Sitting of 26 May 1884

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£6,519,368, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Purchase of Land (Ireland), debate adjourned.
Ordered—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 7) *.
Ordered—First Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No.4) * [232]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * [229]; Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment * [231]; Universities (Scotland) * [230].
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4) (Nenagh Union) * [202]; Local Government

1293
(Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) (Unions of Cashel and others) * [205]; National Debt (Conversion of Stock) [186], debate adjourned; Customs and Inland Revenue * [206].
Select Committee—Strensall Common, nominated.
Committee—Representation of the People [119] (Clause 4)—R. P. [Fifth Night].
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Police * [209].
Considered as amended—School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * [224].
Withdrawn—Sale of Spirits (Mixed Traders) * [79].

QUESTIONS.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-PERSIAN AND AFGHAN FRONTIERS.
  MR. JERNINGHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be possible for him to state to the House, whether negotiations have now been entered into by Her Majesty's Government with the Governments of Russia and Persia for an early and definitive settlement of the Russo-Persian and Afghan frontiers?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the Foreign Office has received any information from Teheran respecting the alleged incorporation of Sarakhs into the Russian Empire?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, and to that of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire, I may state that communications are taking place with the Russian Government, but they have not reached a stage at which it would be desirable that I should make any statement as to their nature. Her Majesty's Government have been informed by Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran that it was rumoured at Sarakhs that the Russian Commander-in-Chief was coming there to take possession, and make over to Merv Turcomans' lands on the right bank of the Heri Rud.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked, whether it was true, as stated in a telegram from The Times Correspondent at Calcutta, that the Indian Government was more anxious about the state of affairs in Central Asia than it was willing openly to admit?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that was a Question which ought to be asked of the Under Secretary of State for India.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—TREATY OF TIENT-SIN.
  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: The questions alluded to by the hon. Member are engaging the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government; but it would be premature for them to express any opinion at present, inasmuch as the Treaty of Commerce between France and China contemplated in Article 3 of the recent Treaty of Tien-Tsin has not yet been, concluded.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878— MOVEMENT OF CATTLE.
  MR. PELLasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, having regard to the narrow limits to which cases of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain are reduced, and for the better security of districts entirely free from disease, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to issue orders, under the powers conferred on them by "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," prohibiting or regulating the movements of Animals out of the districts of local authorities in which cases of foot and mouth disease may exist?
  MR. DODSON: We are giving practical effect to the hon. Member's suggestion by sending Privy Council Inspectors to make inquiries in the few districts where foot-and-mouth disease still exists, and to settle the boundaries of infected areas sufficiently large to prevent it from spreading into other parts. A Circu-

  1295
  lar has been addressed to all local authorities, pointing out the heavy responsibility which will rest upon them if by any neglect on their part the disease, which has now reached a lower point than it has touched for some years past, should again spread through the country.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PENSIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to say when the Treasury Minute will be laid upon the Table dealing with the amounts recently received from the Indian Government, and yet to be paid into the Exchequer for the capitalised value of the pensions of men belonging to the Army, and serving on the Indian Establishment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he hoped to lay the Minute referred to by the right hon. Gentleman on the Table very shortly. There were some details still the subject of correspondence.

  COINAGE BILL—PROFIT AND LOSS OF MINTAGE.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the percentage of profit on the issue of the bronze token money; what profit has been made upon it, in all, since its first issue; and, whether he will add statements on these subjects to the Papers he has promised regarding silver?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I propose to lay on the Table for the consideration of hon. Members, before the further stages of the Coinage Bill, a Return showing the profit and loss of the Mint yearly, in connection with gold, silver, and bronze coinage respectively, during the last 10 years.

  POST OFFICE—FREE POSTAGE.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, when a large number of the people of Ireland were in danger of death by starvation four years ago, and were only saved by appeals to the charity of the world, application was made by the Mansion House Relief Committee to the Post Office to transmit their letters free of postage, and the application was refused; whether communications on the business of the Fisheries Exhibition last year were, and communications on the business of the Health
  1296
  Exhibition this year are, transmitted through the Post Office free of postage; and, whether he is aware that the former Exhibition made a considerable profit last year?
  MR. FAWCETT: The case is correctly stated by the hon. Member. The difference is this—that precedents exist for opening non-paying accounts for postage between Royal Commissions appointed by Her Majesty's Government and the Post Office; but, so far as I can ascertain, there is no instance of such a privilege being conferred on any body not appointed by the Government.
  MR. GRAY: Upon what principle are these non-paying accounts opened? Do all public bodies open these accounts?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had simply to administer decisions. So far as he was able to ascertain it, the test was that a Royal Commission was a Royal appointment, and was supposed to hold a trust for the public.
  MR. GRAY: What I want to know is, whether all such bodies enjoy the privilege of free postage?
  MR. FAWCETTcould not say that all such bodies did. But, so far as he had been able to ascertain, there were many precedents for conferring this privilege upon Royal Commissioners.
  MR. GRAY: I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked whether it was not a fact that free postage had been granted to all International Exhibitions in London when space had not been sold and speculation had been excluded; and, further, whether in cases where free postage had been granted for Exhibitions, they had not been national undertakings beyond the sphere of personal profit and for the sole interest of the community at large?
  MR. FAWCETTexplained that there had not been time for him to obtain the information asked for; but if the hon. Member would postpone his Question until after Whitsuntide, he would very gladly answer it.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. HAMPDEN EVANS TENER AND MR. ST. GEORGE LAWRENCE WILLCOCKS, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1297
  Whether Hampden Evans Tener, whose name appears in a Return to an Order of the House of the 14th November 1882, as holding the Commission of the Peace for the county of Tyrone, is the same person who for many years managed a loan fund bank in that county, and, about two years since, fled from the Country, taking with him the moneys deposited in his bank by the farmers, labourers, and servants of the district, and has not since returned; and, whether it is intended to retain his name in the Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On inquiry made, the facts appear to be substantially as stated, and they having been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, he has directed that Mr. Tener's name shall be at once struck out of the Commission of the Peace. It is right to add that hitherto the circumstances have not been brought officially to the notice of any Lord Chancellor.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether St. George Lawrence Will-cocks, whose name appears in a Return to an order of the House of 14th November 1882, as holding the commission of the peace for the county of Tyrone, and further described in the Return as being of "no profession or occupation," is a cottier, with no visible means of support; whether, about ten years ago, the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Lord O'Hagan, sent him a letter of supersession on the ground that he was without means of subsistence; and, if so, how it happens that his name is still included in the list of magistrates; whether he presided in the Petty Sessions Court at Cookstown in August last, when cases of party assaults were tried, and so conducted himself that he was several times rebuked by the resident magistrate, Captain Trench, and by the Crown solicitor, Mr. Alexander Morpley, who went so far as to threaten to retire from the case; and, whether Mr. Willcocks will now be superseded from further acting in the commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that Mr. Willcocks lives in a small house at Arboe, near Lough Neagh, in the county of Tyrone, and that his means of subsistence are believed to be very small. It is the fact that in February, 1873, he was superseded in the Commission of Peace by the then Lord Chan-
  1298
  cellor, Lord O'Hagan; but it is also the fact that he was reinstated by the same authority in the following April. The grounds of the supersession are not recorded. With regard to the occasion in last August, when he presided at Cooks-town Petty Sessions at the hearing of certain assault cases, Captain French, the Resident Magistrate, reports that his (Captain French's) interference was limited to securing for the representive of the Crown the right to conduct the cases without interruption. While I think the circumstances of the case, as at present shown, are not sufficient for a reference to the Lord Chancellor, and are somewhat exaggerated in the Question, they are such as appear to call for some further inquiry on the part of the Executive—which I shall cause to be made.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT BENCH OF COOKSTOWN, CO. TYRONE—RELI GIOUS PERSUASION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, of the fifteen magistrates in the Petty Sessions district of Cookstown, county Tyrone, nine are Episcopalian Protestants, five are Presbyterians, and one is a Methodist; whether, in view of the fact that there is no Catholic magistrate in the district, the Catholic clergy and principal Catholic inhabitants have united in recommending to the Lieutenant of the county, and to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. John Quin, Poor Law Guardian, of Cookstown, an extensive merchant, for appointment to the Commission of the Peace; and, whether Mr. Quin will be appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government are not aware of the precise constitution in point of religion of the Cookstown District Bench. However, it is not now the fact that there is no Roman Catholic magistrate in the district, as the Lord Chancellor has just appointed Mr. James Devling, of Cooks-town, a Roman Catholic gentleman, to the Commission of the Peace, on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the County, Lord Charlemont, who, the Lord Chancellor informs me, has shown the strongest desire to redress the inequality in the representation of the different religious denominations. With regard to Mr. Quin, it is the case that his name has been brought before the

  1299
  Lord Chancellor, who will duly consider it.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COM MISSIONERS)—MR. WILLIAM GRAY.
  SIR PHILIP MILESasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Gray, a tenant farmer, who was, in January, 1883, nominated by Earl Spencer to the judicial appointment of Sub-Commissioner for fixing fair rents in Ireland, is the same person who is reported in The Belfast Morning News, of January 17th 1882, to have used, on a public platform at Armagh, the following language:—
  "Notwithstanding the howl of distress that was given vent to at a meeting in Dublin, landlords would, at 8s. 6d. an acre, have plenty to live on; indeed, as much as was good for them. Pity the poor landlords;"
  whether he is aware that, at a public meeting at Coleraiue, as reported in The Belfast Northern Whig of October 9th 1882, Mr. Gray used the following language: —
  "Now that this Act has been handed over to landlord partizans to do what they like with it, it was high time that the farmers should speak out and look to their interests. If the Government thought that they would succeed in satisfying the landlords there were more cabbage-headed men among them than ever he thought. He was afraid that if the Government did not remedy this mistake it would tell against them when the General Election came round;"
  and, further, to ask whether, in view of the qualifications which His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant laid down, when he stated—
  "That a studious search should be made for men whose integrity of purpose, impartiality, and independence of position and character, would make their decisions respected by all parties coming before them in their judicial capacity,"
  Mr. Gray will be maintained in the office of a Sub-Commissioner?
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy' of Mr. Gray's letter, explaining how he reconciles the statement that he only alluded to Griffiths' valuation as repudiating all valuations, although he founded an argument in figures upon that particular valuation; also, on what grounds he states that the seditious cries were used against him, instead of with his approval, as he is not reported to have dis-
  1300
  sented from or reproved the use of them; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the letters of recommendation of Lord Yarmouth, Sir Richard Wallace, and Mr. Stanners, on which he relies, as justifying the appointment and reappointments of Mr. Gray for the office of Sub-Commissioner; whether the Government was aware of the language complained of early last year; whether Mr. Gray has expressed any regret for the language used by himself and others in his presence; and, whether he has withdrawn the sentiments expressed on the platforms referred to?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he was aware that, at a meeting held at Dunmurry, county Antrim, Mr. William Gray, a few weeks previous to his being appointed to the judicial office of Sub-Commissioner to fix "fair rents," made use of the following language, as reported in The Belfast Daily Post of October 26, 1882: —
  "We deplore that men in whom the farmers have confidence have generally been excluded from the position of Sub-Commissioners, and that the Courts, being mainly composed of landlords and agents, are not doing justice to the people;
  whether he, at the same meeting, spoke of Chief Commissioner O'Hagan as follows: —
  "The judicial mind is fearfully and wonderfully made. It loves to make mysterious and incomprehensible that which is clear as daylight. It is never so much in its glory as when turning plain common sense into nonsense, and commend me to the judicial mind for making things as clear as mud;"
  and, whether Mr. Gray would be maintained in the office of a Sub-Commissioner?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no objection to lay on the Table so much of Mr. Gray's letter of explanation as refers to the points which the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) mentions. But it is not desirable to lay on the Table of the House letters of recommendation of candidates for offices. I have no objection to show the letters of Lord Yarmouth, Sir Richard Wallace, and Mr. Stanners privately to the hon. Baronet. With regard to the speeches of Mr. Gray, which are quoted from in the several Questions, the Lord Lieutenant was not aware of the various ex-

  1301
  pressions used until they were referred to recently in a speech made by a noble Lord in "another place." Mr. Gray has given an explanation of language used by himself and by others in his presence. His Excellency would not have appointed Mr. Gray had he been aware that he had taken an active part in Party discussions of the Land Question; but, having appointed him, the Government can only have regard to his conduct as an Assistant Commissioner, and do not propose to take any action in respect of words spoken by Mr. Gray before he was in the Public Service. From a conversation which His Excellency has had with Judge O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon, the Government learn that there is no evidence before the Commissioners as to Mr. Gray's action as an Assistant Commissioner which would, in their opinion, justify their recommending his dismissal. The testimony of Mr. Bourke, the legal Assistant Commissioner, with whom Mr. Gray has been associated, is strongly in favour of his independence and impartiality as well as his ability. Mr. Bourke says of him—
  "He is a perfect farmer; he does not care a brass farthing whether he offends landlord or tenant."
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked how long would his appointment last?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the appointment of nearly all the Sub-Commissioners would terminate, he thought, at the end of about two months—at the end of four months from the beginning of the present financial year, and only a comparatively small number of them would be reappointed. There would be 10 Sub-Commissioners instead of 17.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked, was he to understand that the Lord Lieutenant was not aware of Mr. Gray's language when he reappointed Mr. Gray?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, His Excellency, as a matter of fact, was not aware of Mr. Gray's language until quite recently. His Excellency admitted that it was mentioned in "another place" a year or a year and a-half ago; but His Excellency was not aware of it until within the last two or three weeks.

