indicated, and which they believed would come within the words "carrying on trade."
    MR. WARTONobjected to the words "restriction on fagot votes," and proposed to substitute the words "prohibition of multiplication of votes," which stood at the head of the section.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport was discussing the wording of a marginal note which was not part of the Bill. If the hon. and learned Member would communicate with him. any suggestion he had to make on this point should receive attention.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the words proposed to be substituted were perfectly innocent, and he could discern no reason why the Attorney General should object to his suggestion. The drafting of the

    1823
    next clause showed that he was perfectly consistent, the same wording, "Assimilation of Occupation Qualification," having been placed both at the heading of the clause and in the margin.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought there might possibly be some misunderstanding in regard to the point he had just raised. He did not mean the ordinary acceptation of the word "farmer." His desire was to prevent the exclusion of persons owning and using land for some purpose which would not be ordinarily covered by the words "trade or business"—grazing or woodcutting, for instance.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the right hon. Gentleman would communicate with him, the subject should receive attention.
    MR. BULWERasked if persons owning and occupying laud for the purpose of sport only would come within the meaning of the Proviso?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), said the clause referred to the ownership of property as distinct from occupation.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he regretted extremely that the clause should pass in its present form, because it was clearly a disfranchising clause. There were a large number of persons ia the Kingdom who had rentcharges— especially in Ireland— and who were particularly interested in the various localities in which the rents were receivable, and these persons would be clearly disfranchised. He himself had a rent-charge ia the county of Kent, which had been in the possession of his family for many generations, and he presumed that by-and-bye it would cease to be available for the purpose of voting. He had an undoubted interest in the locality in question—he was anxious to know whether the rent would be paid or not—and therefore he, for one, did not hold with the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman that owners of rent-charges had no interest in the localities where such rent-charges were receivable. It was perfectly well known that there were many persons who owned rent-charges, and the effect of the clause would be that they would lose all interest in the localities, so far as the vote was concerned. Although the clause might, to a certain extent, prevent fagot
    1824
    voting, it clearly took away from persons legitimately holding property the right of voting, which, he thought, they ought to possess.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Assimilation of Occupation Qualification.
    Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification).
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he proposed to move the omission of the words "clear yearly value," in line 30, on the ground that their interpretation would cause difficulty hereafter. The words were internreted in Clause 11 with regard to Scotland as the "Annual value appearing in the valuation roll;" in respect of Ireland they were interpreted as the "Net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being;" but with regard to England they appeared to have no interpretation at all. He suggested that it would remove some difficulty in the settlement of the value before the Revising Barrister, in the case of applications for registration under the clause, if the value were taken in the same way with regard to England as in other parts of the Kingdom.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "clear yearly value," and insert the words "rateable value."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee would perceive that the question of striking out the words "clear yearly value," for the purpose of substituting the words "rateable value," was one of considerable importance, The object of the words was very simple—namely, the assimilation of the occupation franchise in boroughs and counties. The borough occupation franchise, as created by the 37th section of the Act of 1832, was a £10 clear yearly value, and the county occupation franchise was a £12 rateable value, which latter, as the Committee would be aware, represented a yearly value of £15 or £16—the rateable value being arrived at by making certain deductions. The intention of the Government being to assimilate the two fran-

    1825
    chises, they put in the words "or tenement" after "land," as distinguished from the simple building in the case of boroughs, the effect of which would be that the occupier of a field would have a vote, whereas before the field must have had a building upon it to entitle him to be registered as a voter. For the purpose of assimilation they had reduced the £12 rating to a £10 clear yearly value. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood that this was a Bill for equalizing the franchise in the three Kingdoms. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Yes.] But that was precisely what it did not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the rateable value was less than the yearly value; and yet the Government proposed to take the yearly value with regard to England, and the rateable value in the ease of Scotland and Ireland. Everyone knew that the rateable valuation in Ireland by no means represented the real value of the property; a few years ago it was very much less than the real value, and it was so, to a certain extent, even now. Therefore, as far as this clause was concerned, the occupation franchise in Ireland was not the same it would be in England. The reason for the introduction of the words "clear yearly value" was, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the Government wanted to lower the value as much as they could. Then, why not take the yearly value in all cases? His object, as he had already stated, was to have a fixed standard, instead of a phrase which would become the subject of constant discussion in the Revision Courts; and that point had not been met by the argument of the Attorney General. He was willing to take a lower figure than 10 for the purpose of equalization, his anxiety being that the work of the Revising Barrister, which would be materially increased under the Bill, should be made as easy as possible; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would not admit his Amendment at this place, he should certainly move an Amendment to Clause 11, where the question could be very conveniently raised, and where the interpretation "rateable value" would more obviously carry with it the intention expressed
    1826
    by the Government that the franchise in England should be the same as in Scotland and Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question was practically whether they should take the clear yearly value, or whether they should allow the overseer to determine the value of the property. With regard to the difficulty which it was supposed the words would place in the way of the Revising Barrister, he believed there was very little difficulty indeed in interpreting what constituted a clear yearly rental for the purpose of registration.
    Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to move to reduce the qualification from £10 to £5. He hoped the Committee would not think there was any bugbear of property in this matter; it was a genuine occupation franchise, and had nothing to do with property. The hon. and learned Attorney General, therefore, need not be afraid of it. The clause enfranchised non-resident occupiers; his Amendment merely reduced the amount of qualification. The ground of his proposal was this—that he thought the occupation franchise should bear some proportion or relation to the household franchise, as it was proposed in this measure. The franchise, as they knew, was degraded by the Bill, and the degradation would produce very illiterate and ignorant voters. Testing a man's capacity by occupation, he did not think it could be said that by reducing this qualification from £10 to £5 they would be introducing incapable people, or people below the level of dwellers in mud huts, or of those included under the lodger or the service franchise. His proposal would certainly be a lowering of the franchise; but not to so great a depth as was already proposed by the Bill. The tenant of a £5 holding without a house was a more respectable and a more trustworthy person than the householder or lodger who might be paying 6d. a-week for his house or room. He did not think the Government would be able to say that he was proposing to enfranchise anyone who ought not to have the franchise by reason of incapacity. He therefore looked about to find what earthly argument the Government could produce against his proposal. Was the £5 occupior so disreputable

    1827
    that the Government would refuse to allow him to have the franchise, or was it because he did not occupy a house together with the land? The latter could not be the case, because in proposing this £10 occupation franchise the Government were deliberately abolishing the necessity of residence. Residence was no longer a test or a condition for a vote; therefore, what reason could the Government bring forward against the Amendment? Five pound holdings were holdings occupied by capable persons; and why should not they have the franchise? There seemed to him to be an incongruity in enfranchising a £1 householder, as they did in Ireland, whilst refusing to enfranchise the occupier of a £5 tenement. He could not, in thinking over the matter, conceive any possible argument that the Government could bring forward against his proposal, unless, indeed, it was that the Bill was be incomplete, and so full of anomalies, that it was useless to attempt to remove any of them, and that they were determined to send it up to its account in "another place" with all its imperfections on its head. As a sincere reformer, he could only Joolr with anxiety and dread upon the determination of the Government not to accept any improvements, from whicheverjside of the House they were proposed. He begged leave to propose this reduction of the occupation franchise from £10 to £5, and would only express a hope that the Government would accept it, or, at all events, adduce some reasonable argument against it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "five." — (Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CUBITTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General whether this franchise was to be dependent or not on residence? If he (Mr. Cubitt) understood aright, the present £50 county occupation was independent of a residence; but the £.10 household franchise was dependent upon it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the borough franchise was dependent upon a residence within seven miles of the borough; but that residence was not required in respect of such franchise in a county.
    1828
    As to the Amendment, it sought to enfranchise a non-resident voter—it was;he enfranchisement of the property owner. He really could not tell why the sum of £10 should be the uniform limit of occupation; it had been so fixed in boroughs in 1832, and in 1867 it was retained at £12 in the counties and £10 in the boroughs. The hon. Member objected to such a sum being fixed; but he had adduced no more argument in favour of the reduced sum he proposed than could be offered in support of a proposal to reduce the qualification to £2, or even to £1. It was necessary to have a uniform limit, and the £10 limit having been decided upon, and being well understood, it was desirable to retain it. All he could say on the question was that the Government had been anxious to avoid altering the franchise more than they considered to be absolutely necessary. They found the £10 franchise in existence, and thought it well to retain that figure, although they admitted they saw no particular charm in it.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he must confess that he was a little disappointed by the answer given by the Attorney General to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), because it seemed to him that though what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said might be a very good argument against any reduction of the £10 occupation franchise to a £5 occupation if this question stood alone, he had hardly touched the point as to how it was to be dealt with in connection with the other provisions of the Bill. The principal point of the hon. Member for North Shropshire was that the Government were going to enfranchise a great number of persons of presumably less intelligence than the £5 occupier. It appeared to him (Mr. Raikes) that that was an argument the Government were bound to meet. If they thought that a £5 occupier was likely to be a less "capable citizen" than the people it was proposed in this wholesale manner to admit to the franchise then there would be some reason in their rejecting the Amendment. If this matter stood alone, he should oppose the proposal that the £10 should be reduced to £5; but, having regard to the different parts of the Bill, it seemed to him that the Government were bound to show that the people whom the hon.

    1829
    Member for North Shropshire proposed to enfranchise were less fit to receive a vote than those to whom it would be given by the Bill. The 2,000,000 of capable citizens who were to be admitted to the franchise by the measure would not, he presumed, be very largely increased if this Amendment were adopted; and it would, at least, be said that those who would be admitted under the Amendment had more of a stake in the country, and were possessed of a higher qualification, having regard to what had hitherto been considered essential to make a capable citizen, than the great mass of the new voters the Government proposed to bring in. He trusted the Committee would hear some further argument from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in connection with the other provisions of the Bill before this Amendment was disposed of, because, unless they did, it seemed to him that up to now the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations had rather missed the point.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had given no reason at all why £5 should be adopted in place of £10. If the Committee were disposed to adopt the £5 limit there was no earthly reason why another proposal to reduce it to 40 s. should not be brought forward, and supported by precisely the same arguments as those which they had heard to recommend the present proposal. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Shropshire were pressed to its practical conclusion an Amendment reducing the occupation franchise in regard to land to 40 s. might just as well be accepted. This was the first occasion, to the best of his belief, on which it had been proposed by any Government to establish a franchise of a non-residential character in boroughs, without any connection with houses or buildings; and, for his own part, he should have been very glad if the proposal contained in Clause 5 had never been made. The Prime Minister had said that the occupation of land would confer a franchise in boroughs, whether the land was connected with buildings or not.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were following the old rule laid down in 1882, by which, in case of a borough
    1830
    franchise, residence was necessary within seven miles of a borough.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was glad of that, and he understood the franchise was only introduced for the sake of uniformity. It was introduced as a borough franchise as it had been in Scotland. It was felt there was no reason why they should adopt £5 any more than they should retain the present figure, only that having been adopted and having become generally known, it was as well not to interfere unnecessarily with the arrangement.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, if the effect of the proposal were to add voters, not otherwise enfranchised, to the Registor, he would have supported the Amendment, and declared that he could not understand Liberal Members voting against proposals which would bring about an extension of the franchise. But he could not help thinking that the Attorney General had put the thing on an intelligible footing when he showed that the Amendment in the clause would only put the law on a worse footing as to fagot-voting than it was at present. The Government were giving them an antidote first, and then, offering them the poison in this Bill, because to his mind the clause, even as it stood, did more harm than good. It would practically confer a fagot qualification in boroughs, and such a proposal was made for the first time in our legislation.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the matter was rendered rather worse than he had supposed by the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). The hon. Member for Salford not unnaturally supposed that the requirement of residence with respect to a borough was to be abolished, and that this clause was practically introducing in boroughs the franchise which now existed in counties, lowering it from a £12 rateable value to a £10 yearly value. But that, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, was not his intention. The Government proposed to keep up the qualification of residence in boroughs. Why did they do that? Why, because they feared that if they were to abolish it they would be introducing a system of fagot votes through this occupation franchise. But why were they going to

    1831
    inflict on counties a system which they would not inflict on boroughs?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The clause will not do so.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcertainly thought it would. The present county qualification of England was a £12 rating qualification, which did not require residence. The Government might leave that as it was—he had no objection at all to their doing so; but he certainly did not think they ought to lower it if they had in their mind the danger that would be brought about by lowering the qualification without requiring residence through the creation of fagot votes. If the rating were lowered to £10 yearly value they might see a great many people over-estimating the value of their property in order to get votes out of it. They would find many people possessing property, with a value of £7 or £8, using every means they could devise to persuade the Revising Barristers that they had a £10 qualification. There might be just as many fagot votes created in counties in this way as Her Majesty's Government proposed to abolish by the clause which had just passed the Committee. If this county franchise, free from the requirements of residence, was to be inserted in the Bill, the other clauses of which would give the county franchise to every householder in the county, there would be very few cases indeed in which it could be fairly applied. On the other hand, it was a clause which, by the showing of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was capable of being- applied for the purpose of creating fagot votes, or else there was no reason why they should continue to require a residence in boroughs. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give some further explanation beyond that he had tendered to the Committee, which was that the Government desired to keep up the existing law. The Committee should have some reason why the Government proposed to inflict on counties this possibility of the development of a new system of fagot votes.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid he did not quite clearly understand the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed any Amendment they would discuss it;
    1832
    but, so far as he could follow him, he was objecting to the necessity for a residence in boroughs.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; I did not.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the fact that the non-resident voter should have a vote in the county, and the right hon. Gentleman was willing there should be a residence qualification in boroughs, and declared that non-residence was not necessary in the counties; and he said, on an Amendment proposing to reduce the qualification from £10 to £5, that he wished to leave the franchise as it was the right hon. Gentleman, as a county Member, refused to allow a £10 occupier in the county to vote, because he supposed such a person was not fit to exercise the franchise.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I did not say so.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman had said something to that effect. He must be consistent. If he wished to allow the franchise to remain as it was he wished to allow the county franchise to rest unaltered, which was a £15 or £16 rental. The Government, on the other hand, wished to reduce it. The Government were seeking to enfranchise the county occupier, and the right hon. Gentleman to prevent it. The Government wished to assimilate the two franchises—that was to say, to reduce the £15 or £16 rental to the same qualification as that of the boroughs.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him that the Attorney General got into difficulties, not understanding the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), because of his extraordinary passion for assimilation. That passion led him to ludicrous lengths. Hon. Members could quite understand that the object of the Bill was to give the same household franchise to the counties that the boroughs possessed; but the Attorney General was now endeavouring to assimilate things which were not at all similar—a qualification where residence was required in boroughs, and a qualification where residence was not required in counties. These things could not be assimilated bv making the £15 or £16 rental a £10 qualification as it was in the boroughs.