  ARMY (INDIA)—ARREARS OF NON EFFECTIVE ARMY CHARGES.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether
  1302
  the correspondence between the Government of India and the Home Government, referred to at page 0 of the Financial Statement, with regard to the claim made by the Home Government for more than two millions; sterling on account of arrears of non-effective Army charges will be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date; and, whether the Secretary of State has agreed to the proposal of the Government of India
  "For the payment of the large arrears still outstanding as well as of current charges under a system which will not lead to any increase of expenditure over the sum originally provided in the Estimates of 1883–4 on this account,"
  and which will obviate for the future those "sudden and unforeseen fluctuations," which Sir Auckland Colvin complains of, and which are so disturbing to regular and economical financial administration?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I hope that the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India respecting the arrears of non-effective Army charges will shortly be complete, when there will be no objection to lay it upon the Table. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question, I may say that arrangements are in progress, by which the "fluctuations" mentioned by Sir Auckland Colvin will in future be avoided.

  OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR— REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Committee upon the Public Prosecutor's Office have reported; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of the Report upon the Table in sufficient time for it to be considered before the Vote on that office is taken in Supply?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Report was laid upon the Table of the House on the 13th instant, and can be seen by Members in the Library. It is passing through the Press, and will, doubtless, be circulated before the Vote in question is taken.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA—SALE OF CARCASES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether

  1303
  English Boards of Guardians sell for use as human food the carcases of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and slaughtered under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and, if so, whether he can state approximately the number of animals so disposed of, and the average price received for the carcases?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have no information of anything of the sort being done by English Boards of Guardians.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — THE OLDCASTLE UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has arrived at any decision regarding the gentlemen recommended for the Commission of the Peace, three months ago, by the guardians of the Old castle Union; and, if not, when does he expect to report his decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor informs me that two several Memorials, received on the 2nd and 9th of last month, referring to the names of nine gentlemen recommended for the Commission of the Peace, are now before him, and he hopes to give his decision thereon in a short period.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—AS SAULT ON THE PERSON—CASE OF MR. M'GAUGHEY.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a case heard recently by Mr. Buchannan, J.P. at the Omagh Petty Sessions, in which a woman named Ellen M'Ellhill charged Mr. M'Gaughey, commercial traveller, with having struck her with a whip. Mr. Buchannan, in the absence of the defendant, and upon the sole evidence of the complainant, refused an adjournment, inflicted a heavy fine, and issued a warrant for arrest of the defendant, although his brother attended in court, and informed the magistrate that the defendant, being absent on a business journey, had not been served with the summons to attend, and had no notice whatever of the hearing; and, whether the Executive will cancel the warrant, and order a new hearing of the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have inquired into this case, and find that it was heard before a Bench of four magistrates, of whom Mr. Buchannan was one. The defendant, who was a commercial traveller only in the sense that he was a hawker of tea in small quantities, was summoned for assaulting a married woman named M'Ellhill, who was near her confinement at the time. The defendant did not appear, and an application for adjournment was made; but the magistrates did not believe it to be bonâ fide, and proceeded to hear the case— perfect service of the summons having been proved. The complainant and two other witnesses proved a wanton and unprovoked assault, and the magistrates imposed a penalty of 40 s., or two months' imprisonment in default. The defendant appealed; but the County Court Judge confirmed the sentence. The defendant has since absconded. There is clearly no ground upon which the Government could or ought to interfere in this case.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to take any steps to improve the position of the officers and attendants in public lunatic asylums in Ireland in respect to salaries and pensions, so as to make these more in correspondence with the scale in English asylums, as recommended in the Inspector's Report for 1881?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Recommendations are from time to time made to the Government in favour of increase of salary to individual officers and attendants in lunatic asylums by the respective Boards of Governors, and such recommendations always receive the most careful consideration; but no representation has been made to the Government, nor, so far as the Government are aware, to the Inspectors, which would establish the contention that the salaries in these institutions are generally inadequate; nor are the Government aware that there is such a difficulty in obtaining suitable persons to fill vacancies therein as would require them to make inquiries on the subject. As regards pensions, they are awarded according to the Regulations in force for the Civil Service, which receive a liberal construction in their application to the

  1305
  cases of officers and attendants in lunatic asylums.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) — CHESTER PRISON.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will delay closing the prison at Chester to give an opportunity for discussion in the House; and, whether, in the future, any Prison Rules involving the closing of prisons will, at the time of being laid upon the Table of the House, be also communicated to the Members for the county or borough in which such prison is situate, and also to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions or Chairman of Visiting Justices?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOUET: The Order has been suspended. Orders as to closing prisons—i. e., as to the cessation of committals to prisons—are necessarily communicated to the committing authorities. The process does not involve laying any Rule on the Table of the House, except in certain particular cases. Any Order which is laid on the Table would necessarily be issued to the county and borough Members.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART — THE RECORD OFFICE AT VENICE.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Who has been appointed to carry on the work undertaken by the late Mr. Rawdon Browne for the Record Office at Venice, and under what conditions has the appointment been made?
  MR. COURTNET: After the death of Mr. Rawdon Browne, the Master of the Rolls asked the Treasury to sanction an annual allowance not exceeding £200, and five guineas per printed sheet, to be paid to such persons and in such amounts as his Lordship should specify for the purpose of completing the work of Mr. Browne. Sir Baliol Brett explained that he proposed that the money should be paid to various persons in England and Italy, including some who had been already employed by Mr. Browne, the whole to be under the unpaid editorship of the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who was Mr. Browne's sole executor, and who, his Lordship added, "is familiar with the Venetian archives, and very familiar with the Italian language."
  MR. DILLWYNasked if the Correspondence relating to this appointment would be laid on the Table?
  MR. COURTNEY: No.

  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES—TABLE OF INTEREST AND SINKING FUNDS.
  GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will direct a Table to be prepared, showing the Annuities required to cover the interest on Loans, at as many varying rates as are charged by Government; also the Sinking Funds to pay off Loans at different periods, having regard to the variations in amounts of the Annuities consequent on their being paid quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly?
  MR. COURTNEY: This information can be found in any volume of mathematical tables, such as Willich. Any intending borrower can also ascertain the figures applicable to his particular case on reference to the lending body. Under these circumstances, I think we should be scarcely justified in printing the information as a Parliamentary Return.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL—STATE MENT OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN—THE VALUERS.
  MR. NORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the three gentlemen who estimated the insurance value of certain steamers made the usual survey and examination of the vessels and their machinery to enable them to arrive at a just conclusion; whether two of them, viz. Mr. White (underwriter to the Marine Insurance Company) and Mr. Stringer (formerly a shipbroker)—are professional valuers; and, whether he, before accepting their valuation as authoritative, took any steps to inform himself as to their possessing any scientific or practical acquaintance with the construction and values of ships and machinery?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have communicated with the several gentlemen named by the hon. Member with reference to the points raised in his Question, and have received the following replies. Mr. Stringer informs me that he was for many years the managing partner in one of the largest ship broking and insurance businesses in London, and for nine years represented the subscribers of

  1307
  Lloyd's on the Salvage Association. He says his intimate knowledge of shipping, arising from his experience as charterer and insurer, enabled him to form an accurate estimate of the value of the various vessels he referred to, and that the values at which he arrived were confirmed by professional valuers. I have also received a telegram from Mr. White, who says—
  "It is not customary to employ professional valuers to fix insurance values. The great number of vessels that have come under my notice during my past 18 years experience as an Underwriter enables me, generally speaking, to arrive at a fair valuation for insurance purposes. Before sending my estimates to the Board of Trade, I submitted the same to a gentleman of considerable experience in valuing steamships, and the difference between us was under £3,000."
  Messrs. Bayley and Ridley, who are professional valuers, have written to me as follows:—
  "We do not in any case make a survey and examination of the vessels and their machinery, but form our opinions as to values from the description given of the vessels in Lloyd's Register and The Liverpool Registry of Iron Vessels (of present and past years), carefully noticing the records of surveys and repairs, and assuming that the vessels were fully up to the description given. We also assumed the accuracy of the particulars printed in the Board of Trade Reports when they were supplied to us."
  Mr. J. Wimshurst, who is Surveyor of the Board of Trade, says—
  "I first inquired the prices at which ships had recently changed hands, and also the prices at which other ships were offering for sale; from this data I deduced a fair current standard value for each type and condition of ship. Then as each list was sent me I looked up in both the Register books the dimensions, the several tonnages, the date of build, type, class, power, and type of engines, ago of boilers, and the date of last survey. With these and the above current standard value I determined the estimated values. Actual survey might, no doubt, enable me to more accurately judge the particular merits of one ship in relation to any other ship; but granting that the Register fairly gives the above particulars, I state unhesitatingly that actual survey is not necessary for the purpose of arriving at the fair estimated market value."
  MR. NORWOOD: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the circumstances, these gentlemen, not having inspected the vessels, what they did was not mere guess-work?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I think that the letters I have read from these gentlemen show conclusively that it is nothing of the kind; that they took
  1308
  pains to arrive at a fair estimate; and that they adopted the course which is usual in the vast majority of these transactions.
  MR. C. M. PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to publish and circulate throughout the Country his speech on the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill before the resumption of the Adjourned Debate? Would the right hon. Gentleman also state when he proposed to issue the Memorandum which he promised to the House respecting the re-easting or re-modelling of the Merchant Shipping Bill; and what was the earliest date on which he proposed to take the Adjourned Debate?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The last Question ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because I have no control over the Business of the House. As regards the Memorandum promised, it was laid on the Table of the House on Friday evening, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members before the holidays. As to the other Question, I think it is put under some misapprehension. I have not expressed any intention whatever to circulate my speech throughout the country. What I have undertaken to do is to correct very carefully the Parliamentary report, which is prepared by Mr. Hansard. I have offered at the same time to send a copy of this report to any individual who may write to me for it, and who is specially interested in the question.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— AP PLICATION FOR FAIR RENT—CASE OF PATRICK CASSERLAY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the hearing of an application made by Patrick Casserlay for a reduction of his rent before the Land Commission Court held at Longford in March; whether the farm held by Casserlay on the shore of Loughrea, county Longford, was formerly let at five pounds a year, and whether, on a change of ownership some years ago, the rent was raised to sixteen pounds; whether Casserlay applied to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed; and, whether it is true that the applicant received no notice of the decision against

  1309
  his claim until after the time had passed when he could appeal from that decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me as follows:—Casserlay's application to have a fair rent fixed was heard by the Longford Sub-Commission. His holding had been let up to 1872 for £5. But the tenement valuation is £13. His rent was £16, at which amount it has been fixed by the Sub-Commission. The Sub-Commission gave judgment on the 28th of April. Notification of the decision was sent by post to the tenant on the following day, and the time within which the tenant can appeal has not yet expired.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—MR. D. ROSS, PAROCHIAL INSPECTOR OF CROM DALE—REMOVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISION.
  SIR GEORGE GRANTasked the Lord Advocate, If it is the case that Mr. D. Ross has been removed from the office of parochial inspector of the parish of Cromdale by order of the Board of Supervision; and, if he will lay upon the Table the Report by the inspector in reference to the case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is the case that Mr. D. Ross, Inspector of Poor of the parish of Cromdale, has been removed from his office by the Board of Supervision. I have no objection to lay upon the Table the Inspector's Reports, and the correspondence, from which the grounds of the Board's action will appear.