    1833
    If they had a householder in the county, and a householder in the borough, they could, in a certain sense, assimilate their franchises; but they could not assimilate totally dissimilar qualifications. Upon the Amendment before the Committee, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given due force and weight to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). With regard to "capable citizens," these Irish voters, or the majority of the Irish people who were to be admitted to the franchise, were persons who were paying somewhere about £1 a-year rental. He believed there was a majority of about 100,000 of these people who paid no more than £1 a-year rental: and he certainly thought, with due submission to the Attorney General, that a £5 occupier in a county or borough in England should have as nuich, if not more, weight than a £1 occupier in the wilds of the West of Ireland. However, the Government knew very well that by the proposals they were making they would get the support of the Irish Members; and he presumed they cared more for the votes of these £1 occupiers than they did for £5 occupiers in England. With regard to the whole clause, he must repeat that the passion of the Government for assimilation had produced a most deplorable state of things.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he had listened to the arguments of the hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with amazement; it seemed that his main contention was, "what has been shall be;" because £10 had been the qualification in the past so it should be in the future. Such logic would be fatal to the Bill. Why had the Prime Minister brought in a measure to overturn the whole system of voting if the Government were to argue, as soon as an Amendment of this sort was brought forward, that because a certain thing had been done up to this time, therefore it was right? The Attorney General declared, with the confidence of a man asserting some incontestible truth, that because £10 had been adopted up to this time, therefore £10, and nothing but £10, should qualify for the franchise for ever. He was glad that he had, at any rate, elicited by his Amendment some evidence of the fact that the Government were opposed to
    1834
    anythingin the shape of an enfranchising clause when it came from the Opposition side of the House. It was as well that that fact should be known to the Committee and the country—that the Government were afraid of accepting an enfranchising clause when it came from the Conservatives. He confessed he felt some tenderness for hon. Members opposite, many of whom sympathized with the Amendment, but did not dare to go against the Government. He pitied hon. Members opposite very much, and out of pity he would withdraw the Amendment, and not put them to the trouble and difficulty of having to vote against their convictions.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished to move an Amendment, which was not on the Paper. In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words, "after the passing of this Act." This he proposed in order to carry out the undertaking which had been given by the Prime Minister that they should not at present fix a date at which the Act should come into operation.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "after the passing of this Aet."—(The Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WARTONwas under the impression that the words "after the passing of this Act" remained in Clause 4. If they struck them out here, when they went through the Bill again on Eeport it would be necessary to strike them out of the other clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if it were necessary to strike the words out on Report it should then be done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Supplemental Provisions.
    Clause 6 (Voter not to vote for county in respect of occupation of property in borough) agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto).
    MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 3, line 2, to leave out from "as," to "Ireland," in line 7, inclusive, and insert—
    "The occupation as tenant, for a period of twelve months, of a tenement which is rated, or capahle of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid, and to which tenancy is attached the right of free access and egress to and from such tenement, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him."
    The hon. Member said the Amendment he proposed was rather an Interpretation Clause than an Amendment, and it was not proposed in any spirit of antagonism against the Bill. The clause in which he proposed to move the Amendment was the 7th of the Bill, and the marginal note relating to it was—
    "Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto."
    What he desired to make clear was what the expression "household qualification" meant. He contended that its meaning under the clause was no meaning at all, and the interpretation given was no interpretation and no definition whatever. There was no question, he believed, in the whole range of the law, about which so much difficulty and conflict had arisen as what was the determination of the expression "household qualification." Under these circumstances, it was desirable in this Bill to give some definition which should guide the Revising Barrister; and it had occurred to him that some attempt should be made to give a definition, or, if not a definition, at all events some indication of what was meant by "household qualification" when the expression was made use of in an Act of Parliament. He had referred to the legal decisions upon the subject, and he found that there was nothing as to which greater difference of opinion had arisen. The matter was, however, considered to be of so much importance that it was ultimately taken before the Lords Justices of Appeal for a decision upon the question. The late Sir George Jessel was one of the Judges before whom the appeal was brought; and in the Amendment which he (Mr. Gregory) proposed to insert in the Bill he had followed as far as he could the interpretation of that learned Judge. Sir George Jessel pointed out that the question was one
    1836
    of extreme difficulty, and that it had been very much complicated by the conflicting decisions which had been given in regard to it, and which it was impossible to reconcile. The learned Judge admitted the difficulty of laying down a definition applicable to all circumstances; but, at the same time, he laid down a certain principle by which a Judge or Revising Barrister who was hereafter called upon to deal with the question might be guided in giving a decision. The principle thus laid down by Sir George Jessel he had endeavoured to follow in giving an interpretation to the clause. The leading principle of the decision of the learned Judge was that "household qualification" meant that the man claiming it should have the dominion or control of his tenement —'that was to say, that he should have the uncontrolled possession of it, and free access and egress to and from it without the interference of the landlord, or of any other person claiming throusrh or under the landlord. Of course, he would be liable to the landlord in regard to repairs; but, subject to that, he ought to have the uncontrolled possession of the tenement, and to be able to go in and out of it without any interference on the part of the landlord, or of any other person. That was the interpretation which he proposed to give to the expression "household qualification," and he believed the Amendment would fully carry out his object and intention. He proposed to leave out of the clause certain slip-shod words which now appeared in it, and which were, he believed, taken from the Act of 1867 for the purpose of giving a clearer and more distinct interpretation; and for that purpose he proposed to insert words to provide that the occupation of the person claiming to be qualified should consist in his having been tenant for a period of 12 months of a tenement which was rated, or capable of being rated, to which tenancy was attached the right of free access and egross without the control or interference of the landlord, or of any person claiming through the landlord. It would thus be seen that he contemplated three elements in regard to qualification. First of all, there must be an occupation of 12 months, which was the law as it now stood. Secondly, that the tenant should be rated, or capable of being rated,

    1837
    which was also the law at the present moment. The law originally, however, went further, and said that the rates must have been duly paid "by the tenant. In his Amendment he did not go as far as that; but he simply required that they should be paid by somebody. Whether they were paid by a foreigner he did not care, nor did he inquire; but what he did contend was that the tenement should be rated, and that the rates should have been paid. In the third place, he came to something which was somewhat new, and which was founded principally upon an argument to which he had already referred—namely, that the tenant should have the right of free access and egress
    "Without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him"—
    that was to say, that the tenant should be in full and complete enjoyment of the tenement. He thought that was a very material and important requirement, and he was of opinion that there was no qualification which they could fairly define as an element for the enjoyment of the franchise unless they insisted upon some provision of this kind. He did not claim that the right should be confined to the tenancy of two, three, or more rooms; but he gave it to one room, provided the tenant complied with the provisions contained in the Amendment. All that he said was that the person claiming to be placed upon the Register and entitled to a vote should be an independent person, and that the tenement he occupied should be a real tenement—a tenement of which he had the unrestricted possession, and in regard to which his right of access and egress was free, and uncontrolled by the landlord or any other person. The only stipulation was that the tenement should be rated, or capable of being rated, and that the rates should have been paid. He thought the Amendment, if it were adopted by the Committee, would give some indication of what the opinion of Parliament was upon the matter, and would obviate hereafter a good deal of the confusion which now arose from conflicting decisions. With that view, and not from any antagonism to the Bill, he ventured to submit the proposal to the Committee.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that before the Chairman put the Amendment, he
    1838
    wished to move an Amendment after the word "Ireland."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon.Gentleman can propose his Amendment after that which has been submitted by the hon. Member for East Sussex has been disposed of.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 1, to leave out all the words after the word "as" down to the word "Ireland" in line 7, inclusive, in order to insert the words, "the occupation as tenant, for a period of twelve months, of a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid, and to which tenancy is attached the right of free access and egress to and from such tenement, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him." —(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure that his hon. Friend had not moved the Amendment in any hostile spirit, but that he was desirous of bringing before the Committee the principle which it contained. He was afraid, however, that his hon. Friend had, with the very best intentions, undertaken a very difficult and ambitious task. He recollected a learned Judge saying, not long ago—
    "If you ask me to define what is day and what is night, I cannot really do it; but I can tell you what is day and what is night."
    His hon. Friend had now undertaken to define what was a house for the purposes of the Bill, and he wished that his hon. Friend could have been successful. If he had been, he had no doubt the Committee would have been most happy to accept his hon. Friend's definition. He asked the Committee to examine what it was that the proposal of his hon. Friend did. He had suggested that "household qualification," which was substantially the same thing as a house, should mean the occupation as tenant for a period of 12 months—that was without reference to any date before the registration—"of a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated." That would include any building with a roof upon it, even a coal-shed. Of course, his hon. Friend did not mean for a moment to confer a vote upon the tenant of a coal-shed; but he would be aware that a tenement did not mean a dwelling house only, but any building.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment referred to a building which was rated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the coal-shed could be rated. "A tenement" was a word of very wide signification, and included anything that had a roof over it; and under the Amendment as it now stood any holding would be able to confer the franchise upon the tenant who was in occupation of it. He thought his hon. Friend must admit that he had broken down on the very threshold of his attempt to define the term "household qualification." In the next place, the: Amendment dealt with the question of the payment of rates. It said "a tenement which is rated, or capable of being rated, and on which the rates have been duly paid." What was the meaning of the words "duly paid." If they were paid in March, April, or May, they would be duly paid; and how was the Revising Barrister to be guided upon the matter? No dates of any kind were specified, and he contended that in that respect the Amendment broke down for the second time. Then, again, how were the words "rated, or capable of being rated," to be applied? Where there were two or more tenants in occupation of different parts of the same premises, would it be necessary that each of them should be separately rated? Hishon. Friend admitted that he did not care whether the tenant was the occupant of one room, two rooms, or any number of rooms in a tenement. So long as he had
    "The right of free access and egress, without the control or interference of the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under him,"
    the tenant was to be regarded as enjoying the "household qualification." The hon. Member had failed to make a complete definition. Under the Act of 1867 a house was any part of a house separately occupied and separately rated, and that was exactly contrary to what the hon. Member now proposed. The result was that the Act of 1869 was passed, and the question again came before a Select Committee in 1878, and in the Act of 1878 it was enacted that the term "house" should include any part of a house where that part was separately occupied. Upon that defini-
    1840
    tion decisions of the law had been given, the law had settled itself down, and the Government thought it better to take the law as it now stood; lint the hon. Member proposed to disturb it by this definition. Under these circumstances they could not assent to the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, some of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman had force, but others had not; while those that had some force had been weakened by the introduction of a word here and there. With regard to the word "tenement," he wished to make a suggestion to his hon. Friend—namely, to insert the words "fit for habitation" after "tenement." A cowshed would not be fit for human habitation; and he thought these words would be useful to define a house within the intention of the Bill. In the Sister Isle the inhabitants lived with their cattle, and perhaps a cowshed might be a proper place as a dwelling for many of the voters in that country. The Attorney General had missed the most important part of the definition. He had criticized small matters, and had not given the hon. Member credit for the best part of the definition; and that was the part which was supported by the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel—namely, as to the control or interference of the landlord. About that the Attorney General had said nothing; and the real point, after all, as to a tenement was, whether the occupier of the tenement was or was not free from the control of the landlord? If a landlord lived on the premises, and let the house out in separate rooms, the tenants ought to be considered as occupying separate houses, otherwise the landlord might shut the door, and refuse to let the tenants go in or out. But the Attorney General had omitted all reference to that important point, and had devoted himself to trivial matters. The only criticism he had made of any importance was that as to the word "tenement." If they inserted after the word "tenement," the words "fit for human habitation," they would get over the difficulty as to the house or any part of it being rated. If the hon. Member would consent to this trifling alteration, that would, he thought, obviate all the criticisms of the Attorney General, and allow the important point

    1841
    which he had not noticed, to stand by itself. He begged to move that Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: When the Amendment before the Committee has been disposed of, then will come the time for the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to move his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he must apologize to the Prime Minister, and to the Attorney General, for not having placed the Amendment he now proposed to move on the Paper. The question he was going to raise had hardly been discussed, and it had, by common consent, been deferred until the Definition Clause was reached. Words very much to the same effect as his Amendment were moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) on Clause 2; but it was felt that that was not the right place for the Amendment. What he proposed was, to insert after the word "Ireland" the words—
    "The occupation of a dwelling house containing not less than two habitable rooms."
    That Amendment had, in substance, been formerly proposed; but it was withdrawn. He anticipated that it would be negatived; but he believed he was perfectly in Order in moving it now. The Amendment attempted to define what was to be a household qualification; and although the Attorney General had stated, and with great emphasis, that there was great difficulty in attempting a definition, he did not think this was a particularly abstruse definition. It was based on the contention of the Prime Minister himself as to a "capable citizen." There might be Members of the House who might have some hesitation in expressing an opinion as to what was or was not a "capable citizen;" but he was not afraid to say that a man was not a capable citizen who inhabited one room with his family for all purposes. He knew he should be told that this Amendment might have a disfranchising effect; but he should be quite ready, in the event of the Committee accepting the Amendment, to propose words subsequently which would protect against its operation any persons who now enjoyed the franchise, and who otherwise would be excluded from that enjoyment by this Amendment. He had no wish to make
    1842
    this Bill the means of disfranchising a single elector; but, after all. he did not think the individual rights of a particular elector were of so much moment as the stability of the State; and he thought extreme scrupulousness had been shown for individual interests more than for the interests of the country at large. He did not wish to detain the Committee by arguing this question at any length, because it seemed to him that it lay in a nutshell. Something of this kind, he thought, was intended by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) just now, when he proposed to modify the provisions of the Bill by limiting its operation to tenements that were suitable for human habitation. He could not help thinking that the words he proposed were a better way of explaining what was meant; and he was very anxious to repeat what he had already said—that he had no wish by this Amendment to interfere with existing or vested rights; but he could not consent to see the destinies of this great Empire in future committed to people living in the unfortunate and unhappy way in which he regretted to see a large class of people were compelled to live; nor to give them an equal voice in determining the affairs of an Empire like this with those who were more qualified by the surroundings of their life, and by such leisure and intelligence as they might possess, to deal with questions of Imperial affairs. he confessed that it seemed to him that when they talked of giving this boon to constituencies, nearly half of which consisted of persons inhabiting single room tenements, as was the case in Ireland, houses which not only contained but one room, but which were largely occupied by the live stock belonging to the head of the family, they had reduced the question of the franchise almost ad absurdum. He earnestly hoped the Committee would pause now that this matter was before them, and would give itself an opportunity of acting on the principle that was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when he brought in this Bill, by fixing some sort of definition of a capable citizen. If the Committee considered that persons in the unfortunate position and circumstances to which he had adverted were capable citizens, he should very humbly bow to the decision; but he was bound, at the