  ARMY—INVERNESS BARRACKS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new barracks at Inverness, which have been in construction for two years, have no system of drainage provided, and are consequently not available for occupation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The difficulty in regard to the drainage of the regimental depôt barracks at Inverness has been to find an outfall which should not be open to objection from the neighbouring proprietors. Negotiations are now in progress, and it is hoped that the difficulty will soon be surmounted.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL—SUSPENSION OF WORKS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade,
  1310
  Whether he has any information showing whether any works in connection with the Channel Tunnel are now being continued on the French shores of the English Channel?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest information which I have on this subject is contained in a Report from Her Majesty's Consul at Boulogne. This Report, dated March 19, states that—
  "The works at Sangatte for the proposed Channel Tunnel have been entirely suspended. At the beginning of 1883 the piercing of the gallery or heading was rapidly proceeded with…. but on the 17th March, 1883, the work was finally stopped…. At the end of March the quantity of water leaking into it was… 447 gallons per minute. As no further work was to be carried on, it was decided to block the gallery at about 350 mètres from the shaft. This was done by means of a masonry wall two mètres thick, which was finished on the 22nd May."

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO RIVER—DE TENTION OF THE YACHT "MAUD."
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the information contained in the Liverpool papers describing the forcible seizure and detention of the British yacht Maud, by the Portuguese authorities in the Congo River is accurate; and, if so, whether any representations have been or will be made to the Portuguese Government on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have had no information respecting this. If the hon. Member can furnish the Foreign Office with any information, the matter will be attended to.

  ARMY—EXAMINATIONS FOR PRO MOTION.
  EARL PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of allowing those officers of the Army who gained five marks in the aggregate, and passed in every subject at the last examination for promotion, to be reckoned as qualified for promotion from the date of the conclusion of the next examination, without obliging them to appear again before the examiners on that occasion?
  THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he had looked into this question with every disposition to provide against arrangements which would cause inconvenience to the officers of the Army. He was afraid it was beyond

  1311
  the scope of the New Regulations to make them retrospective, even if they were limited to the last examination, the results of which for unsuccessful candidates had been cancelled. It would probably lead to demands from officers similarly situated at former examinations, and raise questions of supersession which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to entertain.
  EARL PERCYasked the noble Marquess to explain how the retrospective operation of the Regulations would have the effect he had indicated.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that what he had stated was the result of inquiries he had made. It would really be impossible for the Department to consent to make the Regulations retrospective in this matter.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ROTH WELL SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is true that he has ordered a School Board to be formed at Rothwell, Northamptonshire, in direct opposition to the wishes of the householders and ratepayers, as declared by a considerable majority at the poll held on the 29th of March, and of the protests of a deputation representing four-fifths of the rateable value of the parish, and notwithstanding the fact that the managers of the national school offered and were prepared to provide whatever additional school accommodation might be required by the Education Acts?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is true that a School Board has been ordered for the parish of Rothwell, a small town in Northamptonshire, under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1870. It appears that for the last half-century the educational requirements of the district have been supplied by two schools, one National and the other British, and the population is largely composed of Nonconformists, who have been established there for more than 200 years. The buildings of the British school having been condemned, it was found necessary to replace them. The managers, however, failed to raise the sum required, and an attempt was made to pass a resolution in favour of a School Board. This was rejected by 310 to 255, a majority of 55 in a population of 3,000. The managers of the British School now find themselves
  1312
  obliged to close the school, and have given notice to that effect to the Education Department. Under these circumstances, the Department issued the order for a School Board, and practically they had no alternative. It is quite true that the managers of the National School offered to build an additional school in order to supply the deficiency; but for several reasons this would not have been a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. There would have been no provision for the children pending the erection of the new school, and the whole of the school accommodation would have been monopolized by one religious body. Such an arrangement would certainly not have been suitable to a population which for half-a-century has enjoyed a choice of schools, and would neither have been conducive to the peace or the educational interests of the district.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Do I understand, Sir, that there was a deficiency of school accommodation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The schools were closed, and it was necessary to provide for the educational wants of the district.

  THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the First Commissioner of Works, What preparations have been made for the reception of the equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington at Aldershot?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Arrangements have been made for the erection of the statue at Aldershot. A site has been selected for it near the headquarters, overlooking the permanent barracks and the town. The erection of a pedestal will be undertaken by the military authorities. Any outlay incurred will be defrayed out of the fund raised by the Committee appointed by the Prince of Wales.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I wish to ask for a word of explanation. I should like to know how it came about that when it was decided that the noble Duke was to be beheaded, that no arrangement was made by hoarding or otherwise to hide so painful a spectacle?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I regret to say that no arrangements were made; but I gave orders that a tarpaulin, or something else, should be erected during operations. I found, however, that it had been removed; and I have again

  1313
  given orders that nothing more should be done without some such screen.

  POST OFFICE—FEMALE TELE GRAPHISTS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, If a female telegraphist in the service previous to a Rule at present existing, "prohibiting her marrying and retaining her situation," may not marry without being called upon to resign; and, if not, is she not entitled to compensation for a service of about thirteen years?
  MR. FAWCETT: The Rule to which the hon. Member refers has been in operation for many years; it makes no exception in favour of women who were in the service at the time it was established. All, whether appointed before or after the date of that Rule, must resign on marriage; and on their resignation they are not legally entitled to either pension or gratuity in respect to the years they have served.

  EGYPT—FORCED LABOUR.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have yet been taken to reform the forced labour system in Egypt, by supplying the peasants with food and tools, instead of requiring them to dig with their fingers, and to depend for food upon the supplies sent by their friends from their native villages; and, if not, whether, having in view the importance of winning the good will of the people at the present crisis, Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to obtain this reform for them without delay?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the objection to the system of forced labour which my hon. Friend has so forcibly brought out in his Reports, and Mr. Egerton will take every opportunity of pressing upon the Egyptian Government the necessity of remedying the evils alluded to; but such reforms depend on the restoration of the finances of Egypt, which is the principal object now in view.

  THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY—THE STAFF.
  MR. INGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What are the number of
  1314
  employés engaged at the Middlesex Registry, and which of these is it proposed should be taken into Government employ at the Land Transfer Office, and out of what funds are those to be so taken at present paid?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am informed that there are nine officers now employed at the Middlesex Registry besides a number of copyists. They are paid out of the fees of the Registry. Should the Registry be transferred to the State, as proposed, we would endeavour to effect some reduction in its cost; but we cannot at present judge whether this is possible.

  OFFICE OF COMMISSIONERS OF NA TIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— STATUS, DUTIES, AND LEAVES OF CLERKS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that for four years after the inauguration of the Lower Division system, the clerks of that Division appointed to the office of National Education, Dublin, were in the enjoyment of six weeks' annual leave; whether, without any reason being assigned, this leave was in 1880 curtailed to two weeks; whether, also since increased, there is yet a marked disparity between their vacation and that granted to the other clerks of the Department; whether there is any difference in the duties which would warrant this disparity in the leave; and, whether, under the circumstances of the case, he will use his influence with the Commissioners to obtain for these gentlemen the leave of absence formerly enjoyed by them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Education Commissioners inform me that it is the case that at one time the clerks of the Lower Division in their Office were allowed six weeks' leave; but that it was found not only that the requirements of the Office made this inconvenient, but that it was at variance with the practice in other Departments. These clerks are now allowed three weeks' leave, which is more than is enjoyed by those in a similar position in many other Offices. The Establishment clerks are allowed, as formerly, six weeks' leave. There is an essential difference, both as regards status and duties, between the two Divisions of the Service. It is sometimes the case that some of the

  1315
  Lower Division clerks are intrusted with certain duties in common with some of the Establishment clerks; but this is resorted to only when an Establishment clerk is not available. The Commissioners do not intend to alter the present arrangements.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) —LEGISLATION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can hold out any hopes that the measure for Intermediate Education in Wales, twice mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and so often promised by the Government, will be introduced at an early day after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The measure to which my hon. Friend refers is ready, and Her Majesty's Government have every hope, and as far as depends upon them every intention, of passing it during the present Session. With regard to the particular day for introducing it, if my hon. Friend will communicate with the Vice President of the Council he will be happy to consider what is best to be done for the purpose.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ASSIZES.
  MR. WHITLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, If it is true, as stated in a paragraph in The Daily News of Friday, May the 23rd,
  "That the proposed re-arrangement of As-size Courts, suggested by a Committee of Judges, had been abandoned in deference to strong objections which had been raised in many parts of England and Wales, and that the Judicial Bench will be strengthened so as to meet the difficulty arising from the present condition of overwork of the Judges?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, it was correct that representations had been received objecting to the removal of the Assizes from different counties. Full attention had been given to those representations; but it was not correct to say that any scheme had been abandoned. No scheme had been prepared. There was no intention of increasing the number of Judges.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUN HOLI DAYS — ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  DR. CAMERON: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether there is any
  1316
  chance of his moving the adjournment at the Evening Sitting? The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he would consider the matter; and I beg, therefore, to ask him whether he can give any hope of a change in his previously announced intention?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I mentioned on a previous occasion what is in our power in this matter. My hon. Friend relies, I think, on the precedent which occurred at Easter last; but I am afraid it will be of no avail to him, because at Easter the adjournment was moved at 9 o'clock, and, of course, on the adjournment there arose discussions of all miscellaneous questions that any Member was disposed to raise. I doubt very much whether, under present circumstances, it is in our power to take the course suggested by my hon. Friend; and therefore I think the best course — indeed, I think I am pledged to the House—to take is the usual course. At the same time, I cannot help saying that I regret extremely that my hon. Friend will not have an opportunity to-morrow night of calling attention to a question which is certainly somewhat urgent; and I hope that some arrangement may be come to by which there may be a discussion on the subject during the present Session.
  DR. CAMERON: Did the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope of an Evening Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid he could give no further answer.

  ARMY —BILLETING.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the persons in the town of Lifford, upon whom men of the 5th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers are billeted, are obliged to furnish fuel and light, as well as lodgings, in consideration of the allowance of four pence per man per day for lodging; and, whether, since Paragraph 1, Section 6, of the Official Circular on Recruiting, states that, whilst out for the recruit drill, all Militiamen are entitled to allowances for fuel and light, as well as for lodgings or billet, such allowances for fuel and light will be paid to those who supplied them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Recruiting Circular referred to defines the advantages a Militiaman

  1317
  enjoys, enumerating accommodation in barracks or billet, with, daily rations of bread, meat, fuel, and light. It has no reference to the innkeeper or person on whom the men are billeted. The duty of the latter is defined in the Army Act— namely, that in consideration of 4d. per day he must provide—
  "Lodging and attendance and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his (i.e., the Militiaman's) meat."

  ARMY — RELIGIOUS SERVICES FOR SOLDIERS (BARBADOES).
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at present, and for some months past, one hundred and fifty Presbyterian soldiers of the Royal Scots, now at Barbadoes, have no religious services performed for them by any duly qualified person; whether these men were satisfied with a non-liturgical morning service by the Wesleyan chaplain; whether General Brown, commanding, not only disallowed the bill of this chaplain for the special allowances granted for extra services, but, in a formal minute (No. 9), inter alia, thus expressed himself—
  "I consider that commanding officers are the best judges of the requirements of their men in spiritual as well as temporal affairs;"
  and, thereafter, on 22nd December 1883, issued the following order—
  "Presbyterians will parade at 11 a.m. in the Brick Barracks, the service, to be conducted by the senior officer or non-commissioned officer present,"
  which order still stands; and, whether be will at once order that, failing regular supplies otherwise, instructions be given that the early morning services by the Wesleyan chaplain be resumed and the usual remuneration allowed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No Report has been received from the station of the circumstances of the case; but, so far as the remuneration is concerned, the General Officer commanding appears to have acted in accordance with Regulations. Under these circumstances, I cannot give the order which the hon. Member asks for; but I will look into the Regulations, and consider if they require amendment.

  INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER EDUCA TION (WALES)—ABERYSTWITH COL LEGE.
  In reply to Mr. RENDEL,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the claims of Aberystwith College had been under the consideration of the Government; and it had been decided that the amount asked for by the Governing Body —£2,500 a-year—should be granted, in consideration of a sum of £1,000 a-year and some other matters being provided by private subscription.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAF FORD NORTHCOTEasked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the National Debt (Conversion of Stock) Bill that night; and what would be the order of Business after the holidays?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We shall proceed with the Representation of the People Bill in Committee this evening, and will move that Progress be reported in fair time to take the National Debt (Conversion of Stock) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the arrangements for to-morrow. On the re-assembling of the House on Thursday after the holidays Supply will be taken; and at 2 o'clock on Friday we propose to resume the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill.

  EGYPT—PUNISHMENTS—USE OF THE "CAT-O'-NINE-TA1LS."
  MR. GRAYasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he was in a position to state if the cat-o'-nine-tails had been used in the prisons of Egypt; whether a special cat-o'-nine-tails had been invented by Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, whether he would now state the result of his inquiries into the allegations made by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan)?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I was not aware my hon. would have asked me that Question to-day. Would he put it down for to-morrow?
  MR. M'COANsaid, with reference to the statement he had made on this subject, his authority was, in the first instance, The Kölnische Zeitung, which he need hardly say was a German paper,

  1319
  and that of a person of very high authority on the subject of Egyptian affairs. In place of the courbash Mr. Clifford Lloyd had introduced a whip "perfectioné et chargé de plomb."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had denied that statement the other day.

  COLONIES—RETURN OF COINAGE OF GOLD.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Return respecting the gold coinage of the Colonies, moved for on the 5th May, will be presented to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The Return will be circulated to-morrow.

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 23rd May.] [FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Extension of the Household and Lodger Franchise.
    Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).
    DR. CAMERON, in rising to move, as an Amendment, at the end of the clause to add the words—
    "And if the qualifying premises be situated in a borough or county returning more than two Members to serve in Parliament, every man registered as a voter in respect thereof shall be entitled to record one vote for each of a number of candidates equal to the number of Members to be elected,"
    said: If I were a younger Member of the House, I should propose this Amendment with the full confidence of success.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether this Amendment is in Order, seeing that the Bill is one which deals with the qualification of electors; and the proposal of the hon. Member deals with a subject-matter altogether different. It proposes to deal with what are known as three-cornered
    1320
    boroughs or counties; and we may be led into an entirely useless discussion, because, when the Bill comes into effect, there may be no such thing in existence. The Amendment itself is altogether inconsistent with any proposal included within the four corners of the Bill, and any discussion, which may take place upon it may be entirely wasted. I beg to ask if the Amendment, under these circumstances, is in Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), I have to say that I do not think this is the most appropriate opportunity on which to introduce the Amendment; but, having regard to the fact that this is an enfranchising Bill, and that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) proposes to give to the electors, in certain constituencies, three votes, where they only now have two, I am not prepared to say that the Amendment is out of Order.
    DR. CAMERON: If my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire had considered the full effects of the Bill as an enfranchising Bill, and had had any experience of the disadvantages of the system of three-cornered constituencies, he would probably have appreciated the importance of this Amendment. It certainly appears to me to be quite as important as the giving of a vote to the agricultural labourer, or to any other portion of the community. I was about to say, before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend, that if I had been a younger Member of the House I should propose this Amendment in full confidence of its success, and with the anticipation that I should only have to explain its object in order to earn for myself the everlasting gratitude of the constituencies which have now been labouring for so long a period—no less than three Parliaments—under a sense of injustice. The question is not now brought under the consideration of Parliament for the first time. In 1867 it was discussed and received the support of all but a very small minority of the Liberal Party—even including the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forstor) and the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who, in those days, were found speaking in support of it. It was supported by the Leaders of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, and also in this House, on

    1321
    considerations of prudence. If I were able to predicate what course may be taken by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)— and I, at least, have the consciousness of knowing that any feeling of uncertainty in that respect is shared by the natural Leaders of the Conservative Party, and that my present position is no worse than that of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote), the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and still more recently by the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary for War (Colonel Stanley)—I should then have the consolation of knowing that the principle I advocate is approved by the Leaders of that Party. What can be more disproportionate than the representation of the large constituencies of the Kingdom at the present moment? Previous to 1867 there were eight constituencies in Great Britain which returned three Members, in addition to the City of London, which returned four; and as in places returning one Member each elector had one vote, and as in places returning two Members each elector had two votes, so in places returning three or four Representatives each elector was entitled to three or four votes. But when the Reform Bill of 1867 was before this House, Mr. Lowe brought forward an Amendment, by which he proposed, in constituencies returning more than two Representatives, to allow the electors to distribute their votes. In other words, what he proposed was to give an opportunity for the adoption of the cumulative principle of voting. This principle was supported by two classes in this House—by the more ancient class of Tories, who regarded the Monarchy as dead, the aristocracy doomed, and the democracy triumphant; and by some doctrinaire Radicals, who said it was not altogether what they wanted, but a step in the right direction. But when Mr. Disraeli, who was then the Leader of this House, came to deal with the proposition, he gave it its death-blow. He said—
    "The result of adopting the principle must be that you would effectually neutralize the great bulk of the representative system. By far the greater number of places in this country are represented by two Members; and if you adopt this principle, the consequence is that opinion is neutralized in all those places. But what would be the further consequence if all
    1322
    the constituencies thus represented by two Members are thus neutralized? It appears to me that the Government of the country would be thrown into the hands of those constituencies which are represented by only one Member each."—(3 Hansard, [188] 1111.)
    He further pointed out that there were a larger number of such constituencies in Scotland and Wales than in any other part of the Kingdom, and that the effect of the proposal, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would be to place the Government of the country in the hands of a minority of the people. But even Mr. Disraeli did not regard the proposal from such a strong standpoint as the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, who very firmly put down his foot upon it. He denounced the proposal, and all kindred ones, as the schemes of coteries, and not the politics of nations; and he pointed out that, if adopted, it would lead to discomfiture and confusion. Well, Mr. Lowe's proposal was negatived by a majority of 141 in the House of Commons. When the Bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord Cairns cast about for a proposal which should equally neutralize the democracy, and he hit upon the device which had been brought forward for the first time by Lord John Russell in his Reform Bill of 1854, under which the voter in a tripartite constituency was to be entitled to two votes only. Lord Aberdeen, who was at the time at the head of the Ministry of which Lord John Russell was a Member, said it was a conundrum, a phrase which the present Prime Minister adopted and endorsed in 1867 when he spoke of a similar proposal as "a conundrum" in many points of view. But if this system of voting was a conundrum to the right hon. Gentleman, what must it have been to the multitude in the large cities? Lord Cairns, in supporting his Amendment, mentioned that in three out of seven constituencies—for the eighth had been divided into two—that in three out of seven the representation was divided between the two political Parties; and in three only was it monopolized by one Party. He did not mention that, in the cases where it was monopolized by one Party, it was monopolized by the Conservative Party, nor did he mention that, in the cases where it was divided, the Conservatives had two Members against one Liberal Member; but in order to secure this check against the

    1323
    tide of democracy in the large towns, he simply gave up the advantage of three seats which had been possessed by the Conservatives in the existing tripartite constituencies without giving any advantage elsewhere. As a matter of fact, Manchester and Liverpool had neutralized each other. Birmingham and Glasgow, as the Committee is aware, had managed to evade the working of the Minority Clause, and a similar organization had to be established in Leeds, in order to enable the same result to be achieved. In the House of Lords, the Government of the late Lord Derby offered the strongest opposition to the proposal. The Duke of Marlborough, speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed a—
    "Strong belief that the acceptance of the proposition would be attended with very serious dangers to our Constitutional system."
    He pointed to the likelihood of electioneering tickets and other undesirable practices being introduced. The proposal, however, was carried, despite the opposition of Lord Derby. The mischief of the clause is only to be bounded by the extent or the narrowness of its operation. A number of other objections were raised in the House of Lords; but I will only allude to one of them—the very obvious objection that if a minority Member died, or accepted Office, or succeeded to the Peerage, his successor would be elected by the majority. To that objection Lord Cairns replied that if that result happened in one constituency the opposite would happen in another—in other words, that the accidents in one constituency would be neutralized under the law of averages, and that the result would work out all right —perfectly oblivious that, if the law of averages were imported into the question, the entire case for the representation of a local minority fell to the ground. Among all the objections brought forward to the proposal, there was not a single one raised as to its relevancy to the Bill. I say this, because my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire has objected to my Amendment on the ground that it does not come within the scope of the Bill; but I say that, if precedent means anything, it is perfectly within the scope of the Bill. The Reform Bills of 1867 and 1868, all three of them referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, were divided into two parts.
    1324
    In one part the question of the franchise was dealt with; while the other dealt with the question of redistribution in England and Scotland. There was no occasion for dealing with the matter in the Irish Bill, because there was no tripartite constituency in that country; and both in the English and in the Scotch Bill the proper place for dealing with it was considered to be in the Franchise Bill. It is quite evident that it must be dealt with there, and nowhere else, because it deals with a number of existing constituencies; and if, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, the proposal to enfranchise the large towns, by granting an extra number of Members, be thrown out, that would simply be a question of disfranchisement, and would have no title whatever to be considered in a Redistribution Bill. It appears to me that, if it was within the scope of the Franchise Clauses of the Bills of 1867 and 1868 to introduce the Minority Clause, it is equally within the scope of the present Bill to introduce an Amendment proposing practically to repeal that Minority Clause, by restoring to the constituencies affected by it the system of representation which they enjoyed between the years 1832 and 1868. When the Bill came back from the Lords to the House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli said—
    "This proposal was opposed on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Lords with all the authority that a Government can fairly exercise over a deliberative Assembly; but it was carried by an overwhelming majority.…. Although Her Majesty's Government on principle opposed that proposal, although I do not say that I approve it, still in deference to the spirit of compromise and conciliation in which this Bill has been carried through the other House,….. it seems to me prudent and becoming to support the clause which their Lordships have introduced."—(3 Hansard, [189] 1110–11.)
    Well, in fact, the Government had determined to throw out all the important Amendments the Lords had introduced into the Bill, and it was considered necessary to leave them something by way of conciliating their amour propre. The great constituencies of the Kingdom— the tripartite constituencies and the City of London—were accordingly thrown in as a sort of sop to Cerberus. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) moved the rejection of the clause; the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Gosehen)