    1843
    same time, to take this opportunity of giving the Committee a chance of deciding upon this clause and this Amendment, whether or not they considered that all citizens were equally capable, whether they were persons enjoying all the ordinary privileges and advantages hitherto regarded as belonging to citizenship, or whether they were persons who had not had an opportunity of obtaining the experiences of civilization, so as to fit them for the exercise of those duties.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 2, to leave out all the words after "Ireland" down to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert "the occupation of a dwelling house containing not less than two inhabitable rooms."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, within his right in moving this Amendment. It is true that we objected to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), on the ground that it was out of place; but it is also true that we argued the question upon its merits, and I shall, therefore, be very brief in dealing with it. We are utterly opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman; and I cannot say too strongly that our decision is to resist it by all the means in our power. In our opinion it is doubly out of place. It would be the introduction in a great enfranchising measure, which I admit this is, of a very large and sweeping disfranchising proposition. Recollect this, that the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs went into the towns, where it is thought most of these objectionable one-roomed qualifications are found, and enfranchised the occupiers without the smallest question, and in no point has that been productiv e of any ill. I absolutely demur to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman that those who live in those one-roomed tenements are unfit for enfranchisement. I will refor to Scotland, and I would like any Member of this House to go among those one-roomed houses in Glasgow, or in Aberdeen more particularly, and get into some argument with the occupiers, and see whether they are not tolerably well able to hold their own. In my opinion, Members of this House would come off second best.
    MR. RAIKES: The Amendment does not apply to Scotland. I have applied it only to England and Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As a Scotch Member, I think I may express my gratitude for that; but I must protest against this invidious distinction which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to establish between the three countries. But I am not prepared to admit that even with regard to the North of Ireland the misfortune of having to live in one room constitutes, or should constitute, a disqualification; and the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that, as regards great towns, this would be a sweeping disqualification, not of persons at present on the Register, but of the classes to which they belong. I will refer again to Scotland, and quote a most remarkable and interesting illustration of the doctrine I am endeavouring to lay down. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows a most interesting and curious book written by Dr. Arthur Mitchell; that gentleman made a searching examination of the tenements in the extreme Highlands, and he found there that the dwellings were of most primitive, and even what would be called barbarous construction. They were houses in the erection of which it was evident that no cutting instrument had been employed. They were, in fact, houses of the lowest order of construction, and yet Dr. Mitchell observed that the people inhabiting those houses were not inferior to the rest of the population. That was the conclusion he came to as a careful and impartial observer, and not at all as a person examining the matter from an interested point of view. We demur to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman in this. We do not admit that those persons whose circumstances are, no doubt, very limited are unfit to exercise the franchise. We protest against introducing a disfranchising provision into a Bill of this kind, aimed at a large class of people for no fault they have committed, and without the allegation of any fault; and on that account we cannot consent to entertain, in any shape, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONmentioned that what Dr. Mitchell stated was that the waifs and strays of a population were always to be found in the great cities, and one of the remarkable

    1845
    facts of civilization was that there were always persons who were perfectly unfit to maintain the ordinary character of civilization, and that most of them were to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of great cities. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was for manhood suffrage, not for household suffrage.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he thought the sequitur of the argument of the Prime Minister was that the more unfit a house was for habitation the more fit was the occupier of it to have a vote. It was either better or worse, more fortunate or more unfortunate, that a man should live in one room with his wife and children of both sexes, many of them growing up to manhood and womanhood, or it was not. He had always assumed that all the efforts they were making to improve the dwellings of the working classes were intended, if possible, to get rid of those uncivilized and barbarous dwellings. Certainly, the speech of the Prime Minister would have great effect in encouraging the continuance of residences, not only a disgrace to civilization, but which would be considered indecent, inhuman, and improper, even in barbarous countries. The right hon. Gentleman had again used only one argument, if it could be called an argument—namely, that any restriction would be a disfranchising measure. But if they were to go on the principle of enfranchising the largest numbers without restriction of any kind, without considering whether the new element was good or bad, why had not the right hon. Gentleman the courage to say that every man should vote because he was a man, and every woman should vote because she was a woman? He did not say that. He said—"No; I will select my own future constituency;" and he hugged to his breast what most people would say was the worst element that could be admitted in any country. He admitted the unilocular voter, and he kept out the educated man. Were they to encourage people to live in those places by dignifying them with a vote? He must protest against that. The alternative was to enfranchise everybody, and then the great mass of good elements would overcome the bad; but the Prime Minister said—" No; we will have these men who live wholesale in one room with their families, and all
    1846
    kinds of beasts beside; we will make them citizens, dignify their abodes by the franchise;" and so he would perpetuate what was one of the greatest curses of the country.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, that this was not a Bill dealing with sanitary subjects, and did not aim at improving dwellings; but it was an enfranchising measure. He must say a word in reply to the extraordinary speech they had just heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). The hon. Baronet wished to make the Bill a disfranchising instead of an enfranchising one, and contended that those who lived in one room should cease to have a vote. How did the hon. Gentleman wish to effect that object? By improving the condition of the people; but was it by telling them that because they lived in one room they were degraded, and were not fit to have a vote, that he would improve their condition? He would deprive them of the vote in order to assist them to get better dwellings. The hon. Baronet wished to be considered a friend of the people, and a Gentleman, anxious to elevate the people, and lift them out of any condition of degradation that they might be in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) said he had made his protest, and had asked hon. Members opposite to give him their assistance in his efforts to put a stop to the degradation of the people. That was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee had heard the assistance he had received from the hon. Baronet; but he (the Attorney General) must confess that if they allowed themselves to be guided by this alliance, instead of putting the people in a better position, they would be doing something that was eminently calculated to degrade them. They would be marking poor people who were confined to the occupation of one room amongst their fellows as unfit to have the vote. It was proposed to leave these people without the means of raising themselves from their degradation; and if the Government adopted the principle, instead of helping them, they would be perpetuating that degradation.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was very much surprised to hear the observations

    1847
    of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that it was impossible to improve the condition of the people by giving a premium to those who were in a worse position. Amongst school children they did not reward the worst simply because they were so; but they first gave them 1d. banks and such like, and afterwards gave them a treat. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) was that the worse the people were the less trouble they took to get from one room to two and live in a more healthy and decent state; and why the Government were to reward these people who were content to live in degradation, by giving them that which ought to be the prize given to energy and decency, he did not know. As he had understood them, the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had been directed to the development of that idea, and he certainly thought those remarks, and also the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, did not deserve to be treated in the cavalier fashion in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had dealt with them, though there might be difficulties in the way of carrying out the Amendment in some cases. It could not be denied that very intelligent people were often found living in one reom—immediately after marriage, for instance. A man, under such circumstances, was as much entitled to vote as his neighbour who lived in two rooms; but he would soon acquire the vote, because it would not take him long to attain the position of his neighbour.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was very much astonished that they had not heard anything from the Prime Minister in the course of his speech with regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had studiously avoided all reference to that country in his observations.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon— I distinctly mentioned it.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned Ireland incidentally; but he had been referring mainly to Scotland, stating that he was a Scotch Member, and was glad to say that even in the
    1848
    poorest houses in that country they were all "capable citizens" — capable of taking part with any Gentleman in that House—as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had understood the right hon. Gentleman—in the consideration of matters of policy. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that with regard to Ireland, because he knew perfectly well that of those who occupied the 435,000 houses which were rated below £1, 40 per cent could not read or write; and he also knew that these were not capable citizens, and were liable far more than others to be influenced by those whose object was to disturb the peace in that unfortunate country. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman might shake his head and quarrel with that view; but he was aware of the condition of things in Ireland, and must know that he was about to add tremendously to the difficulties that he would have to encounter if he were Prime Minister when the Bill came into operation, or that any other Prime Minister would have to encounter by adding 435,000 persons, taken from the lowest strata of society in Ireland, to the electorate. He (Sir Walter B. Barttcelot) would venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had stated accurately what he know with regard to this clause he would have put them in a very different category to the class of Irishmen to whom he had referred. Many of the dwellings occupied by the people who would be enfranchised in Ireland were not houses at all; but the right hon. Gentleman was so determined that they should have 2,000,000 voters of any kind and of any sort that he did not think it necessary to inquire whether or not it was right that any part of them should be enfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman's great point was to say "these men are deprived of their rights." He would venture to say that if these men were required to be in a better position, to live in better dwellings, and if they were better educated, they would be much more fit to use the franchise than they would be found when it was given to them by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he wished to add the words "except in so far as repealed by this Act," to the

    1849
    definition of a house qualification in Scotland as the qualification enacted by the 3rd section of the Representation oi the People (Scotland) Act, 1868. His object was, by a subsequent Amendment in the Schedules, upon which the present Amendment was consequential, to strike out from the Act of 1868 the provision that the payment of poor rates against a certain specified date should be a necessary condition of electoral qualification for the occupation franchise. This was a most important matter with regard to the Highlands. The Prime Minister had stated, over and over again, that this was a great enfranchising measure, and he was quite willing to take it that that was so; but it would be a very considerable disfranchising measure indeed if the prior payment of poor rates was necessary to enrolment. In Glasgow alone the numbers disqualified could be counted by thousands, and the same thing would occur amongst the small householders in the counties. In 1832, at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, there was no such disqualification as the non-payment of poor rates, because those rates did not then exist. There was, however, a disqualification at that period —namely, the non-payment of Queen's or assessed taxes, and that disqualification had since been removed. But in the Act of 1868, with regard to Scotland, the disqualification of non-payment of poor rates by a certain date was introduced. There was no reason for extending the disqualification, as it would be extended under the Bill if his Amendment were not carried. There was no particular virtue in the payment of poor rates by a fixed day compared with the payment of any other tax; and if it were necessary that disqualification should apply in the case of non-payment of poor rates there was no reason why it should not apply in regard to the non-payment of other rates. He should very much like the Lord Advocate to explain, if he could, why this clause was to be adopted in its present form.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, after the word "qualification," to insert the words "except in so far as repealed by this Act."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that though, as a matter of fact, the Amendment now proposed was a very small one, it was intended to prepare the way for a much more important proposal which was to be made later on. The hon. Gentleman quite frankly avowed that what he proposed to do was to make inapplicable to the county voter that which was made a condition of the franchise conferred on the burghs in 1868— namely, that a person should perform one of the first duties of citizenship— pay the taxes which were required of him. In the Act of 1868 it was provided, not only that the failure to pay poor rates should beadisqualification, but that the circumstance of persons being exempted from the payment of poor rates on the ground of inability to pay, and also the circumstance of having been in receipt of parochial relief within 12 months before the date of registration, should form a disqualification. The hon. Member did not propose to remove either of these two disqualifications; and yet where persons were liable to pay poor rates and did not pay them, the hon. Member would enact that they should be enfranchised. That seemed to be directly in the teeth of the elementary principle that representation and taxation should go together. The principle of the Amendment, it must be borne in mind, would not apply to Scotland alone, but would be of general application.
    MR. ERASER-MACKINTOSHpointed out that small owners in counties in Scotland were not disqualified by reason of non-payment of poor rates. The disqualification was a most anomalous one altogether, not applying in Ireland, for instance, to any qualification; and, under the circumstances, he felt compelled, in justice to those he represented, and the great body of small householders in the Highlands proposed to be enfranchised, to take a Division on the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 194: Majority 185.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
    Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts" and "Registration Acts").
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and

    1851
    which, he considered necessary to make the Bill suitable to Scotland, had, he believed, been accepted in principle. He should not, therefore, detain the Committee further than to say that he would leave it to the Lord Advocate to explain the object of the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 4, after the word "boroughs," add "Provided, That no change shall be made in the mode of making up the register of county yoters in Scotland."—(Sir John Hay.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that a difficulty had been experienced in consequence of the different modes of making up the valuation roll in counties and burghs in Scotland. As it was desirable that the matter should not remain in a state of ambiguity, he proposed to bring up an Amendment on the Report which, although it might not be in the same terms as that placed upon the Paper by his right hon. and gallant Friend, would meet the object he had in view, to the extent of making it clear whether the county or the burgh method should be adopted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).
    MR. CUBITTsaid, he had to apologize to the Lord Advocate and hon. Members for Scotland for rising to move an Amendment which, at first sight, appeared only to affect Scotland; but the Amendment was in connection with another to the same effect on pago 6 with regard to England and Ireland. He asked the serious attention of the Committee to what were the Penal Clauses of the Bill. He believed the Prime Minister, on introducing the Bill to the House, said that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a self-acting Registration Bill; and he thought the Committee would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if a measure of the kind with regard to the occupation franchise could be arranged and carried, it would greatly improve the present system, and that if Parliament decided that a great mass of new electors should be placed on the Register, it was also bound to provide means whereby those electors could be regis-
    1852
    tered with the least possible trouble to themselves and expense to the State. He had, on a former occasion, asked both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, how this was to be effected; but, up to the present time, the House had not been treated to any information on the subject He, therefore, again appealed to the Government to state to the Committee in what way they proposed to carry out the change, or to omit this clause as having no direct connection with the Bill, the Government laying their whole scheme of registration before the House on a future occasion. Pending that Bill, he was only able to get an inkling of what was in the mind of the Government from this paragraph relating to Scotland, and that upon the next page which applied to England and Ireland. In both these a new penalty was applied. There was a penalty in the case of Scotland of £5 upon the occupier, and in the case of England and Ireland a penalty of 40 s. upon the occupier and overseer if they omitted to do what was required of them. He should, no doubt, be told that Parliament had already made enactments of the kind. He found the first instance of this in the Act known as the Poor Rate Assessment Collection Act of 1869, which provided that the owner should deliver to the overseer a list containing the names of the occupiers of the hereditaments for which he was rated, or liable to be rated; and that if such owner wilfully omitted to deliver such list when required to do so, he should, for every such omission or mis-statement, be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £2; and another section of the Act made the overseer liable to the same penalty. It did not appear that there was any great discussion in the House upon that clause of the Act; but he believed he was correct in saying that, when the Bill was brought in by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr, Goschen), then President of the Poor Law Board, that the right hon. Gentleman explained it by saying that the Act permitted an agreement to be made between the owner and the occupier in consideration of a definite commission being paid to the owners in reduction of the rate; and he excused it on the ground that it was proposed, in the first place, that the