    1325
    spoke strongly against it; and the right hon. Member for Bradford was one of those who voted against it. But it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to demolish and utterly pulverize every argument brought forward in support of it. He said there could be no doubt that the view of the House was adverse to the clause introduced by Lord Cairns, and that the question to consider was whether there was any sufficient reason for waiving that adverse opinion. He said the conclusion at which he arrived was that not even those reasons of prudence suggested by Mr. Disraeli were sufficient to justify the House of Commons in waiving its objections to a proposal so mischievous. He stated that to be his opinion, and the result of his deliberate consideration; and he added, that he could regard the matter from a more impartial standpoint than most Members of the House, because he had been officially responsible, as a Member of Lord Aberdeen's Government, to the principle of tripartite representation. He could not help seeing, however, the mischief which lurked beneath the surface of the Minority Clause; and if the proposal were adopted the tripartite system of representation would be doomed. He complained that the House had only been allowed nine days for the consideration of a proposal which virtually amounted to a change of the whole method of our representation. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "The House of Commons has, from its first beginning to this day, been founded, and founded exclusively, upon the principle of the representation of communities, and communities alone. If this change is adopted, you ought, for consistency's sake, to alter the language of the writs addressed to the citizens of London, and to South Lancashire, Manchester, Liverpool, and so forth. Those writs ought hereafter to say that the majority in those respective communities is directed to return so many Members, and the minority so many."
    He went on to say—
    "There is no denying that, to the extent of one-fourth in London, and of one-third in the tripartite constituencies, you are about to inflict disfranchisement upon the electors."—(3 Hensard, [189] 1168–9–70.)
    He further denounced the injustice that would be inflicted upon the great towns and counties with tripartite representation as so gross as almost to be penal. He said—
    1326
    "The charge of injustice which, apart from the novelty of the proposal, I make is this— that you are going to treat most unjustly the majorities in those constituencies which you have 'selected,' forsooth, to try your experiment upon. And why are the most powerful constituent bodies in the Kingdom selected— those bodies which, more than any other, lead the opinion of the country. On the Slave Trade, on Emancipation, on the Corn Laws and other questions of Free Trade, on Parliamentary Reform, in what centres was it that thought was matured and elevated so as to bring the public mind to that state of maturity which enabled these great changes to be effected? It was in these great constituencies. The charge I make is this—that you are going to place these constituencies…. in a position of privation and penalty."—(Ibid. 1170–71.)
    With prophetic eyes the right hon. Gentleman saw that the electors under the clause would be treated as mere equivalents of each other, and would be made to vote for A and B, A and C, or B and C, as was thought proper by some exterior influence. That is what I say literally results at elections for Glasgow and Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman regarded the proposition as a most dangerous one. He said—
    "I therefore entreat the House not to give to these great and powerful communities, armed as they will be with such considerations of reason and justice as have been pointed out, opportunity and provocation to enlist their great energies and powers, and their facilities of acting on the public mind of the country— energies and powers which will be sharpened by a sense of wrong and disparagement inflicted upon them, and of having been selected from others for that wrong and disparagement; do not let us give to them opportunity and provocation to lead on a new agitation, excited and heated, as they cannot fail to be, by a sense of wrong and disappointment.—(Ibid. 1174.)
    The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the clause, if adopted, would certainly drive the constituencies in the large towns and counties affected by it into demands which, he said, would be bold. It would probably induce them, he said, to demand electoral districts then only advocated by the Chartists. I am sorry to say that in the City of Glasgow, at public meetings, I have heard references to electoral districts greeted with nothing but cheers. Such a state of things cannot but react upon the Representatives of the country; and it is owing to that reaction that I now stand before the Committee the abandoned Radical I am. A good many things have happened since 1867; but I do not know if anything has happened to in-

    1327
    duce the right hon. Gentleman to change his opinion on this subject. If he has not changed his opinion regarding the evil of this system of three-cornered voting, it seems to me that he is bound to take the opportunity before the next General Election of putting an end to it. Now, I do not care, providing an end is put to the system, how it is done. The Amendment I propose to move would have precisely the same effect as the opposition to the clause of Lord Cairns, if it had been successful, and which was specially supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and it certainly appears to me to be as much within the scope of this Bill as was the proposition of Lord Cairns within the scope of the Franchise Bill of 1867. What I want to get rid of is the grievance. I do not care how it is done. I do not quarrel with those who contend that the Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thinks it would be more within the scope of the Redistribution Bill, and will undertake to deal with the question in any other equitable manner, either by the repeal of the Minority Clause, or by the division of tripartite constituencies, I shall be perfectly content to leave the mode of dealing with it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, provided only that he will deal with it quickly, with a reasonable hope of bringing about a change before another General Election. But if he cannot see his way to such an undertaking, I think it is a duty I owe to my constituents, deprived as they are of all opportunity of expressing their individual views, to press this Amendment, in order to prevent their influence in this House from being degraded to that of the smallest pocket borough. By being required, as they now are, to vote for A and B, A and C, or B and C, just as they are directed, they are obliged to place their political consciences at the disposal of the Party managers to an extent undreamt of in other constituencies, and to stake their chance of obtaining even a preponderance of one in the representation of this House on the correctness of an arithmetical calculation. I must, under all the circumstances, however hopelessly, ask the Committee to divide in support of an Amendment which is intended to put an end to a rankling injustice de-
    1328
    nounced by every successive Prime Minister who has held Office in this country for the past 20 years. I beg, Sir Arthur Otway, to move the Amendment, which now stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, at end, add— "And if the qualifying premises be situated in a borough or county returning more than two Members to serve in Parliament, every man registered as a voter in respect thereof shall be entitled to record one vote for each of a number of candidates equal to the number of Members to be elected."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: In some of the propositions which have been urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) I certainly can express my concurrence. In the first place, there can be no doubt as to the right of my hon. Friend to ask the Committee to insert this Amendment in the Bill as he proposes. That, however, is a matter of form; but, likewise as to the matter of substance, I may express my sympathy with my hon. Friend in regard to his position in the great constituency he represents. In fact, I think, upon that matter, there is a disposition, both on behalf of the friends, and also of the opponents, of the minority vote, to admit that the thing cannot stand as it does now. When I say it cannot stand, I do not mean to say it cannot stand independently of the passing of this Bill, but that the question of the representation of the people cannot undergo any re-settlement without a large consideration of this subject. Everyone must see that, upon principle, if minority voting is to be considered an advantage and a blessing to those who possess it, it ought to be extended to other constituencies; but if, on the other hand, minority voting is in the nature of a penalty and a disparagement to the constituents who have it, then it ought not to exist at all. In any way, it ought not to exist in the shape of a selection by a small body of constituents. Of that there can be no doubt. As far as I am concerned, I do not think I require to do more than refer to the former speeches I have made on this subject, and to add that what I have said on my own part I now venture to say on behalf of the Government— namely, that unquestionably, in the

    1329
    view of my Colleagues, as well as of myself, a most thorough consideration and examination of all the questions of minority voting must be au essential part of any new settlement of the representation of the people. With regard to the hope and desire that my hon. Friend has expressed that that may take place in the present Parliament, we reciprocate that hope and desire, and the pledge he has asked for that the question may be thoroughly inquired into and examined, I think, may be given; but if I am now asked to say what may be the result of that examination—if we were to give our opinions upon a matter of this kind, which, I think, would find its proper place in a Redistribution Bill, we shall open a field of debate which we would wish to avoid. Therefore, I think, there can be no doubt, and I think my hon. Friend will admit it, that the argument is extremely strong for an adjournment of this question, and I believe he will not object to an adjournment after what I now say. It is perfectly true that, in the Act of 1867, a Minority Clause was inserted. This clause was inserted by the House of Lords as a new clause; but its position in that Bill cannot be taken to represent a decision upon any great political or Constitutional principle, because its insertion in that particular place merely represented the opinion of the Clerk as to what was the most convenient place in which it could be inserted. Of course, the place in which it appears in the Bill is immaterial, especially when that Bill embraced redistribution along with enfranchising clauses. It is quite plain that the extension of the minority principle, or its exclusion, must depend upon the way in which it is associated with political and representative areas; and, that being so, it cannot be considered without taking us right into the very heart of the subject of redistribution. I venture, therefore, to hope that it will be thought sufficient if I express my desire to profit by the prospect my hon. Friend has held out; and I, therefore, trust that the matter may be held over for the present, always hoping to deal with it at the first convenient stage.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are another illustration of the very great inconvenience of the course
    1330
    we are now pursuing. There can be no doubt whatever that this question of the minority representation, in any form, is one of very great importance, and which must have a large place in the consideration of the question of Parliamentary Reform, when it is brought forward in a Bill which is to make so great a revolution in the franchise of the country as this Bill is intended to make; and it becomes a very serious question what the effect of the extension is to be if, instead of proceeding to the consideration of that question, we are stopped by being told that it belongs to a different branch of the subject, which ought not, and cannot, be considered now, but which is to be considered, if at all, in some future year, when we have passed this Bill. I do not, of course, dispute the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is largely connected with the question of redistribution, and I do not intend to raise any discussion now that does not properly arise; but I think it right to point out that this is a strong illustration of the inconvenience of the course we are now pursuing.
    MR. ANDERSON: I venture to hope that, after the remark of the Prime Minister, my hon. Colleague will be content; and will not press on the question of minority representation now. I am fully conscious of the importance of the question, and no one who has had any experience of the effects of a three-cornered constituency could do otherwise than look upon the matter as I do; but, in face of what has been said, I could not press it, although our friends in Glasgow are obliged, under the existing system, to sink their individuality altogether—they have to be told that they are not to have any individual preferences nor any opinions of their own as regards certain candidates, and that they vote according to what may be the initial letter of their names. Anything more unintelligent than that I can hardly conceive. But we are driven into it by the miserable system of three-cornered constituencies, and I am not suprised that my hon. Colleague has taken the first opportunity afforded him of bringing the subject before the House and proposing an Amendment. But after what the Prime Minister has said I hope my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter with a view of making his

    1331
    proposition upon the Redistribution Bill, with, regard to which, it is certainly more pertinent, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed now.
    DR. CAMERON: What my right ton. Friend the Prime Minister has said is quite satisfactory to me. I think I have made it perfectly understood that I do not care one straw how the matter is dealt with, provided that the grievance of which I complain is got rid of. It is perfectly immaterial to me whether it is got rid of by giving three votes to the electors in the three-cornered constituencies, or by applying the same principle generally throughout the country.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Cameron) says he does not care in what way the matter is decided. Now, I confess that I approach the subject with very different feelings. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has taken on himself to say that the framers of the last Reform Act placed this clause in a wrong portion of the Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in dissent; but the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to charge the accident of this provision appearing in the Franchise Clauses of the Bill to the act of the Clerks in the House of Lords. I do not know upon what evidence the right hon. Gentleman has based that somewhat strong statement. I know very well that lengthy discussions took place upon the subject; whereas, from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it might be imagined that this question was sprung upon Parliament in the eleventh hour by the unexpected action of those who legislate for the country in "another place." Now, what are the real facts of the case? Those of us who were present then will remember that the matter was first of all introduced to our notice by a very eminent man on the other side of the House—the late Mr. John Stuart Mill. I had the pleasure of listening to the able statements which Mr. Mill put forward, and he was a great authority upon such matters. So far as I am aware, the subject was not treated as a pure Party question. Mr. Disraeli, as a matter of fact, expressed, on more than one occasion, his belief that the proper duty of a minority, if it found itself in that unfortunate position, was to con-
    1332
    vert itself into a majority. Now, I never myself could look upon the matter from that point of view. I think that, if Parliament and the House of Commons is to be truly representative of the nation at large, it ought to be constituted of not merely the Representatives of what happens to be at the moment the majority, but that it should be the reflection as far as possible of all classes, sections, and interests in the community. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has, this afternoon, studiously avoided giving us even an indication of his own opinion on the subject. Indeed, I am afraid that, in common with many Members of the House, I have reason to doubt whether the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, when the time comes for giving full expression to that opinion, will be in accord with that of Mr. Stuart Mill, or of some of the deepest thinkers of that political Party which, at the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman happens to adorn. What is the case? The greatest political thinkers, the highest authorities and the greatest exponents of Liberal opinions throughout the world, have, in a great number of instances, pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of some adequate system for the representation of minorities. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) says, very properly—and I am very much disposed to agree with him—that this clause has not had the effect which its authors originally anticipated. I do not apologize to the Committee for inviting its attention to the subject at the present time. It is pre-eminently a branch of the subject of Reform. It must be considered in connection with the franchise, and I would even go so far as to say that it would run the risk of being ruled out of Order in a pure and simple Redistribution Bill. In a Bill dealing simply with the apportionment of seats, I do not see where it could have a place. With regard to the provision itself, I I think it is a very incomplete means of carrying out a great principle. It does not go half far enough. It does not go even as far as the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), who I do not see at this moment in his place. My hon. Friend proposes that every man registered as a voter shall have power to record "his vote for one candidate only." That, I need hardly say, goes somewhat too far.