    1853
    owner would lose the commission he would otherwise get if he omitted to give a list of the tenants. There was a sort of quid pro quo, and on that ground he believed it passed through the House. The point of the wedge having been introduced, the principle was afterwards extended, and he found in the present Bill two paragraphs, both of which inflicted new penalties; and he believed that many hon. Members would agree with him when he said that there were some points in them which made the penalties much more stringent than those formerly introduced. The penalties, as the Committee would observe, in the case of the Act he had cited, were only to be inflicted upon those who wilfully omitted to deliver a list of occupiers, whereas in this clause they were to be inflicted upon those who merely made default—in other words, failed to do so— and, therefore, he said that it was much more severe. Without any pretence on his part to legal knowledge, he believed the Attorney General would at once allow that there was a great distinction between these two acts of omission. He observed on the Notice Paper that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had put down an Amendment bearing on this subject; he should have thought the hon. Member knew enough of pains and penalties to cause him to desist from endeavouring to inflict further penalties on the people; but hs found that he also had fallen into the snare, and was prepared to move a clause that would have that effect if it were agreed to by the Government. The subject was, undoubtedly, one which demanded the serious attention of the Committee; and he asked the Government at once to tell the Committee how this boon, in the shape of a self-registration Act, was to be conferred, or to say that they would postpone the present clause until they could bring in a complete Bill to provide for registration.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, to leave out from line 22 to line 35, inclusive.—(Mr. Cubitt.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that he had an Amendment to move in lines 26 and 30.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cubitt) would excuse him if he did not enter then into the provisions of the Registration Bill, which would, of course, stand alone. He believed the Committee would see that this part of the clause was absolutely necessary in order that persons entitled to vote should find their names upon the Register. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Act of 1869; but the clause he had cited had been found in practice to be insufficient, inasmuch as the overseer had no means of ascertaining the names of the different occupiers of tenements separately held. The present clause, therefore, was intended to remedy that defect in the Act of 1869, which was due to the fact that the overseer was entirely dependent upon the voluntary action of the owner for a list of the occupiers. In the present case, instead of leaving the matter to the voluntary action of the owner, the Bill said that the overseer was to deliver a request to the owner for the names of the persons occupying. The owner was called upon to answer that application, and he was, of course, more likely to do so if he were liable for a penalty than would otherwise be the case. The clause had been drawn with great care, and was the result of suggestions coming from overseers in the Provinces; showing that a large number of occupiers would be in the circumstances described — prevented from exercising the franchise. That being so, hon. Members who were desirous of seeing the franchise exercised by those upon whom Parliament conferred it would, of course, allow the sub-section, which was the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, to remain part of the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there ought, in his opinion, to be some words introduced into the clause which would compel the overseer to inform the owner that he would be liable to a penalty if he made a mistake, or was inaccurate in any one of the particulars he was called upon to give.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was informed, on competent authority, that the term "rated in respect of" used in the clause was not sufficiently precise; and

    1855
    that, as it would apply to a considerable number of person?, it was desirable that the words which he was about to move should be substituted in their place. He believed those words covered the whole class contemplated in the clause, and at the same time provided against the evils which might result from the retention of the words which he proposed to strike out.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "rated in respect," and insert the words "being a proprietor, or reputed proprietor, or tenant, or occupier."—(Sir John Hag.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must give the same answer to this Amendment as he had given in the case of the last ono proposed by his right hon. and gallant Friend. He found there had been some difficulty throughout different rating areas as to the manner in which this provision was to be worked out; and he proposed on Report to bring up a clause giving effect to this and some other Amendments, which, he believed, were generally desired throughout Scotland, for making the method of referential registration more clear and effective.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Does that apply also to the second amendment standing in my name?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I cannot accept my right hon. and gallant Friend's second Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, Withrawn.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was one point in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) which had not been replied to by the Attorney General. His right hon. Friend pointed out that by this clause the Government was imposing a severe penalty on the owners of property coming within the definition in the clause; but the Attorney General had merely explained to the Committee why it was that the defect in the Act of 1869 rendered it necessary to make further provision for obtaining an accurate list of occupiers entitled to the franchise. His right hon. Friend spoke of the stringency of the clause as against the
    1856
    owners of property occupied by persons entitled to be registered. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say that it was a very stringent provision indeed to compel an owner to give an accurate list of occupiers under a penalty not exceeding £5. He knew the danger of inserting the word "wilfully;" but in the present ease he should venture to move its insertion. He had no objection-whatever to the owner being called on by the overseer to do his best to furnish the necessary information; but he certainty did object to his being liable to a fine of £5 for any inaccuracy which might be found in his statement, in view of the strict interpretation which the Revising Barrister was always obliged to place on an Act of Parliament in the case of application for registration.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the word "he," insert the word "wilfully."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'wilfully" be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. In requiring an owner to make a Return of the occupiers of his property, they were not imposing a very difficult task upon him. It was the duty of the owner to make the Return, and the insertion of the word "wilfully" would be saying, in effect, that he should find some excuse for the non-performance of that duty.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General had not quite correctly stated the case. It rnig'ht very well be that the owner of a house perfectly bonâ fide gave a list of occupiers which was not accurate. Then he was to be fined £5; not for any default on his part, but perhaps owing to the dishonesty of persons occupying his houses. There was nothing in the clause which would protect him under such circumstances; and as he understood that the word "wilfully" appeared in the Act of 1869, he was unable to perceive why its omission should be allowed to increase the penalties under the Bill.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had made a vovy furious statement with regard to this clause He was

    1857
    not aware that any penal clause in any Act of Parliament could be enforced against a man for what was the result of an accident. There must be wilful disregard of the duty imposed by the Act. He had no adequate information as to the operation of the clause with relation to Scotland; but in the present case he did not think there was any necessity for the Attorney General to depart from the ordinary acceptation of the law, and therefore he considered the Committee were entitled to further information.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question to be considered was not the intention of the individual, but whether he had performed the duty imposed upon him by the Act. It would have to be proved affirmatively if the Amendment were adopted that such duty had been wilfully neglected before the penalty was imposed, whereas under the clause as it stood it would depend upon the circumstances of the case whether the maximum sum of £5 or the minimum fine of one farthing were inflicted. They must look at the common sense of the matter, and he believed the Committee would see that if this Amendment were admitted it would be in the power of every owner to disfranchise every one of his tenants. An owner might say, for instance—"I have let these houses to 10 different tenants; you must come to me; I refuse to give you any information; I do not care what consequences will follow; you must prove affirmatively that I acted wilfully, but you will only be able to prove omission, and that will not carry the penalty." That being so, he could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he entirely disclaimed the imputation cast upon him by the hon. and learned Gentleman that he desired to allow the owner of property to escape from the performance of his duty. But he objected—and he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee on the question— to the imposition of a fine upon an owner of property for what might very well be an unintentional inaccuracy, but which might be an inaccuracy sufficient to deprive a person on the list of his title to be registered as a voter. It seemed to him, however, that the word "wilfully" hardly raised the question
    1858
    in the manner in which he should like it to be raised; and therefore, if the Committee would allow it, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order to move the insertion, in line 31, after the words "and if he fail to do so," of the words, "with such accuracy as may be reasonably possible." Those words would show the intention of the Committee; but, of course, if the Attorney General would propose better words on Report, they might be agreed to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the words "do so," to insert the words "with such accuracy as may reasonably be possible."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment, because it was impossible to say what it might lead to. A man might say that he could not make inquiries into the affairs of his tenants; and who, then, was to judge whether his return was made with all the accuracy that was reasonably possible?
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he could not quite agree with the words suggested by his right hon. Friend, although he was strongly of opinion that the clause in its present form was one which ought not to be accepted by the Committee, because it imposed a serious penalty upon that which might be a mistake, and therefore reasonably excused. He would, therefore, propose to substitute the words "without reasonable excuse" for those put forward by his right hon. Friend. The clause as it stood made it incumbent on a magistrate to inflict a penalty for an inaccuracy which was the result of accident, and might therefore be reasonably excused, and against that he altogether protested. He suggested that the words he had just mentioned were words which the Attorney General might very reasonably accept. They were words one was not unfamiliar with; they were words which would remove the difficulty with regard to the clause.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpressed upon the Attorney General the acceptance of some such words as these. It was quite impossible that the clause

    1859
    could stand as at present. It was not fair to the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should simply say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)— "I object to your words on account of a legal technicality." [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I said just the contrary.] That made his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) case all the stronger, because, if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the principle of the Amendment, it must lie upon him to accept words, or find words, to get out of the difficulty.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that if they were going to divide, it would be better they should divide on the words of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), to which words he (Mr. Gorst) was not aware that any objection had been raised by the Attorney General. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would assent to those words, or any other similar words, it would save the Committee going to a Division.
    SIR, MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to put himself in competition with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) as to the best phrase for insertion in the clause. He was quite willing, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEthen proposed to insert, after "So," the words "without reasonable excuse."
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, after the word "So," to insert the words "without reasonable excuse."— (Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 95; Noes 192: Majortiy 97.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
    MR. WARTONproposed, in page 5, line 32, to omit the words "fivepounds," and insert the words "forty shillings." He had two reasons for moving this Amendment. First of all, the previous penalty was only 40 s., and why it should be increased in this case he did not know. Again, if they looked at the
    1860
    next page of the same clause they found that—
    "Both in England and in Ireland where a house is let out or occupied in separate parts, …. the overseers shall within twenty-ons days after the first of March in every year give notice in writing to the person rated or rateable in respect of such house requiring him…. to furnish…. an accurate list containing the name of the occupier of every such part which constitutes a separate dwelling-house."
    And in case of default of duty, either on the part of the overseer or the person rated, a penalty not exceeding 40 s. might be imposed. He did not see why in the case of Scotland there should be a different penalty; and therefore he proposed to omit the words "five pounds," and substitute for them "forty shillings."
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the words "five pounds," and insert the words "forty shillings."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'five pounds' stand part of the Clause,"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he believed there was a different estimate of the value of money in England and Ireland as compared with Scotland, and that it was thought necessary that a greater penalty should be imposed in Scotland. In order, however, to produce assimilation, he would agree to the substitution of the words "forty shillings."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WHITLEYproposed, after "is," in page 6, line 15, to insert "wholly." The Amendment had reference to the service franchise, and he hoped he shoul d be able to induce the Government to accept it. In establishing the service franchise it ought to be made clear that the owner must not be resident in the house. He had no doubt he would be told that this Bill was a Bill for enfranchisement, and not for disfranchisement; but he could not help thinking that this clause was open to great objection. A boarding-house keeper would be able to exercise great influence over the inhabitants of his house, and in order to guard against such a state of things he contended that the Government ought to agree to the Amendment he now proposed. His Amendment really carried out the Go-

    1861
    vernment's own view of the service franchise. He was the Representative of a large number of the working classes, and in their interest he considered some such Amendment as he suggested necessary. He had heard a great deal that night from the Prime Minister with regard to the duty of protecting voters in the exercise of the franchise, and with regard to the importance of bearing in mind that this was a great enfranchising measure. But, at the same time, they must take care that in enfranchising the multitude they gave them complete liberty of action. A clause like the one under consideration was, however, utterly at variance with that freedom which it was essential should be given to the new voters, and he believed it might be made the occasion of acts of tyranny and oppression. He hoped he had said enough to induce the Government to accept in this instance the principle they had accepted in a previous clause, and to provide that it was only where a house was "wholly" let out that the persons should be enfranchised; to provide that in all cases it must be a sine quâ non that the owner did not live amongst his tenants, in which position he might coerce them in the matter of voting. He hoped he should receive an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would accept the Amendment, which clearly was in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the service franchise.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, after the word "is," to insert the word "wholly."—(Mr. Wliitley.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' wholly ' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had not quite realized the effect of his Amendment; the hon. Gentleman evidently intended the Amendment to go much further than it really did. Was he to understand that the hon. Gentleman meant that if a landlord lived in one room of his house, and let to separate occupiers other portions of his house, those separate occupiers should not have a vote? [Mr. WHITLEY assented.] That was the hon. Gentleman's intention. Then he must see that the Amendment did not carry that object into effect, because it did not say those
    1862
    persons should not have a vote, but merely provided that the machinery to bring them on the Register should not be brought into operation. All that the Amendment did was to provide that if a house was wholly let, the machinery by which the overseer should require the owner to make an accurate list of the separate occupiers should apply; but if the landlord occupied a room himself, the machinery provided by the Bill should not apply. To be consistent, his hon. Friend should go a little further and say they should not vote. If they were to have a vote, and to remain on the Register, why not give them the best machinery to get on the Register? His hon. Friend would not take separate occupiers off the Register, but would simply provide that the machinery of making a Return should not apply to them if the owner lived on the premises. He, on the part of the Government, must look at the matter as one of substance, and he could not see the difference between the landlord living under the same roof and living next door.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WHITLEYproposed, in page 6, line 17, after the words "dwelling house," to insert the words—
    Separately rated to all poor rates laid during the twelve months previous to the fifteenth of July."
    Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite wero inclined to enfranchise people who themselves paid no rates at all, on the ground that they might, nevertheless, be capable citizens. They had hoard a great deal that night about the working classes. After a very long acquaintance with the working classes, he ventured to say that the vast majority of the working classes of the country would prefer that some gauge of respectability was placed upon them. He believed that if the working classes were polled, it would be found that the greater number of them were in favour of their rights being safeguarded. He could not help feeling that many of the arguments he had heard during these debates had been rather in favour of putting the working classes against the other classes of the country. They had heard a great deal about disfranchise-ment. It was a singular thing that if two men held property worth £5,000 a-year, only one of them could vote in

    1863
    respect of it, while, if there were 10 men living in one house, the whole of them should be entitled to vote. That, he thought, was transferring power in the country to mere multitude. The stability of the country depended upon all classes being represented, and he believed the working classes were as sensible of the fact as any Member of the House of Commons. He had no doubt it would be said that he, as the Representative of a working class community, should be the last man to say that; but it was because he was the Representative of the working classes, because he understood their feelings, because he was satisfied they did not want to have the whole voting power transferred to them, that he considered it would be a very unwise course if Parliament transferred all the voting power to mere multitude. Was it not inconsistent? It deprived gentlemen of the vote who might hold property as joint tenants. That was to say, it would only allow one to possess it, and yet in a small house of 10 rooms of the annual value of only £10, they might have 10 voters. He acknowledged the intelligence of the working classes, and agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that they were worthy of the fancbise; but, at the same time, in their interests and in that of the country, he must say he did not think they were doing a wise thing by giving them that power which they denied to the wealth and property of the country. He did not ask for personal payment of rates. He was one of those who believed that if the measure of the late Lord Beaconsfield had remained intact, and there had been payment of rates, they would have been saved from the difficulties in which they now found themselves. It was not right to taunt the Conservatives with having taken away the personal payment of rates. Of course, his Amendment would be rejected. Still he believed that it was one which would meet the wishes of the working classes, and which was a statesmanlike proposal.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 17, after the words "dwelling house," to insert the words "separately rated to all poor rates laid during the twelve months previous to the fifteenth of July."— (Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could only believe that the cheers with which the speech of the hon. Member was greeted were due to the hon. Member's personal ability. He could not believe that they were in any way due to the merits of his proposal. The Amendment was open to the objection which had already been stated by the Attorney General. It would not disfranchise the class in question, but would only have the effect of depriving them of the same facilities of being put on the Register as other people. As to the terms of the Amendment, and the speech in which the hon. Member recommended it, he might point out that the measure was one which was mainly intended as an Enfranchising Bill, and that the Amendment would make it in a high degree, so far as certain boroughs were concerned, a Disfranchising Bill. It could not be the intention of his hon. Friend to bring forward this Amendment as a means of undoing the work of the Acts of 1868 and 1869, which enfranchised the persons whose unfitness for the franchise had just been proclaimed to the Committee. The effect of the Amendment would not be to disfranchise them, although the effect of his speech would be to deprive vast numbers of his own constituency and of the constituencies in all large places in the country of the right of voting. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not think that such a proposal was seriously made, and he was sure that if it were put to the vote, it would not be supported by the majority of those who sat on the other side of the House.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was not sure that the Committee would be willing to accept what the right hon. Gentleman had said on this matter, because it was not so long since the Bill of 1878 was passed, and passed in a large measure on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman himself that it was only a Registration Bill, and, therefore, that it might be allowed to go through the House helter-skelter without any great examination of its provisions. The result was a larger extension of the franchise in some parts of the country than had even followed from the Act of 1867. But without going into the larger question which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested in his speech, he (Mr. E. Clarke) would point out to the Go-

    1865
    vernment the curious position they were placed in by, he would not call it the obstinacy, but at any rate the stiffness, on the part of the majority which had led them to resist the Amendment 011 which the last Division had been taken. It was proposed to insert words which provided that the dwelling-houses to which the clause referred should be separately rated to the relief of the poor. That might or might not be a good proposal; but, supposing that it were not a good proposal with respect to its disfranchising effects, it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of working this particular clause, because, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would look at the rest of the provision, they would see that it imposed a duty on the overseer to give notice in writing to the person rated in respect of premises at a particular time to give a list containing the name of the occupier of every such part which constituted a separate dwelling-house. But how was the overseer to serve any such notice unless he himself had notice that there had been an under-letting of the premises? Was he to be called on to serve this notice in respect of every house within the parish with which he was connected in order to ascertain whether it were or were not let out in tenements? He did not say that this was a conclusive justification of the proposal before the Committee; but, at any rate, it was a conclusive answer to what the Attorney General had said with regard to the last Division they had taken. Because here they proposed, if these words were not inserted, to call on the overseers to give notice with regard to the sub-letting or otherwise of the premises, and, although the circumstances he was required to state might be altogether beyond his knowledge, to inflict a fine of £5 upon him if he did not give the notice. Unless some such words as were suggested a little time ago were inserted as to these penalties, the clause would become a simple absurdity.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the Attorney General accepted the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if he had accepted them he should have said so.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not think the Government were treating that side
    1866
    of the House at all courteously. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) brought forward a proposition which clearly, if true, showed the existence of a very distinct blot on the Bill, and which, if it was not true, those who were anxious to support Her Majesty's Government in carrying the Bill had a right to have refuted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to state, in a very curt manner, that he did not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. Would he rise and say why he did not agree with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and what it was that was fallacious in the statement of the hon. and learned Member? What the clause said was—
    "Where a house is let out or occupied in separate parts, and any of such parts constitutes a separate dwelling house within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, the overseers shall within twenty-one days after first of March in every year give notice in writing to the person rated or rateable in respect of such house requiring him within fourteen days after the service of such notice to furnish in a form to be supplied by the overseers an accurate list, &c.,"
    and inflicted upon the overseer a penalty of 40 s. if he failed to carry this out. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth had pointed out that the overseer had no particular means of knowing what house came under the conditions of the requirement. In the case of the house of the occupier to which he had not served the notice, if it was let out in separate tenements, was the overseer to be fined for his failure to serve the notice?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the reason he had not replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was that the hon. and learned Member's observations had really gone back to a subject which had been disposed of. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman really had no reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). The Amendment now moved would, in point of fact, cause this clause only to apply where portions of houses were separately rated. They never were separately rated, and therefore it could not be made to apply. The Govern-

    1867
    ment could not accept the Amendment for the reason given by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—namely, that it would have the effect of disfranchising a great many people in boroughs. One point which the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised had been raised before, and it was one which should be dealt with. He (the Attorney General) would endeavour to deal with it, and try, if possible, to meet the objections which had been taken. He would promise to confer with the Prime Minister in the matter, and see what could be done.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have said that before.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "to be supplied by the overseers," and insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto." Whereas the clause only provided that notice in writing should be given—
    "To the occupier of every such part which constitutes a separate dwelling house,"
    he wished to take care that the list should contain not only the actual names of the occupiers of the parts constituting separate dwelling-houses, but should show that they were properly qualified in respect of the premises. He should like to have a statement as to how long they had been in occupation of the premises, so that there might be something to show that they had been the requisite 12 months according to law in the occupation of the premises.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 22, to leave out the words "to he supplied by the overseers," and insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought it would be better that there should be one uniform form, leaving it at will to be determined by each particular overseer, and he, therefore, accepted the Amendment proposed. As to what the form was to be, there was no Amendment at present on the Paper. If it was understood that a form should be given, he had no doubt,
    1868
    if the hon. Gentleman would prompt him, he would be able to draw up an Amendment to moot his views, and they would have an opportunity either in Committee or on the Report of considering the precise details.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought it would he rather hard to ask the overseers to make out their own forms. Therefore, he would propose that the words "to be supplied by the overseers" should be left in, and that after "overseers" the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto" be inserted.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had no objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), and would accept it if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had no objection.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he quite approved of the proposed alteration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, after the word "overseers," to insert the words "contained in the Third Schedule hereto."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he had put an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the following words:—
    "And if any overseer makes default in giving such notice as last aforesaid, or any person rated or rateable as aforesaid makes default in furnishing the list so required to be furnished by him, such overseer or person shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
    He had intended to propose this, because the words seemed to have the effect of creating a new offence with a certain ambiguity as to whether a man would be punished for that which he had done wilfully or not; but after the declaration of the Government on the subject, and after the suggestion which had been adopted, he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee by arguing the question over again, therefore he should refrain from moving the Amendment.
    Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Saving).
    MR. ELTONsaid, he had proposed to move, in line 42, after "borough," to insert "or by reason of any purchase or descent is entitled to be so registered,"

    1869
    but this Amendment fell with the other, and he should not propose it.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words—
    "Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such latter franchise only."
    He brought forward this Amendment in consequence of an opinion which had been submitted to him from certain people in Scotland, an opinion which he had submitted to the Lord Advocate. He would not express an opinion as to how the Bill would affect England or Scotland or Ireland.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out from line 1, to line 4, inclusive.—(Sir John Hay.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that he was afraid that he could not agree to the Amendment, because the omission would practically amount to this—when the Bill was read with existing Acts of Parliament the same person might be possessed of several qualifications. The substance of the provision was that every occupier as well as householder would be qualified as a householder. Where a person had two qualifications, it was right to make it clear in respect of which of them he should be registered.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Construction of Act).
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment with reference to a matter on which he had already addressed some observations to the Committee in the early part of the evening, when the Committee were dealing with the clause which related to the assimilation of qualifications arising from the occupation of land. He had called attention to the words "clear yearly value." The last paragraph in Clause 11 said the expression—
    " 'Clear yearly value' as applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ire-
    1870
    land the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being, &c."
    This, so far as he could gather, related simply to the 5th clause, in other words, to the £10 occupation franchise which was proposed to be given in counties and boroughs after the passing of this Act irrespective of residence upon the land, There was no siich definition of the meaning of clear yearly value in England, and his object was to secure that there should be in the Three Kingdoms the same definition of these words. He wished now to move, after the word "means," to insert "in England rateable value." That portion of the clause would then run as follows:—
    "The expression 'clear yearly value' as applied to any land or tenement in England means rateable value, in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated."
    In that way he would place England in this matter on the same footing as the other two Kingdoms. This would define clearly what the value should be, instead of leaving it to be proved in evidence on one side or the other before the Eevising Barrister, on whom it would rest to decide the value of the qualification. That had been found to lead to great difficulty and waste of time, in the different views that were taken pro and con on such a subject. He was anxious that the clause should be in as great a degree as possible self-acting. If his proposal were adopted there would be no difficulty in deciding what the value of property might be.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 27, after the word "means," to insert the words "in England, rateable value." —(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was unable to accept the Amendment, as he had stated at an earlier period of the evening, for the reason that it would really have a disfranchising effect. The term "clear yearly value" was a well-known one, and was to be found in the Act of 1832. The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to establish a uniform value throughout the Three Kingdoms, and he wished to do that not by raising the Irish qualifi-

    1871
    cation to that of England, but by lowering the English valuation to that of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, because the valuations of Scotland and Ireland were not the same. In Scotland the valuation was a rental value, which might be either a clear yearly value or a rateable value; but in Ireland it was a rateable value. Therefore, the Amendment would not secure the uniform franchise that the right hon. Gentleman desired, because, although the franchise of England and of Ireland would be assimilated, Scotland would stand in the middle position. If the Government wished to adhere to what they had proposed, they must object to this Amendment. The £12 rateable value was equal to about £16 of rental value, and the Government were now proposing to reduce the qualification to £10 clear yearly value. The Revising Barristers had experienced no difficulty in regard to this matter hitherto.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was introducing a difference between the Three Kingdoms that did not at present exist, because what he was doing by Clause 5 was carrying the present county franchise into boroughs. They were introducing in the English counties a franchise of £10 dependent upon clear yearly value instead of rateable value. The hon. and learned Gentleman might lower the qualification if he liked below the figure of £10; but he was clearly creating the difference pointed out. Under the words of the clause as they stood a good deal would depend upon the Revising Barrister, and the matter would be subject to very conflicting evidence not taken on as fair grounds as the valuation was arrived at for other purposes. A good deal of difficulty would thus be imported into the registration, and a very unfair means of arriving at the valuation of the tenant.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there could be no difficulty in the matter. Clear yearly value existed in boroughs now, and all that was now being done was simply to introduce it into counties. In Ireland the valuation was uniform; in England it differed in every Union, and, therefore, it was thought better to get rid of the differences which existed in the va-
    1872
    rious Unions of a county by bringing into the counties the clear yearly value.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, nothing would be more difficult than to ascertain in the agricultural districts not what was the rental value, but what was the clear yearly value. In the case of an agricultural holding it was very difficult indeed to ascertain this. It was proposed to change what at present was certain for something that was quite uncertain and wholly undefined. That was to be done for the purpose of the agricultural franchise under this Bill, and it would lead to great confusion and uncertainty and to very conflicting decisions.
    MR. SOLATER - BOOTHsaid, he must apologize to the hon. and learned Attorney General for interposing again; but he wished to point out that there was no such expression as "clear annual value" known to the Registration Courts. It might be known in Ireland; but in English counties and boroughs that which was ascertained by the Assessment Committees was the "gross, estimated rental." Clear yearly value was something new in the English counties.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that whatever might be the different meaning that was attached to annual value on the valuation roll in Scotland, and to net annual value as it appeared in Ireland, in both those instances there was a sort of public document to which reference could be made; whereas in the case proposed to be dealt with by this Bill there was simply an agreement between the owner and the occupier as to what might be the rent, and it was very possible that for the purpose of creating a vote a larger rent might be paid. It was surely much better to avoid contention before the Revising Barrister as to what might be the annual value. It would be better to produce the rate-book, which no doubt might show a slight difference between the different Unions, but which after all was a public document from which there could be no appeal.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the valuation for rating purposes varied very much in counties, and it frequently happened that in one borough it would be very much below another, the rateable value in ouch cases being very much lower