    1333
    But the question of the adequate representation of minorities is one which I think, nevertheless, we are bound to make some provision for. The Committee will be aware that there have been many suggestions made on this subject. I do not now see in his place the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Perhaps the cause of his absence is one in regard to which we should offer him our congratulations. At the same time, I think the hon. Baronet, or some of those in conjunction with whom he has taken up the subject, ought to be called upon at this stage of the Bill to explain what their views really are. [Cries of "No!"] All very well. I am afraid that I see hon. Gentlemen present who took a prominent part in the initial stage of these proceedings at the commencement of the Session, and who ominously rose to Order with the view of what may be vulgarly termed "snuffing out" this question. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not allow it to be disposed of in that way, although the process might find favour with mere partizans who simply look on the House of Commons as a machine for constituting Ministries and manufacturing statutes. I can quite conceive that from that standpoint the Representatives of majorities may view this Minority Clause in the light of a nuisance; but those who take the view I venture to take, as to the proper constitution of any representative body, will be disposed to think that no Government is justified in presuming to deal with, the all-important question of Parliamentary Reform, without being prepared to submit to Parliament some adequate scheme for the representation of minorities. We all admit that the present system has proved inadequate. I do not propose to go in detail, or even cursorily, into the various rival schemes, nor to repeat the arguments of Mr. Mill with respect to what is known as Mr. Hare's scheme, which I admit to be unworkable in connection with our present or any possible electoral system in the country in future. But the Prime Minister is aware that there are many other systems which recommend themselves to those who take an intelligent interest in the subject. There is a plan which has found favour with our own race in the United States of America. I
    1334
    need only mention the State of Illinois, where the very point raised in the Amendment placed on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough—namely, the power of applying the representation of minorities to 'a constituency returning two Members, is dealt with. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, hon. Gentlemen who are deeply impressed with the horrors of the American system of representation will not pay much attention to the illustration of Illinois. Hon. Members below the Gangway, however, ought not to be disposed to sneer at suggestions which come from that quarter. In the State of Illinois, every elector is allowed to vote in such a manner as he thinks fit. Complete freedom is accorded to every elector; and in constituencies returning three Members every elector can vote for which of the candidates he chooses—he can vote for all three, if he likes, or give the whole of his three votes for one, or he may give one and a-half votes for each of two. He can give his three votes for two candidates, and in that way his votes count for one and a half for each. This is a matter which I have mentioned in this House some years ago, and I admit that it provoked some amusement in that section of the House which is never tired of admiring Radical institutions unless they have some element in them which may tend to give protection to minorities, or the Conservative element of the State. Now, I hope the Committee will not allow this matter to drop without eliciting from Her Majesty's Government some more satisfactory statement than that which has been vouchsafed by the Prime Minister. It is all very well to say that this matter may stand over until some distant time which the right hon. Gentleman is too cautious more clearly to indicate. What guarantee, I ask, have we that the subject will be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit; or that it may not be regarded as a question with which the Government are not required to deal with at all, contenting themselves with a simple proposal for the abolition of the representation of minorities? I venture to hope that when the matter is approached hereafter, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared with some efficient scheme for the adequate representation of minorities.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    MR. GOSCHEN(who was met by Cries of "Withdrawn!"): I will not stand in the way of the withdrawal of the Amendment for more than a moment. I merely rise to endorse what has been said by the Prime Minister as to the great inconvenience of discussing this Amendment now. There are few Members in this House who care more for the great principle of the representation of minorities than I do; but I know that the cause would be distinctly prejudiced by a discussion which is out of place. I understood that, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition, it would be better to drop the discussion at the present moment.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: He did not say so.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not see how the Business of the House is to be conducted if, after that declaration—
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman did not say so.
    MR. GOSOHEN: If, after that declaration, another right hon. Gentleman, sitting on the same side of the House, is to get up and continue the discussion.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had no desire to continue the discussion; but he wished to take notice of one expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member had spoken of the great humiliation and degradation some of his constituents were subjected to by being driven to the poll with a sort of necessity imposed upon them of voting not for the candidates they preferred, but for the particular candidates they were told to vote for. He was sure that what the hon. Member had said was fully appreciated on that side of the House, and would be appreciated throughout the country. He wished, however, to point out to the hon. Member that the course taken by his constituents was the consequence of the determination of the Liberal majority to take an unfair advantage of the law, and to drive into a majority what really ought to be the minority vote.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he felt bound to protest against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr.
    1336
    Raikes). He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had not intended to open his mouth upon this subject; but he sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not commit themselves in any way upon a question of this kind. If he were called upon to express an opinion on the subject, he should certainly say that he was very strongly in favour of the principle of the representation of majorities, and the manner in which it had been carried out in Glasgow reflected credit upon the ingenuity of the citizens. The Minority Clause was based on the assumption that wherever three Representatives were given, one-third of the electors must be deprived of representation; and that the majority should only elect two Members. That was the object and aim of the Minority Clause of the Bill of 1867; and to his mind it was a monstrous proposition. He would repeat, that the manner in which the difficulty had been got over by the constituency of Glasgow reflected great credit on them for their ingenuity in proving that they were the preponderating majority, and in securing the return of three Representatives. He would only make one other remark. He thought this question of the representation of minorities was bound up with the question of redistribution; and he thought Her Majesty's Government might take into consideration the question whether the same object might not be equally arrived at by dividing the constituencies, rather than by requiring a constituency to return a large number of Members, and then depriving the electors of their votes. The evil of large constituencies was, in his opinion, very great; and he thought it was desirable to deal with them in some different and more intelligent way. It was the division of the representation which at the present moment enabled the House to represent all sorts and shades of opinion; and if the same principle were adopted in the case of the large and overgrown constituencies, instead of a system prevailing in which the minority were enabled to turn the majority out-of-doors, all classes would secure adequate and equitable representation. Although, to some extent, he was responsible for the adoption of the minority principle in connection with the school boards in Scotland, and although he agreed that in constituencies returning a large num-

    1337
    ber of Members the minority should enjoy a portion of the representation, at the same time he thought that result might be arrived at by some better means than those now adopted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I have a somewhat important Amendment to move, which I hope will receive the careful consideration of the Committee. I beg to move, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "Provided, That the man possessed of such qualification for such county or borough respectively shall have himself personally paid the rates in respect of such qualifying premises."
    The Amendment, in my humble judgment, raises a very important question; and as we are about to extend the franchise in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his Bill, I think we cannot do better than carefully consider, at the present moment, this very important question. The right hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, find some difficulty in taking in what I mean by the Amendment; and, therefore, I may explain that what I mean is this—that no man, unless he personally pays his rates, shall be entitled to a vote. It has always been the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, and especially of hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand; and I should be glad to hear any argument from them which will justify them in endeavouring to divorce the one from the other. For my part, I do not think it would be a very easy matter to throw off the old love; but hon. Members sitting on this side of the House do know that, whenever it suits the convenience of those sitting' opposite, they invariably throw it in our teeth that the one thing they wish and desire is that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand together. Now, I know that one of the first difficulties with which I shall be confronted is the next clause to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in this Bill—namely, the Service-voting Clause. All I have to say about that— and I pass it by very lightly, because I
    1338
    do not wish to go into a question which will have to be discussed presently—is that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly laid down, when he proposed that service franchise, that it was intended specially to meet the case of those who live in good and large houses, and who, in consequence of paying no rent, could not otherwise possess the franchise. I say at once, in regard to that class of persons, that if they wish to have the franchise, and do not pay rates, they ought to be required to contribute something towards the Income Tax; and I should be prepared to assent to a proposition that they should have a vote provided that they paid Income Tax. I will go a step further, and take the case of the Scotch agricultural labourer. The carter and the cowman, and all that class of persons are, to a great extent, paid by having a house, as well as receiving weekly wages, and they are as much paid in regard to the house as in regard to the weekly wages. An arrangement could easily be made between them and their landlords that they should pay their own rates; and, in that case, any man who wished to possess the franchise would show his sincerity by paying his rates.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: And in most cases the sum paid would be returned to him.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Not only that; but, by contributing something towards local expenses, he would place himself in the position which the Act of 1867 intended to place him in—namely, that he should only have the vote on the condition of contributing something towards the rates. The Bill of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) in 1869 allowed owners to compound for their rates. Now, compounding is a very easy process; and I am not aware that there is any great value attached to it, except that it enables overseers, and officials in that position, to get the amount of the rates with less trouble than would be necessary if they had to collect the money from the individual ratepayers themselves. I venture to think that that is one of those questions which ought not to be allowed to stand in the way for one moment in dealing with a great principle of this kind, if we desire to arrive at a sound and logical conclusion. I think it will be found

    1339
    that the owners of houses who have hitherto taken on themselves the responsibility of paying the rates, and of paying it even, whether the house is occupied or not, with a deduction of 25 per cent, would be anxious to see their labourers placed on the Register; and if the labourer himself desired to have the vote, he would have nothing to do but to say that he would pay the rates himself, and make provision in future that his house should be excluded from the operation of the compounding clause. I may go farther than that. I think the enactment of some such provision as this would be likely to make many landlords, who are compounding for their cottagers' rates at the present moment, desirous to sea the names of their labourers upon the Register, so as to afford them an opportunity of exercising the vote. Let me take an ordinary case which constantly occurs all over England. Take the case of a man owning 4,000 acres of land, let to some 20 tenants or thereabouts, with 100 cottages on the estate. The landlord pays the rates for the whole of those cottages; the labourer pays nothing at all, except a small sum per week for the use of the cottage. He is side by side with a man in a small town or village, where you will find houses run up, I will not say by a speculator, but by a certain class of men who let their houses at very high rents and make the tenants pay the rates. The consequence is that these tenants have votes, while the other class have not. But would they not, if they wished to have the vote, pay the small amount, for it would be a very small amount they would be required to contribute? And would it not be only right and fair that they should pay the small sum that would confer on them not only the right, but the privilege, of a vote? The artizans and labourers are bettor off now than they have been for many years. We know that is so, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) distinctly told us so the other night. Of all classes in the country, the labourers and artizans are now better off than they have ever been for a very long time. They have weathered the storm we have heard of in regard to agricultural distress far better than either the landlords or the tenants. And they are really in a better position than they have been in for a considerable number of years,
    1340
    Let any man go back to the year 1857, and see what the wages of the labourer were then. Let him see how the price of wheat per bushel regulated the wages. Let anyone ask himself at this moment, when he looks at the price of wheat and the price of every article the labourer has to procure for his ordinary subsistence, if he is not far better off now than he has been during the last 20, 30, or 35 years, and much better able to pay a trifling sum in the shape of rates which would place him on the Register and entitle him to vote. This is a question which, in my humble judgment, deserves the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and of the Committee. There is another argument which is very often used. Hon. Members say that they desire to place the agricultural labourers in a position of greater freedom and independence. Can you place him in a position of greater freedom and independence than by requiring him to pay his rates and properly placing his name upon the Register? But there is oven something beyond that. You are trying to make those men more economical, and calling on them to purchase their own cottages, so that they may render themselves more independent. A man who has made himself independent, who has been economical, who has obtained a 40 s. freehold, and who has never received outdoor relief, is, in many instances, compelled to pay rates. Why should men of less merit be absolved from doing so, and yet be entitled to exercise the franchise? Why should not all men be required to pay a small amount of rates, in order that they might be placed upon the Register? There is another question which I have no doubt we shall hear a great deal about; that is the question—"Are you going to disfranchise any of those who are now on the Register, but who do not pay their rates?" My answer to that will be very simple and plain. I say that, with regard to all these men, so long as they remain in the same house, and so long as their agreements with their landlords hold good, they ought not to be disturbed; but in any fresh letting, when the new tenant comes in, he ought to be made to pay the rates if he is to possess the right of voting. That is a principle which I think might fairly be enforced without the slightest injustice to any