    1873
    than the annual value. It would be very much better to have the clear rental value than the rateable value.
    MR. PELLsaid, the Bill had nothing to do with boroughs, but with counties; and the question was whether they should introduce an imperfect and unacknowledged estimate of value from the boroughs into the counties, or retain there a system which was thoroughly well known, even though in many cases it was imperfect, and not entirely in harmony throughout the country. The question was whether it was best to retain ail understood system which answered its purpose, or to introduce a new one which would be extremely unsatisfactory in determining the method of valuation. He would like to make one further observation. They had heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) an admission, which was true, with some correction—that there was no true standard of valuation, neither would there ever be one, if, in. Bills brought into that House, and especially in a Bill so important as this, the Government of the day proposed to introduce fresh terms, and a fresh method of valuation. He would venture to say that if the Government would admit the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had just proposed, and accept the term "net rateable value," this Bill would be the means of correcting the valuation and bringing the rating more into harmony with the facts. It was well understood in the country what was meant by "net ratable value;" but "clear yearly value" would be an altogether newthing. The Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would, at all events, remove a difficulty, and be much better than the Bill as it stood at present.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was admitted that the valuation was uniform in boroughs. Why should it not be so in counties?
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General did not seem to have seen what was the real difficulty. The proposal was now made for the first time to introduce a fresh definition which was not understood in the rural districts, where there was no such thing as the phrase "clear annual value." Objections would be raised before every
    1874
    Revising Barrister—"Is this, or is it not, the clear annual value?" The phrase "rateable value," or "gross rental," did occur; but the term "clear annual value" was not known, and there was no legal definition of it. It might be known in the boroughs, but it was not known in the counties; and it was a matter which would be sure to give rise to constant disputes, which would have to be raised before every Revising Barrister, and which would produce innumerable difficulties. Why in the world should the Government go out of their way to introduce a term which had no acceptation, and which was not understood, instead of acting upon the plain and simple admission that the ratebook might be commonly accepted?
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought that if it was necessary to raise the question at all, it ought to have been raised on Clause 5. That clause dealt with the occupation qualification. Speaking for his own county (Lincolnshire), he was afraid it would disfranchise a very large number in the best-regulated Unions in the county; and because some Unions were highly rated, he did not think it fair that many of the people should be disqualified who would be voters in other Unions with a lower assessment.
    MR. SOLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought the Attorney General was under some misapprehension with regard to this term, "clear yearly value." It was a term not known in boroughs as a term of valuation at all. The local authorities had no right whatever to take up the valuation roll—it was for the Union. There might be some which had a separate valuation as being Unions within themselves. The whole of the valuation of the Kingdom was conducted by the Union authorities, and they knew no such term as "clear annual value."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 176: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Repeal of certain superseded sections) agreed to.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As we have now arrived at the end of the clauses, and as the new clauses will come before the

    1875
    Schedule, I move that you, Sir, do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOT LAND) BILL.— [BILL 167.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOT LAND) BILL.— [BILL 167.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not propose to detain the House, because all who were interested in the subject were well aware of the provisions of the measure, speaking generally. It was a consolidating and amending Bill. They had had in Scotland a succession of Bills directing, regulating, and governing the police administration in the urban communities; and in the year 1862 a well-known Statute was passed by which the legislation down to that day—all that experience had proved to be wise—was formulated. They had now had 20 years' experience of the working of that Act, and while a great deal in it had been found to be extremely good, it was also found that there were a number of amendments which seemed to be fitting and desirable. The purpose of the present Bill, therefore, was to consolidate the existing provisions of the various Acts and to make the necessary amendments. The Bill was one of considerable bulk, and therefore he proposed, not to ask that it should be considered in Committee of the Whole House, but, if the House would grant the second reading, that it should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, thereby not occupying any considerable time in the House itself. The general nature of the Bill was so well known to Members from Scotland that he would not be justified in detaining the House any further.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSShad only to say that he was very glad to hear the course which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposed to take. They had the experience of many years as regarded the Bills already passed and of the Act of 1862, and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should certainly not object to the second reading of the Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now brought forward. All the remarks he had to make were upon details, upon which he might have some observations to make at a future stage, and he was very glad indeed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had consented at once to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because he was sure it was a Bill with which a Select Committee would be much more competent to deal than a Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper against this Bill; but it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by making a speech, because in reality the fault he had to find with the Bill was much more one of detail than of principle. There was a Bill on this subject last year; but the present Bill contained a very important uhange as regarded his constituency. Glasgow was unfortunately surrounded by a number of very small burghs, and there was a clause in this Bill by which those burghs might be enabled to clasp hands round Glasgow and so shut her in that it would be impossible for her ever to expand at all. That was the chief and the strongest objection he had to the Bill, but he should reserve his opposition till the Bill came before a Select Committee.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought the hon. Member had exercised a wise discretion in his decision; but with regard to the hon. Member's statement as to the small burghs round Glasgow, he must point out that one of those burghs had a population of 50,000, and another a population of 40,000. Whatever questions or differences might be involved, he hoped they would be discussed in an amicable spirit, and that they would be reserved for the Select Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.

    [BILL 139.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Rent of £17,500 to be paid out of fees in respect of Royal Courts of Justice).
    MR. GREGORYsaid, this clause raised a very important question. It was proposed that there should be paid annually a sum of £33,500, which was to be raised by additional taxation on the suitor. The grounds for that were said in the Bill to be the necessity for providing for excessive expenditure on the Royal Courts of Justice. By the Act of 1865 a certain amount of money was provided for the construction of these Courts—namely, £1,500,000, and that was to be provided in this way. First of all, by a Treasury grant to be recouped by a certain amount of Consols standing to the credit of the Suitors' Fund, and the proceeds of the sale of the old buildings, which would be rendered useless by the construction of the New Courts. The sale produced £200,000, the Consols realized about £800,000, which the Treasury received, and the balance of the £1,500,000 was paid by an increase of the fees paid by the suitor. That was the contract under the Act of 1865, and the Treasury undertook that the buildings should be erected for that amount. But a much larger sum had been expended, and there was something like a balance of £800,000 or £900,000 to be provided for by increased taxation of the suitors. That had been expended under a contract between the builders and the Treasury, and in regard to that contract suitors had had no voice. But it was now sought to throw upon them the increase which had been so incurred, and for that purpose an Order had been issued increasing the fees of the Courts to a considerable amount. In many cases the fees had been doubled, and nearly in all raised from the lower to the higher scale. He did not wish to detain the Committee at that late hour; but he did think that the suitors ought not to be called upon for a further contribution under any circumstances. The construc-
    1878
    tion of the New Courts was not only for the benefit of suitors, but for the public generally, and the administration of justice and the contribution of the suitors ought not, in any case, to go beyond the extent provided by the Act of 1865. He also thought the suitors in Chancery and in the High Courts were already fully penalized without the additional taxation now imposed upon them. They contributed something like £400,000 a-year for the administration of justice—a very heavy tax—and, as a matter of principle, he was prepared to contend that the administration of justice was a matter of right, for which the suitor ought not to be called upon to pay at all events. He protested against suitors being made liable for expenditure incurred by the Government for public purposes; and he hoped the Committee also would take the view that this should be a public charge, and would not consent to putting this increased charge upon the suitors. He did not say this expenditure was unnecessary, but it was incurred by the Treasury, and they ought to provide for it. In order that this matter might be fully discussed, he begged to move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gregory.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman, of course, knew that on the Motion he had made it would be irregular to discuss this matter; but he would consent to report Progress.
    MR. W. H. SMITHwished to suggest that the Secretary to the Treasury should place on the Table a Return showing the proposed rate of fees compared with those hitherto exacted. He thought the House ought to be in possession of that information.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied, that there was no proposed new scale of fees. The scale of fees had already been authorized and was now law.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he believed a Return had been moved for by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), which, if printed, might be useful to hon. Members.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked whether there was to be any understanding as to a day when this matter could come

    1879
    on for proper discussion? This case, he thought, was a valuable illustration of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and, as a good many hon. Members were anxious to discuss the question, they would be glad if the hon. Gentleman could give them some idea as to when they would have an opportunity.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, a great number of members of the Profession had been present, from time to time, waiting for this Bill to come on, sometimes even till 3 o'clock in the morning.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not desire to keep hon. Members waiting, and, if it would be convenient, he would propose to resume the discussion on this Bill on this day week; but he could not state at what hour it could be taken.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.

    [BILL 201.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to take the management of the Lower Shannon out of the hands of the Board of Works, in whom it was now practically vested, and to transfer it to local trustees or other local authorities, provided that local persons were willing to undertake such responsibility.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Gentleman had fairly and rightly stated the object of this Bill—that was to say, it would give leave to any persons who chose to do so to undertake the control over the lower part of the Shannon, if they would bear the expense of keeping the river in order. The Bill, however, was little more than waste paper with that condition in it, for there was not the slightest chance of any trustees accepting such a liability as keeping in order the piers and the river generally, which were now kept in order at the expense of the Government. The people of the locality would be very glad to get
    1880
    control over the river if the Government would continue to pay the expenses, but not at their own expense; and he, therefore, should move that the Bill be read that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would explain the point raised by the hon. Member for Cavan—namely, whether the expense of keeping the river and the piers in order would be handed over to the local authority with the control?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the piers were for the most part self-supporting.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL [Lords]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL [Lords]

    [BILL 237.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its principal object was to meet a difficulty which had arisen through a person who was not in Holy Orders having represented himself as a clergyman and obtained a position as a licensed curate, and in that capacity had solemnized a considerable number of marriages. His own opinion was that those marriages were valid; but it was important not to have any question about them, and the object of this Bill was to remove any doubts as to their validity. He appealed to the House not to offer any unnecessary opposition to the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) BILL.— [BILL 186.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) BILL.— [BILL 186.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I intended to move that you do now leave the Chair in order that the House might go into Committee on this Bill; but my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) having given Notice this afternoon of some remarks which he wishes to make on that Motion, and being unable to remain here to-night for the purpose, I ask you to put down the Bill for Thursday next, when, as the Bill is one of very great importance, I trust there will be no delay in dealing with it in Committee.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

    [BILL 206.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, with the intention of going into Committee on this Bill pro formd only, I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not consider it reasonable to introduce into the Bill a provision for the relief of persons surcharged under Schedules A and B with excessive duties which, by the indulgence of the Department, had not been collected during the agricultural depression, otherwise a great hardship would be sustained by persons whose farms had deteriorated and by those who had large tracks of land out of cultivation and who had, in consequence, been deprived of their incomes?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that since the right hon. Gentleman had spoken to him upon the subject, he had arrived at a conclusion adverse to the view the
    1882
    right hon. Gentleman took of this question. He was happy to say that during last year the number of farms in the condition described by the right hon. Gentleman had very greatly diminished.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL.
  (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
  POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL.

    [BILL 161.] BILL WITHDRAWN.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FAWCETT: Sir I beg leave to move that the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged. It is a Bill of details, and I think time will be saved by the adoption of that course in order that it may be introduced in the House of Lords.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Second Reading be discharged."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  FISHERIES (OYSTER, CRAB, AND LOBSTER) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Sykes, Colonel Dawnay.)
  FISHERIES (OYSTER, CRAB, AND LOBSTER) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 208.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SYKES: I hope the House will not think I am unduly trenching on their kindness when I ask them to listen to the reasons which exist for bringing forward this Bill, which deals with a matter of considerable importance to the class of persons engaged in the fishing trade of the country. I have the honour to represent a large coasting constituency (Yorkshire, East Riding), and the fishermen engaged on that part of the coast greatly complain of the serious diminution during the last three years in the take of crabs. It is essential that hon. Members should bear in mind that two classes of crabs are distinguished—the young and the old. The fishermen complain that nearly 60 stone of under-sized crabs are frequently brought ashore to keep up the supply of bait, or perhaps wasted there. It is in their protection I ask the House to agree to the second

    1883
    reading of this Bill, and, in doing so, I wish to call attention to the fact that it does not affect the Act of 1877, except when complaints are made, and in that case the fishermen who feel themselves aggrieved may petition the Board of Trade, which Department, if it thinks fit, may appoint an Inspector to examine into the subject-matter of that Petition, when, if the Board of Trade are satisfied that there is cause for interference, the Bill, the second reading of which I beg to move, will come into operation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sykes.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only say, in assenting to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that I believe the Bill introduced by him will prove to be a valuable amendment to the existing law. The Act which he proposes to amend was intended for the protection of the shell-fish which the hon. Member has taken under his care; but it has proved to be defective, because it contains a clause which permits them to be taken for bait, and it is complained that under that pretext the fisheries are seriously injured. I shall have to propose in Committee some verbal Amendment which I think will assist in carrying out the object in view; but the principle of the Bill I have no reason to dissent from.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  IRISH LAND COURT OFFICERS (EXCLUSION FROM PARLIAMENT) BILL.— [BILL 89.]
  (Mr. Brodrick, Lord Arthur Hill, Mr. Macartney.)
  IRISH LAND COURT OFFICERS (EXCLUSION FROM PARLIAMENT) BILL.— [BILL 89.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought the position of the Government with reference to this Bill was most unfortunate. The Bill was intended to remove an evil which everyone desired to see redressed; and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General
    1884
    for Ireland whether he would not allow the Bill to go to the Committee stage, on which he (Mr. Brodrick) would endeavour to meet the Government views in this matter?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was a monstrous thing to bring this Bill forward at a quarter past 1. He had no objection to the principle of the measure, and he thought the hon. Gentleman who introduced it might make his mind easy on the subject it dealt with, because there was no chance of any official or ex-official of the Land Court being returned in Ireland as a Member of Parliament.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Brodrick,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Thomas Dickson.)
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 104.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Government would assent to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that some sections in the Bill should be withdrawn and others inserted.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 23rd June.

QUESTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE COINAGE BILL.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the Coinage Bill will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We shall not be in a position to decide that point until, at least, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill has passed through Committee.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) (ABERAVON, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local

  1885
  Government Board relating to the Borough of Aberavon, the Local Government Districts of Brighouse, and Denton and Haughton, the City of Manchester, and the Local Government Districts of Shipley, Skelton and Brotton, Sowerby Bridge, and Sutton-in-Ashfield, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 242.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) (NO. 14) (PARISHES OF DAWLISH AND KENTON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm an Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," and "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1882," relating to the Parishes of Dawlish and Kenton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 243.]

  ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to provide for the transfer of the Ulster Canal and the Tyrone Navigation, or Coalisland Canal, from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to the Lagan Navigation Company, and to amend the Acts relating to the Lagan Navigation Company; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]

  SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act, 1860," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]

  METROPOLITAN POLICE [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise any increase of expenditure which may be incurred by the appointment of an additional Assistant Commissioner of Police, and by the payment of allowances to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the appointment of an additional Assistant Commissioner.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
— Sat first in Parliament — The Lord Raglan, after the death of his father.
Took the Oath for the First Time—The Lord Langford.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Royal Military Asylum Chelsea (Transfer) * (114).

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 8'2 be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That the order of the 18th of March last be suspended, and that a statement in the following form be circulated in the case of all Bills to which Standing Order No. 38 applies, not later than the second day after the first reading.—[The Form is then appended.]
PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that, seeing that the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack was the only Member of the Government in attendance, he would ask him, Whether he would make inquiries of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as to whether the correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Arthur Hill relative to the Nationalist meetings at Newry and the proposed counter - demonstrations could be laid on the Table?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, he could not answer the Question without Notice; because it was manifestly one that could only be answered after communication with the Lord Lieutenant. He took it for granted, however, that any Correspondence which had taken place in regard to the matter which had appeared in the newspapers would be laid upon the Table sooner or later.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREgave Notice that he would ask the Question another day.

EGYPT (THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE) —NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL STANHOPE, in whose name the following Notice stood upon the Paper:—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—1. "Whether the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government relative to Egypt are concluded; and whether, before submitting those proposals to the other Great Powers, or before entering into a Conference, they will state to the House the nature of those negotiations.

  1725
  " '2. Whether Her Majesty's Government have agreed with France to a limit of the occupation of Egypt?'"
  said, in rising to make inquiry respecting the approaching Conference, or, rather, as to the preliminary negotiations which have taken place, I am actuated solely by considerations of the grave position in which I believe this country finds itself placed. It is in no Party spirit that I put the Question to the noble Earl; nor have I the slightest desire to touch upon matters which cannot at present be divulged. But, my Lords, I, and the majority of your Lordships, are in complete official ignorance as to the precise nature of the negotiations which have taken place between this country and France. Now, from Questions put to the Government in "another place" before the Holidays, and from their extreme reticence—nay, even refusal to give an answer to those Questions—I may assume that the following is the actual present position of affairs with regard to the Conference negotiations. In a Circular Letter, dated April 19 last, addressed to the Courts of Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Rome, and St. Petersburg, Her Majesty's Government proposed the assembling of a Conference in London or Constantinople, and invited their presence and assistance, to consider whether any change was necessary in the Law of Liquidation of Egyptian finances. Four of the Great Powers, we are informed, have agreed to this proposal; but France, while agreeing in principle, wished, first, to make a certain exchange of views as to our position in Egypt. We are also informed that friendly communications have been going on between the two countries; but it is rumoured, and it has not been officially contradicted, that France wished to fix a term to the British occupation of Egypt, and that the English Government suggested five years, but that they have since agreed to shorten that term, to two or three years. It is also rumoured that the propriety of establishing an international audit of Egyptian finance is under the consideration of both Governments. Since your Lordships last met the matter may have been already concluded, so little have the Government taken Parliament and the country into their confidence. For these reasons I want, if possible, to gain some information from the Government. At
  1726
  first we were told that the Conference would be strictly limited to the consideration, of the Law of Liquidation; and the Prime Minister said that, if any other matter was brought forward, it would be tantamount to convening a fresh Conference; but now we are informed that, when the negotiations going on with France arrive at a result, that result is to be communicated to the Powers before being communicated to Parliament. Really, my Lords, this seems rather a strong and arbitrary proceeding. Now, I wish to touch briefly on two points, which I will endeavour to put clearly and concisely to the House. First, as to our actual position in respect to the Government of Egypt; and, secondly, as to the dangers of a Multiple Control, and of fixing a short term for our occupation of Egypt. It will be in the recollection of the House that, though Her Majesty's present Advisers at first acquiesced in the Dual Control in Egypt, they afterwards strongly condemned it, and even when it had ceased to exist said it was the cause of all the difficulties in Egypt. So recently as the 12th of February, in "another place," the Prime Minister found great fault with the Dual Control; yet now, forsooth, he is going to make matters easier by the institution of a six-barrelled Control! Let me refer back two years. Then, a Conference of the Powers was convened at Constantinople, at the invitation of the Government, to consider the Egyptian Question, and met on June 23. In the course of its meetings the Arabi rebellion broke out; and before Turkish troops could proceed to Egypt, our Fleet bombarded and destroyed the Forts of Alexandria on July 12, France declining to interfere. After that a military expedition, undertaken and controlled solely by England, was despatched, and, after a very short but decisive fight, the rebels were completely routed, and so were all remnants of Egyptian Government. Then what followed? On the 3rd of January, 1883, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed a Letter to the five Great Powers detailing all that had taken place. Among other things, that Letter endorsed the policy proposed by Egypt for the abolition of the Dual Control, and recommended the appointment of a single European Financial Adviser. This the Powers agreed

  1727
  to; and, for all practical purposes, England received a mandate from Europe to quiet and pacify the country. Now, what has taken place since then? Our great diplomatist, Lord Dufferin, drew up a brand new Constitution for Egypt; and we arranged, or acquiesced in the arrangement—which is much the same thing—that Mr. Edgar Vincent should be Financial Adviser; that Sir Evelyn Wood should form and discipline a Native Army; that General Baker Pasha should organize a Native gendarmerie, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd should establish an urban police. At the opening of the Session on the 12th of February, the Prime Minister and the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) congratulated themselves, and took especial pains to point out how many reforms the Government had introduced into Egypt, how new tribunals had been formed, new Judges had been appointed, prison reforms had been made, and a general house tax had been agreed to. Can it be said, then, that we have not made every attempt to govern Egypt, and that we are not the governing Power there at this moment? Judging from all that has passed, I think it can hardly be doubted. Alas! my Lords, all these reforms exist, to a great degree, on paper, or, at any rate, for so long a time only as we shall remain in Egypt. Now all will be changed and destroyed, as a Multiple Control is to be proposed in Conference. I may be told that an international audit is a very different thing from a Multiple Control; but he who pays controls, and if the purse strings are held by an International Board, that Board will practically control the future policy of Egypt. Lately a French paper said that the object of a multiple audit was "not merely to pay, but to settle what should be done in Egypt;" and I do not think that this country will, for one moment, be blinded as to the real meaning of an international audit of finances. Settle what changes are required in the Law of Liquidation if you like—though many of ns would prefer no Conference at all—but do not hand over to a mixed tribunal the paramount interest now exercised by England. I object, after such a large expenditure of money and so much shedding of blood, to Egypt being handed over to a Multiple Control. The serious dangers and disadvantages
  1728
  attending a Multiple Control are too obvious to require much explanation. First and foremost, this country would be absolutely deprived of the standing and power which she has justly obtained in Egypt. That power would be swept away, and there would be general confusion in Egypt. Where would be the result of the expenditure of so much money and the loss of so much life? Alexandria has been destroyed, Egypt has been placed hopelessly in debt, and 20,000 Egyptians and Arabs have been sent to their graves in. our struggles to found a solid form of government. My Lords, we, who hold j high the honour of this country, want to see a prosperous end and a happier state of affairs established before we retreat or "skedaddle" out of Egypt. Now, we are hated by every class in Egypt, and, unfortunately, not only hated, but despised. My Lords, let us try and live down this ill-feeling, by showing what security and good government can do in the future; not by turning our backs and refusing all responsibility just at a time that responsibility is most needed. If we have a Multiple Control, what about safeguarding our road to India? Is that a matter of no moment? We had a terrible Indian Mutiny 27 years ago. Suppose we had another such disastrous trial, and Russia sided against us, how should we find ourselves if the Canal were closed against our ships? Would it be no disadvantage to us, in case any part of our Eastern Empire was jeopardized, that we had to ask leave of the Great Powers to pass through the Suez Canal? Russia has this year added Merv and Sarakhs to her Empire, and is within striking distance of India. We have lately been remarkable only for giving up everything when a difficulty arose, or for being always too late in meeting those difficulties. It used to be a proud boast that an Englishman never knew when he was beaten. It has remained to the present Government to reverse all this, and to show how soon and how readily an Englishman can be beaten. Another reason, and a great drawback against a Multiple Control, seems to me to be that it may cause an apple of discord to be thrown into European Councils. No two European countries have exactly the same interests, and all the Great Powers are naturally jealous of one another. Which Power is to exercise the chief control? The

  1729
  old fable is still true—"La raison du plus fort eat toujours la meilleure!" England has a vastly preponderating interest in Egypt, both on account of the great number of English ships which pass through the Canal—over 80 per cent of all the tonnage using the Canal being English—and also because of our great interests in the East, and our possession of India. Are we, in Egyptian affairs, only to have an equal share with five other Powers? If we are deputed to manage under a Joint Control, and only to share and share alike, we should not be able to move our little finger without the consent of another Conference of the Powers whose interests are very different and very inferior to our own. Then, as to fixing the terms of our occupation of Egypt. The very fact of doing so must tie the hands of our officials; the very fact that, at a particular time, no matter what has happened, we shall leave the country, will encourage agitation, and render all prospect of settlement hopeless. Undoubtedly, also, some other Power would step in to carry out what we have failed to establish—namely, a good form of government. But it is England that has been spending blood and treasure to put an end to anarchy and disorder; and England is bound, in honour, to carry out her work to a successful issue. Are we who govern the vast Provinces constituting the Empire of India, and who boast of the beneficence of our rule, to confess that we have tried to govern Egypt and have failed, and that we have, therefore, to call in the assistance of other European Powers? Then, as to our Army. Is the English Army to act as a "maid of all work," and to be under the management of this Joint Control; or, is the English Army to act as an Egyptian collector of taxes, in order to obtain the payment of the interest due to the Egyptian bondholders? I can conceive no more humiliating position for the Army of this country to be placed in, or of the extreme unpopularity of either proposal. I thought it hardly respectful to the House to make this inquiry without giving my reasons for doing so. Let it not be said that this Government, or any Government of England, is unable to govern aconquered country, and, is therefore, obliged to appeal to the aid of Europe to assist it in the task. That, however, is what certain foreign journals now
  1730
  say of us. Before it is too late, before further dishonour is thrown on the action of England, I implore the Government to confide in the wisdom of Parliament and in the good sense and right judgment of the people of this country. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), I have to remind him that on the last day before the Recess I repeated to the House that we were communicating with France on the subject of Egypt, and that if we found that our views respecting it were in agreement, we should then consult the Powers, and inform the House and Parliament before the Conference. The noble Earl gave Notice of a Question for to-day; and I stated that I could hold out no hopes of my being able to answer the Question to-day, and that is the case now. And although very great progress has been made in our communications with France, I can only say this—that we can only hope to be able to give a perfectly full statement to Parliament in the course of next week. The noble Earl said that it was an arbitrary thing for us to communicate with the Powers before informing Parliament what we were going to do. I am not aware, however, that there is anything arbitrary or unusual in that course. The noble Earl says that he has not spoken as a Party man. I venture to appeal to him—I should not have the courage to appeal to those who describe the Government as "imbecile "—but I venture to appeal to him, as one professing to have no Party feeling, to say whether it would not be better for noble Lords to reserve an opinion upon the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken until the full statement we have promised is before them with all the circumstances of the case. I may add that I see no danger in such a course, because it is clear that that full statement will enable Parliament to take action to prevent the country being committed to any course of policy which Her Majesty's Government may intend to adopt.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The last statement of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), if I understand it aright, is the most important which we have yet received from his lips. I understand that he has given a

  1731
  pledge that this country shall not be irrevocably committed to any course with respect to Egypt until time has been given to Parliament to express its opinion. That I understand to be a plain pledge, and one which, had he given it some time back, would have saved us very much anxiety. It is a pledge which, I confess, I now receive with the greatest satisfaction; and I certainly shall not do anything to alloy that satisfaction by criticizing a policy of which we do not, as yet, know the full details, and which we know now, on the highest authority, we shall have the fullest opportunity of discussing before it is too late.