    1341
    single person. And now I come naturally to the lodger difficulty. The lodger belongs to an entirely different class of men. It is a £10 holding that he possesses. His lodging must be worth £10 a-year; and, therefore, being a £10 holding, of a character altogether different from those which I have been calling attention to, I would not propose to interfere with the lodger. No doubt, the whole of these considerations lead up to another important question— namely, the question of local self-government. If we are to have a Local Self-Government Bill, I should like to know how these labourers are intended to be dealt with? Are they to have a vote? We ought to know that, because it is a very material question. Are they to have a vote under the Local Self-Government Bill in reference to the expenditure of money for the county? Because if the vote is to follow in that Bill in the same way, and the labourer is to contribute nothing towards the local expenditure, a very important principle will be established. Naturally, everyone would say—"If he is to have the vote, then he ought to pay his rates; because nobody not paying rates ought for a moment to have a voice in county management and county expenditure." I have no desire to weary the House with any long statement; but I come now to the most important part of the question—namely, the application of the Bill to Ireland. In Ireland I find there are 661,992 houses under a £4 rating value. Below a £4 rating value the landlords pay all the rates; and that is the reason why the £4 rating has been made use of in Ireland. Below that point no man pays his rates; and I wish to show the bearing of that fact upon this great question, because that is the test in Ireland—namely, that a man not paying rates in that country is not a fit and proper person to put upon the Register, and ought not to be entitled to have the vote. Her Majesty's Government now propose to give that vote to no less than 661,992 persons in Ireland, none of whom pay any rates. The only way in which you ought to deal with a question of that kind is to provide that if they wish to be placed upon the Register they should pay one-half of the rates levied upon their holding or their house. I venture to contend that that principle is a sound and a just one; and that it is
    1342
    all-important, in dealing with a great question of this kind, that we should, at any rate, not lose sight of the great fact that the Act of 1867 provided that it should be the payment of rates which should entitle a man to have a vote, yet that the other Act, passed afterwards by a Liberal Government in 1869, did enable persons to vote, although they did not personally pay rates. I do not think that that was intended at the time. I do not think the House foresaw at the time how far the principle would go; and it is because I believe that the principle is unjust, and one that it would not be wise to perpetuate, that I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, at end, add "Provided, That the man possessed of such, qualification for such county or borough respectively shall have himself personally paid the rates in respect of such qualifying premises."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to agree with any of the special arguments which have been placed before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in reference to his Amendment. For instance, he has said that such is the flourishing condition of the labourer in this country, he having escaped the distress which has come upon other classes, especially in connection with agriculture, that it is quite fit that he should be taxed, in order to obtain his vote. Now, with that argument I cannot agree; and I think that many hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House will hesitate before they agree with such a statement as that. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that, if the voter is now a compound householder, or that, being an agricultural labourer, if he lives in a cottage for which his landlord pays the rates, let him make a new arrangement and pay his own rates. Now, to impose the necessity upon the agricultural labourer of making such an arrangement with his landlord in order to become a voter would be to impose upon him a most serious and grievous practical burden. It may seem to us a very slight matter; but, independent of the question of option in deducting from the

    1343
    rent the amount of the rate, the mere fact of having to make an arrangement of that kind, the altering of his little weekly payment for the cottage in which he resides, where it is a weekly payment, would, in. many cases, be an intolerable burden. As to the compound householder in towns, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think that it is in their option to pay their own. rates. The matter is not in their own option. I know that it is regulated—I do not know whether universally, but to a great extent—by the parish authorities; and how are the parish authorities to be made subject to receive individual applications from labourers in long rows of houses, exactly similar in their character, stating that they wish to be entered in the rate-book? Are they to send round collectors to gather the few pence that might be forthcoming from these householders? These are all arguments of detail. There is one argument, however, which is not one of detail, which really appears to me to dispense with all other arguments. It is that the proposal would operate as a vast disfranchisement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, undoubtedly, a rave man, and it required a brave man to propose such an Amendment in such a Bill; for this is a Bill to admit a large number of our countrymen to the exercise of the vote; and, in this Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to insert words that would go, in fact, into every borough in the country, except a few where every man pays his own rates, and I think they are comparatively few —that would go into every borough in the country and disfranchise a largo proportion of the existing electors. The question was fought out in 1867 and 1869; and, unless I am very much mistaken, in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), whom I do not now see in the House—so clear was the matter held to be then, in 1869, after all the discussion that had taken place, that the Act of that year got rid finally of this restriction ns to the personal payment of rates, and that Act was not the subject of any serious conflict. It is quite impossible to accept this Amendment, and I think I may say with confidence that there are many Members on that side of the House who will decline to support such a scheme of disfranchisement as I have described.
    1344
    This is a Bill to extend the household franchise to the counties, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would incur the danger of disfranchising a large number of electors in the boroughs to whom the franchise has already been given. Such a provision Her Majesty's Government cannot for one moment adopt, and I do not think that it will receive much support from either side of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was by no means certain that the consequences which the Prime Minister predicted would result from the adoption of the Amendment. He, for one, entertained a strong prejudice in favour of the English householder paying his own rates, and he did not think any Englishman ought to be ashamed of his prejudices. Certainly, he was not ashamed to declare himself an advocate of the old maxim—that taxation and the enjoyment of electoral power ought to go together. Why should they be ashamed of that principle, or confer upon persons who contributed nothing towards the taxation of the country themselves the right of voting away other people's money? That was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and when the right hon. Gentleman was about to create a large number of voters, in very poor circumstances, his appeal to the House was—"Will you reject these men because they are poor?" Now, his (Mr. Newdegate's) view was, that if he was to give a man full command over his pocket, it was desirable that he should know whether the man to whom control was about to be given was poor or not. Hon. Members had wandered so in the United States, that they had forgotten the action of the State Government upon the electorate, and upon the election of the chief magistrates. There were a great many things which could be done in the United States, which could not be done with safety in this country; because, every four years, the American people lost their chief magistrates, and the veto there was a positive power in the chief magistrates. The people of the United States had not adopted their democratic forms without their necessary safeguards; but here the veto was no longer with the Crown; it was supposed to be with the Prime Minister. All these considerations made him cautious, he was so dreadfully old-fashioned, that

    1345
    he was not ashamed of his country. As an English Representative, he should abide by the old traditions, and vote in the interest of this great country generally with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the purpose of the Bill was to enfranchise the agricultural labourers; but his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had moved an Amendment which would exclude them from the franchise. He proposed that they should pay their rates personally. It was all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask the landowners to vote with him; but they could not compel the farm labourers to pay their rates. They had their house as part of their wages; they changed their dwellings very often; and there were many other reasons which stood in the way of the application to them of the principle of his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. He (Lord Elcho) regretted his absence from the House when the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), on Friday last, alluded to a step he (Lord Elcho) had taken at a public meeting in Edinburgh, when the noble Lord was speaking on the question of Reform; but he would take that opportunity of saying that, on the occasion referred to, he had listened for a long time to the noble Lord's speech, which, like all his speeches, was of a remarkable character, and was struck by the fact that he talked of Reform in a manner which might have been suitable to the pliocene period of Toryism, but which was very unsuitable to the cause they were advocating. Therefore, he (Lord Elcho) felt bound to dissociate himself from the extravagant course adopted by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. For the reasons stated, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had just made a speech which, in his (Mr. Gorst's) opinion, was entirely out of Order; inasmuch as he had digressed into subjects quite foreign to the question before the Committee. He (Mr. Gorst) thought that scant justice had been done by the Prime Minister, and by the Committee generally, to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttolot), which embodied the principle of the Repre-
    1346
    sentation of the People Act of 1867 That principle, so far from being scoffed at, was, at the time, accepted by Parliament as a most important qualification for the franchise. It was actually embodied in an Act of Parliament; and he did not think there was anything unreasonable in his hon. and gallant Friend asking that there should be inserted in the present Bill the same restriction as enacted in 1867. But many things had happened since that time, which had rendered the application of the principle historically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had introduced into Parliament, in 1869, a Bill for the purpose of re-establishing the compound householder; and for making the payment of rates, by the person compounding for them, equivalent to personal payment of rates by tenants. That Bill was passed through Parliament, and had a considerable number of adherents; the late Lord Beaconsfield having allowed it to pass without any strenuous opposition. It seemed to be tacitly admitted by the Conservative Party, and by Lord Beaconsfield himself, that, on the whole, personal payment of rates was too inconvenient in local affairs to be any longer imposed. Therefore, although he thought, in principle, the Amendment was justified from an Imperial point of view, yet, if it were adopted, the same thing would happen as in 1869—that was to say, the rural parishes would be complaining to the House of the difficulty and inconvenience experienced in collecting their rates, and asking Parliament to do for their relief what was done then. He hoped, for these reasons, his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Amendment; its principle being, as he (Mr. Gorst) had endeavoured to show, perfectly sound, but inconvenient of application.
    MR. PELLsaid, he could not agree entirely with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). For his part, he thought there was a great deal in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He (Mr. Pell) was sure the Committee would believe him when he said he would not, by any side wind, or in any indirect manner, attempt to undo what the Bill proposed to do, although he

    1347
    might not entirely agree with it. Whether he agreed with it entirely or not, he did not say. In his opinion the Amendment was of great importance, not only in reference to election matters, but also from other points of view. First of all, with regard to the question of Parliamentary elections, they had heard for some time from both sides of the House how desirable it would be if some self-acting scheme of registration could be enacted. Now, it might be a difficult thing; but, surely, as the basis of the whole plan must be on the rate book, a full and complete entry of the householders would be arrived at by requiring them to pay their own rates. But he thought' that on both sides of the House, at all events on that side, it was asserted by many that the people were not sufficiently educated to be entrusted with the franchise, and he wished to point out that, from his point of view, there could be no better way of educating the people than by showing them, as soon as possible, the mistakes they made in local government; he thought that, for instance, the attention of the ratepayer being called to the increased taxation rendered necessary by local mismanagement and neglect of the sanitary laws, would constitute the best possible education which the lower classes could have. At the present moment, if the charge for the house was apparently high, the vulgar opinion was that the owners of the house were fixing a higher rent as a return for the capital invested in it; whereas, the rent, as a rule, was necessarily raised, as he could state from his personal knowledge, in consequence of the increase of local rates. It was, therefore, a strong argument in favour of personal payment of rates— that it would teach the poorer classes the consequence of local mismanagement. As to the inconvenience of personal payment, so far as the collection of rates was concerned, the person who collected them did not care twopence for it, as long as his services were paid for. It was simply a question of expense, not of inconvenience; and he ventured to to say that, with an efficient officer, and a resolute and consistent local authority to back him, there would be little difficulty in collecting the rates from the lowest class of occupiers. It should be no more difficult to collect the rates than it was to collect the rent; it altogether
    1348
    depended on the system of collection, and upon the character of the individual who made the demand. There was no more wasteful or extravagant way of collecting rates than by compounding with the owner of the property; the occupiers — that was to say, the labourers, artizans, and even people of a higher class—derived no benefit at all from the arrangement. How could it be expected that those persons could get any real teaching in sanitary laws, unless they learnt from their own experience the cost of violating them? It was well known that when a part of a village was attacked with fever, these poor people knew little or nothing else of its consequences or causes than as one of the manifestations of God's Providence; but obedience to sanitary laws would the sooner be learnt, when they found that their neglect led to pauperism, and resulted in, say, a charge of 6d. instead of 4d. in the pound for local rates. He said that, under those circumstances, they would receive a direct lesson of the value of attending to these matters, and that education would result from their being required personally to pay their rates. He believed that this system of compounding with the owners of property for the payment of rates was nothing else than the outcome of idleness and neglect on the part of the local authorities. There was, in his opinion, no reason in the world except their own disinclination which prevented them collecting the rates from every householder, however small, in their parishes. He ventured to say that, if the rates were so collected, he should get more support in his endeavours to bring about a better and more economical administration of local affairs — a question in which he was strongly interested. If, as he trusted would be the case, his hon. and gallant Friend divided the Committee on his Amendment, he should, for the reasons stated, cordially support him.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I am hardly prepared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in asking the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to go to a Division. At the same time, I feel that the question raised by the Amendment of my hon. arid gallant Friend is one which ought to be regarded on its merits. It is also