NAVY — CONDITION OF THE IRON CLAD NAVY—CORRESPONDENCE OF SIR THOMAS M. SYMONDS, G.C.B.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—

  "1. Letter from Admiral of the Fleet Sir Thos. M. Symonds, G.C.B., to the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated 29th April 1884;

  2. Letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty in acknowledgment of the above, dated 2nd May;

  3. Letter from Sir Thos. Symonds to the Secretary of the Admiralty, dated 5th May;

  4. Letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty acknowledging the above, dated 9th May."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)

  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I should have assented to the Motion of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) without adding any remarks, if it had not been for an attack made last Wednesday at Devonport by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) upon Her Majesty's Government, regarding the condition of the Navy. The Correspondence between Sir Thomas Symonds and the Board of Admiralty, for which the noble Viscount has moved, refers to this particular subject, and fortunately gives me an opportunity of making some remarks on the subject. In some previous conversations in this House, I must do the noble Viscount the justice to say that he has never treated the condition of the Navy as a Party question. He expressed an opinion that the number of our armour-plated ships of war is not so great as it should be; but he directed his remarks as much to the Predecessors of the present Board of Admiralty as to us; and, in replying to them, I pointed out, what must be apparent to every-
  1732
  one who knows anything of the subject, that the present force of armour-plated ships of war depends, not upon the Admiralty of to-day, but upon the foresight of their Predecessors, for an armour-plated ship of war is hardly ever completed in less than five years. I said that, in my opinion, the state of the case had been much exaggerated, and that the Navy of this country undoubtedly was decidedly superior to any force that was likely to be brought against us; but I indicated that the construction of armour-plated ships of war had not, in my opinion, received the attention it deserved from our Predecessors, and that the present Board of Admiralty had, therefore, very considerably increased the rate of their construction. I supported my statement by figures, and I hoped that I had satisfied your Lordships. Therefore, it was with some surprise that I read the attack of the noble Marquess opposite at Devonport. He had been silent in this House; the attack was made when there was no opportunity for a reply, and at a place where such an attack, coming with his authority on an electioneering campaign, must, of course, tend to prejudice his opponents, and support his own Party. If the attack meant any thing, it meant this—that Conservative statesmen watched the progress of Foreign Navies, and were resolved to maintain the superiority of the British Navy; while Her Majesty's Government were neglectful of this most important duty. My Lords, I can truly say that my wish has been to remove all naval questions from the arena of Party conflict; and the fault is not mine if I have now to speak more plainly on the subject, and to show that the attack of the noble Marquess is not only devoid of foundation, but that the real cause of any apprehensions which have been felt by Sir Thomas Symonds and others regarding the present condition of our force of armour-plated ships of war, arises from the want of foresight of the Government of which the noble Marquess was a distinguished Member, and not from that of Her Majesty's present Government. I have always deprecated comparisons between our Navy afloat and that of any Foreign Power, not only because of the invidious and irritating nature of such comparisons, but because there is great difference of opinion between naval officers as to the merits of different classes of ships. The same

  1733
  objection, however, does not apply to the much, more simple question of a comparison between the numbers of ships laid down. An armour-plated ship cannot be built in a corner unknown to the world; and anyone who takes the pains can ascertain what ships of this kind are laid down by the French Admiralty and by ourselves. The last armour-plated ship laid down by the Board of Admiralty over which Mr. Goschen presided with great advantage to the Public Service was the Inflexible. She was laid down in February, 1874, and I may observe, as an illustration of the time which is sometimes taken to complete these large ships, that she was not finished and ready for sea till 1880. The late Government took Office in 1874, and I will give the House the names, year by year, from that time to the present, of the armour-plated ships laid down by the English and French Admiralties. In 1874 we laid down the Nelson and the Northampton; France none. In 1875 we laid down none; France two, the Fulminant and the Vengeur. In 1867 we laid down two, the Ajax and Agamemnon; France four, the Dévastation, Foudroyant, Bayard, and Turenne. In 1877 we laid down none; France three, the Amiral Duperré, Tonnant, and Furieux. In 1878 we laid down none, but purchased out of the Vote of Credit, in anticipation of war with Russia, four ships, the Neptune, Superb, Bellisle, and Orion. France laid down five, the Duguesclin, Caïman, Terrible, Indomptable, and Requin. In 1879 we laid down three, the Conqueror, Edinburgh, and Colossus; France three, the Amiral Baudin, Formidable, and Vauban. Your Lordships will observe that, during the six years of the late Government, seven armour-plated ships were laid down by us, and four bought out of the Vote of Credit, or 11 in all; while France laid down 17. In order to show that the comparison of numbers is a fair one, I will give the aggregate tonnage of the ships. The 11 English ships measure 85,000 tons, and the 17 French ships 128,000 tons. I must further observe that, when the present Government came into Office, in 1880, we found the Navy Estimates introduced, and no provision made in those Estimates to increase the rate of construction of armour-plated ships. I must supplement this statement by the remark that the activity of the French Admiralty was perfectly
  1734
  legitimate, and that there is no reason to assume it to have been prompted by any hostile feeling towards this country. Many of the armour-plated ships in the French Navy are built of wood, and are rapidly becoming unserviceable. The programme of the French Admiralty to replace them was openly announced, and was founded upon the Report of a Parliamentary Committee, over which M. Gambetta presided. The superiority of the British Navy, I may say, is constantly admitted in French official Reports. I have no wish, in any way, to exaggerate the state of the shipbuilding in 1880. Our previous superiority was great, and our superiority at the time was and now is decisive; but there certainly was a risk that, when the French programme was completed, the margin of our superiority might be unduly diminished. My Lords, I have now, I think, sufficiently explained the real cause of the apprehensions expressed by Sir Thomas Symonds and the noble Viscount opposite, which is that, in the six years from 1874 to 1880, much more vigorous action was taken by the French Admiralty to increase the number of armour-plated ships than was taken by the late Government. But your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with me that this retrospect is of little consequence compared to the account which I have to give of the manner in which the present Board of Admiralty have dealt with this very important part of their duty. We decided, gradually but substantially, to increase the provision made for the construction of armour-plated ships. In 1880, although, as I have before re marked, we found the Navy Estimates already introduced, we were able to make an arrangement by which the progress of the armour-plated ships on the stocks was accelerated; and in the years 1881, 1882, and 1883, we very largely increased the provision for the construction of such ships. Probably, the best way of showing this is to compare the expenditure on the hulls and machinery of such ships year by year. In 1879–80, it was £631,724; in 1880–1, it was £698,798; in 1881–2, it was £949,313; in 1882–3, it was £990,710; and in 1883–4, it was £1,240,700; or, in round numbers, the sum appropriated to armour- plated construction has been doubled. I will now give the names of the ships laid down during the last four years.

  1735
  In 1880, in England, the Collingwood was laid down; in France none. In 1881 we laid down the Impérieuse and Warspite; France, the Hoche. In 1882 we laid down four—the Howe, Rodney, Camperdown, and Benbow; France two —the Neptune and Marceau. In 1883 we laid down the Anson, and France the Magenta. In the four years we have laid down eight ships, and France four. In short, the facts are, that during the six years of the Conservative Government armour-plated ships were laid down by the two nations at the rate of three French to two English, including the ships purchased from the Vote of Credit; and during the last four years at the rate of two English to one French. I do not pretend to explain the reasons for the shipbuilding policy of the late Government, and I have been only forced into making the comparison by the attack made upon us by the noble Marquess at Devonport. I trust that I have proved that Her Majesty's Government are not justly open to such an attack. I should have considered myself unworthy of being at the head of the Board of Admiralty if I had not embraced the earliest opportunity of showing, in a plain and business-like manner, that Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of their duty to watch the progress of Foreign Navies, and that we have actually taken the measures which we believe to be sufficient to insure the superiority of the Naval Forces of this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken (the Earl of Northbrook) has chosen to refer to what he is pleased to call my attack. It is a pity that he is not accurate. The nature of my observations was this. In the course of the luncheon at Devonport—at which I was sitting between two sailors—one my distinguished Friend behind me (Viscount Sidmouth), and the other Captain Price (the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport)—they both expressed considerable apprehension with respect to the state of the Navy; my observation, which was purely hypothetical, was that, unless Her Majesty's Government showed more wisdom in providing a sufficient Navy for the defence of these shores than they had shown in the rest of their policy; if they behaved towards the Navy—["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.) These are facts, This
  1736
  is what I said—[Renewed cheers and laughter]—this is actually what I said— that if they behaved towards the Navy as they have behaved towards Egypt, and had not treated it any better; in that case I thought there was very considerable ground for apprehension; and I added that I listened to the statement of my noble and hon. and gallant Friends with considerable anxiety. I will not attempt at present—I am not competent—to analyze the figures which the noble Earl has laid upon the Table. I must wait until I have obtained information from others who are more competent than I am before I can arrive at an opinion on such matters. I wish, however, to point out that, in the remarks I made, I was not comparing the action of the Conservatives with the action of the Liberal Administration. If I had done so, I should have laid myself open to the reproach which I think applies to the noble Earl, for he appears to think that, upon the question whether this country is adequately defended, it is sufficient for him to utter a very loud and a very elaborate tu quoque. It is not a question of whether the late Government did or did not provide adequately for the service of the Navy. Before we decide that question it will be necessary, not only to look into the mere figures, but into the position of the political world at the time, the precise political dangers against which it was their duty to guard, and the possible complications which it was incumbent upon them to anticipate. I have no doubt that, upon the whole, allowing for some pacific influences which affected that Government, and have now been transferred to the other side, the verdict of the country as to the conduct of the late Government will be that they did provide adequately for the defence of the country. But whether they did, or did not, it is no answer whatever to the complaint that we are not adequately protected now. Supposing it was found that we were inadequately defended, or that we were overmatched, what kind of consolation would it be to the people whose interests were jeopardized, and whose commerce was ruined, to be told that the Liberal Government had provided so many tons more than the Conservative Government had provided six years ago? My Lords, this sort of reply is no answer at all, Whether the

  1737
  noble Earl can show that the Navy is in a state such as the present condition of foreign affairs requires, in a state such as the prevention of all dangers which may possibly threaten our shores demands—whether he can show that, or not, I must refer now, as I referred at Devonport, to the judgment of the experts who can decide upon that matter. But I do most earnestly protest against the idea that it is any defence against the charge of insufficiently providing for the Public Service to say that some other person at some distant time failed to provide sufficiently.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not say that what my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) has said is an absolute defence, but I do say that it is a defence against the noble Marquess. I must remind your Lordships that the noble Marquess was a Member of that Administration, which, as has been shown, was largely responsible for the present state of the Navy. The late Administration did not provide for the building of a sufficient number of iron-clad ships; and the results of that neglect has been left to the present Government as a legacy, and as ships cannot be built in a day, we are bound, in consequence of that neglect, to be for some time at a disadvantage. We stand at this moment, not upon the ships which my noble Friend has laid down, but we are standing, as regards our power, only on those ships which were laid down or in course of completion or completed under the late Government. It is perfectly clear that our answer to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth), therefore, who complains of the comparative growth of the English Navy as compared with that of France, must necessarily be based on what the Conservative Government had done—in short, the condition of our naval power does not depend on what is being done now, but on what had been done before we came into Office. The case is absolutely clear against the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess says that his remarks were purely hypothetical; but can we conceive anyone in the position of the noble Marquess, in the circumstances, speaking as he has done at Devonport? The noble Marquess said he could not accept the official statement made by the Government; because, I suppose, he
  1738
  rather feared it might be inconsistent with his theory. The coble Marquess said here was a Ministry so craven and cowardly, so insensible to the honour of the country, that official statements were really not sufficient to satisfy him. But the noble Marquess cannot expect that he will blind the eyes of anyone by language of that kind. It is a kind of hypothetical insinuation which, coming from the noble Marquess who occupies a responsible position now, who has occupied a very high position in the Government before this, and who may occupy an even higher position in the next, is a very poor way for him to make an attack upon Her Majesty's Government—namely, by insinuation; and the more especially, as it now appears, that he was totally ignorant of the facts of the case. That attack, however, is of a very grave and plain character, and really means that the Government of the country have neglected the Navy. The noble Marquess now seems to feel disturbed by the facts placed before him, and says that it is an easy way of meeting his facts, to tell him that the Conservative Government neglected their duty. But my noble Friend did not confine himself to that. If he had, he might have been open to the charge brought against him by the noble Marquess—of dealing in tu quoques. My noble Friend, besides pointing out what the late Board of Admiralty had neglected, had shown what the present Board of Admiralty are doing, and has proved that, whereas the former Board had failed to keep pace with the French Navy, the present Board of Admiralty has largely exceeded the French in shipbuilding; and that, taking year by year, there has been an actual amount of ships laid down double that which was laid down in the last year of the Conservative Administration. I say, therefore, that my noble Friend's answer is complete as against the noble Marquess in showing that the late Administration, of which he was a Member, neglected their duty, and in showing the manner in which that duty has been fulfilled by the present, as compared with the late, Administration.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the course which had been followed by the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) on the present occasion, was one of the

  1739
  most extraordinary that he ever remembered to have been adopted in their Lordships' House. What had happened? His (the Earl of Carnarvon's) noble Friend behind him (Viscount Sidmouth) had put a Motion, and had put it in general terms. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty came down to the House, and, without any Notice—
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: There was Notice of the Motion.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the Motion referred to one subject, the speech of the noble Earl to a totally different question.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: No.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would put it to their Lordships, whether any reasonable person could have formed the least idea that this attack was going to be made on the last Government? His noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) had made a speech at Devonport upon a most important and grave subject; and what he (the Earl of Carnarvon) complained of, was not that the noble Earl should have come down and given a complete and general denial to what his noble Friend had said, but that he should, without giving any idea as to what he was going to do, make in the most general terms upon a most important and grave subject an attack on the late Government which, if it were to be answered at all would have to be got up beforehand. If the noble Earl had come down and made a general denial of the charges made against the Government of neglect, that would have been fair enough. But it was a totally different thing to come with elaborate statistics to which no reply could possibly be made, and as to which it was impossible for any of their Lordships to refer. That was a most extraordinary proceeding; but the fact was, that the late Government in one set of circumstances laid down a certain amount of shipping, and the present Government in a different set of circumstances laid down a larger amount. How that proved a case of negligence against the late Administration passed his comprehension. The real question which the House had before it was not whether more ships had been laid down by the present or the late Government; it was were we, at the present moment adequately defended in naval matters, or
  1740
  were we not? The old maxim was that the Navy of this country ought to be a match for the Navies of any two other countries. That old maxim was a perfectly sound one, and it had not, so far as he knew, ever been seriously disputed by any competent authority. He did not, however, believe it could be truly asserted that, at the present time, our Navy was a match for any two Navies. Indeed, he should be surprised if the noble Earl himself could get up and say so. From what he knew, it was impossible to resist n feeling of very considerable anxiety. It had been his duty to look into the strength of Foreign Navies, and from What he knew, he had no hesitation in saying that, as compared with them, our Navy was by no means of the strength and adequacy which we could desire. He would do his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty the justice to admit that he had shown great anxiety to correct defects, and to do the best with the money that was at his command; but he should be surprised if his noble Friend could state that, as compared with foreign nations, he was entirely satisfied with the present condition of our Navy.
  Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—MOTION.
Moved, "That this House do adjourn till Mondaynext."—(The Earl Granville.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had no opposition to make to the proposal, provided that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the result of the negotiations with respect to the Conference, and that it was impossible that the noble Earl should be able to make any further explanation before that day. If that were the case, of course, no advantage would come from meeting at an earlier time.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he had always put himself in the hands of the noble Marquess with respect to the Adjournment. He had done so, when he had proposed an Adjournment for three weeks, and he agreed to the noble Marquess's wish that the House should meet that day. The noble Marquess seemed to be very glad they had met that day, and he (Earl Granville) was also very glad, for reasons which he need not specify. He was entirely in the hands

1741
of the noble Marquess; but he did not think it was likely he could give any information about the negotiations before next week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Say Friday.
EARL GRANVILLEconsented.
Motion amended, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—MOTION.

  ROYAL MILITARY ASYLUM CHELSEA (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for transferring the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea from the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings—Was presented by The Lord SUDELEY; read 1a. (No. 114.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.