    1349
    a question upon which a great deal is to be said; and the argument in favour of the Amendment, which my hon. and gallant Friend put forward amongst others, was that it was the basis on which the Act of 1867 was originally framed. But it is impossible to forget the difficulties to which it led. The principle was assailed; and the compound householder came out of the controversy in a way that many persons in this House may recollect. We could never get rid of the compound householder, who was always cropping up in our discussions; and, in the end, it was found impossible to resist the objections brought forward against the Act of 1867. I am afraid, although I did then, and do still, agree in principle with my hon. and gallant Friend, that if we were to succeed in inducing the Government to introduce the Amendment, and were to try to work the Bill on the principle it contains, we should only reintroduce the same difficulties as those with which we had formerly to contend. My advice would be not to press the Amendment, although my hon. and gallant Friend has undoubtedly brought forward a subject which demands the attention of the Committee; and, were it not for the difficulties we have had with regard to it, I should be one to support him on a Division.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the speech of the Prime Minister had certainly done but scant justice to the Amendment he had proposed. It was certainly not his desire, as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated, to disfranchise whole masses of the people, although the right hon. Gentleman was ready to extend the franchise to 2,000,000 of citizens, without any inquiry as to whether they were fit to exercise it or not. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, a few years ago, stated plainly that he was exceedingly sorry that the "Ten Minutes" Bill had not been carried through, and that he did not like the Act of 1867 when it was passed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Where was that stated? Will the hon. and gallant Member give me a reference?
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was in his memory; but he was not quite sure that he could give the reference at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman made so many speeches, in
    1350
    so many places, that it was difficult to give an exact reference. He wished he had the speech with him. He also recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, at one time, made some strong remarks upon the Income Tax Question, when it was brought forward by his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). The right hon. Gentleman was then for getting the Income Tax from the humblest person from whom it could be collected; but now he was all the other way with regard to those persons who were capable of paying rates. At one time in the right hon. Gentleman's life he would have been one of the first to assent to the soundness of the principle of this Amendment, which laid down that, as a qualification for the vote, a man should be able to pay the small amount of local rates due for the house in which he dwelt. As he felt, after the appeals made to him, that he ought not to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no !"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he begged to give Notice that, as the aim of the Bill was evidently manhood suffrage, he should take some opportunity of placing before the House, or the Committee, the necessity there was for those persons who were to exercise the franchise under the Bill paying some portion of general or local taxation.
    MR. GORST: I rise to Order. I understood the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was withdrawn.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I, for one, at least, objected strongly to its withdrawal. The question is one on a most important matter of principle, raised regularly in a number of speeches, and was argued at some length, and ought to be decided on.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he certainly did not regard what had taken place as deciding the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had based his objection to the Amendment, on the ground that it was a disfranchising

    1351
    clause; but the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had put the matter on a right footing, when he showed that not a single man would be disfranchised, if the local authorities did their duty in collecting the rates from the occupiers, instead of compounding with the owners to avoid the expense of collection. He altogether protested against the statement of the Prime Minister, that the Amendment would disfranchise a large number of persons.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment spoke for itself. It was a disfranchising clause. The clause was in operation under the Act of 1867, and it was found that not one-third of the number of persons qualified, who would otherwise have done go. It was, therefore, a disfranchising clause, and, on that ground, the Government opposed it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must again say that it was not a disfranchising clause, and that this had been clearly shown by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He should not have dissuaded his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) from withdrawing; but if the Amendment was to be negatived, he wished it to be understood on what ground it had been supported.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he was perfectly willing to assent to the Amendment being put; but, if it were to be thus dealt with, it would be necessary for several hon. Members on those Benches to state their views with regard to the principle which it embodied. He had a great objection to anything of a disfranchising nature being introduced into the Bill. He believed in the justice and necessity of enfranchising all householders; but he, nevertheless, felt the weight of the solid reasons advanced in favour of the Amendment by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and the more, because he had experience of a locality where the working men paid their own rates, and certainly to the great advantage of the community, for the practice had given all the householders of the district an intelligent interest in the management of their local affairs. He could hardly conceive anything more important than this principle in its effect upon the political education of the people; and it was upon that ground that he sympathized with
    1352
    his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whom he should support if he went to a Division. At the same time, he must protest against the suggestion that those who recorded their votes in favour of the Amendment, did so for the purpose of disfranchising any class of householders.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Prime Minister was always charging the Opposition with uselessly expending the time of the House; but what had happened that afternoon? His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), having brought forward a matter of considerable importance, found that the opinions on that side of the House were by no means unanimous with regard to it, and, with his usual judgment and tact, said he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon the Committee expressing its opinion upon the question. He would, with great reluctance, differ from his hon. and gallant Friend; but, some years ago, when the subject was before Parliament, he had taken a line, differing somewhat sharply from some of his political Friends, and he felt it right to state the view he then took of the subject. When the Bill of 1867 proposed to make personal payment of rates the basis of the electoral franchise, he ventured to say that, in his judgment, he could not entertain so low an opinion of his fellow-countrymen as to believe that they would allow a set of paltry local Vestry Acts to stand between them and the rights conferred upon them by Parliament. Now, the personal payment of rates was made a great deal of at that time; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) regarded it as the most gigantic imposture that could be conceived. He never could see why the fact of a man paying a certain number of shillings and pence with his own hands, should give him a right to the suffrage; and he had ventured to say that no great length of time would elapse before that ghastly absurdity would disappear. His view, however, did not command much sympathy, and the personal payment of rates was regarded as the essential principle of the Bill of 1867. No doubt, it was so for a time; but long before the Bill passed into law, they had made the acquaintance of that interesting personage, the compound householder.

    1353
    He saw in his place the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who took a great part in the controversy, and who would bear him (Mr. J. Lowther) out when he said that a great deal of time was expended on this matter. As the Committee had been just reminded, an early opportunity was taken to sweep away entirely this absurd restriction; but his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex, however, had again raised the question as to whether personal contribution to local taxation should not be made a condition incident to the franchise. He hoped the Committee would insert some provision in the Bill which would insure that property should have some approximate share in political power; but he did not think his hon. and gallant Friend could reasonably expect to go back to the exceedingly absurd proposal made in the Bill of 1867. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had put the matter, however, in a new light. He gathered that the hon. Member proposed that all householders should be compelled to pay their own rates. That was a matter which, when it was brought before the Committee, he should be willing to consider; but he protested against being called upon to say "Aye" or "No" to that proposal without further explanation.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was under the impression that his Amendment was being withdrawn when the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) rose and asked whether it was withdrawn or not. The Prime Minister then got up and said it was not withdrawn, because he had challenged it. The time of the Committee had been taken up, but no decision of the point had been given.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINrose to move the following Amendment which stood in his name:—In page 1, at end, add—
    "A 'household qualification' and a 'dwellinghouse qualification' shall mean, respectively, a tenement containing not less than two habitable apartments,"
    when—
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. Could the Committee be asked to define the term "dwellinghouse qualification,"
    1354
    which was not in the Bill, but which appeared in the Amendment of the hon. Member?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would point out that the question of definition clearly arose under Clause 7, which was headed—"Definition of household and lodger qualifications, &c." It had nothing to do with the present clause.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it was understood that an Amendment was out of Order, when it would not make sense with the part of the Bill at which it was proposed to be inserted. If the Amendment were added at the end of Clause 2, the Committee would be said to have adopted this qualification, and that it had a certain meaning. But the term did not occur in Clause 2, and it would not make sense with it; whereas both the words were in Clause 7.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not admit that, because a word did not occur in a clause, it could not be used in an Amendment proposed to the clause.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he was certainly of opinion that the Amendment he was about to propose was perfectly in Order, and that it could not be put at any other part of the Bill. His object was to define the meaning of the terms "household qualification" and "dwellinghouse qualification" as respectively a tenement containing not less than two habitable apartments. The first point he had to urge in support of the Amendment was, that the man who, from poverty, or intemperance, or low habits, was content to live with wife and children of both sexes, some adolescent, in one apartment, was not, in the sense in which the Prime Minister used the words, a "capable citizen." His second proposition was, that he was one of the "residuum" as described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and likely to add to the impurity, and not to the purity, of the electoral roll. The dwellings conferring the franchise ought to be such as were fit for Christian people to live in. If they dignified a hovel by the name of dwelling-house, and gave the vote to persons living in such squalid habitations, they would discourage the excellent movement now going on for improving the dwellings of the working classes. There was, however, a class of

    1355
    men of respectable character, very poor, but very honest, who lived a sort of hermit life in a single room, and it might be urged that his Amendment would disqualify them; but, if that objection were raised to it, their case might very well be met by the addition of a few words to the Amendment, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could easily suggest. This was not the first time this question had been raised. On the Reform Bill of 1867 he ventured to bring forward a proposal similar to the present; and although it was looked upon by the then Prime Minister with favour, as a means of dealing with the residuum, it could not be carried. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) endeavoured to get out of the difficulty by fixing the qualification of rent at £5; and Mr. Poulett Scrope—then Member for Stroud—in like manner, proposed to deal with it by exempting houses below a certain value altogether from being rated to the poor rate; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), then senior Member for Edinburgh, also proposed to exclude houses rated under £4, in the case of the Scotch Reform Bill. The speech which the Prime Minister delivered at a meeting held only a few days previously, was quoted in the discussion, and his words were—
    "I do not deny that I do feel that considerable difficulty exists with respect to that lowest margin of householders who tremble between pauperism and independence. In the present state of education in this country, and in the circumstances in which we are placed, I do not say that the evil to be apprehended is one of commanding magnitude, hut then I do regard it as a real evil."—(3 Hansard, [187] 695.]
    He (Sir Edward Watkin) contended that if it was an evil then, it was an evil now, and that, as such, it ought to be dealt with. He might be accused of being anxious to disfranchise people by the Amendment—incapable citizens, no doubt, to some extent; but he asserted that the members of a small, but a distinct class, in which fathers, mothers, and children of both sexes lived in the same room, were not "capable citizens." On the occasion he referred to, he had the support, as he had mentioned, of that veteran Reformer, Mr. Duncan M'Laren, who said—
    "He had some time ago, with a view to the Scotch Reform Bill, given Notice of an Amendment of this kind; but united to houses rented below £4. It might be supposed that hon. Gen-
    1356
    tlemen had never heard of houses that were below £4 rental; but he could tell hon. Members on the other side, that it appeared from a Return obtained by an hon. Gentleman in 1862, once Lord Advocate of their Party, that in Glasgow there were 34,907 houses at and under £4 rental. The Return was not complete for Edinburgh, and only included part of it, but in the one half of Edinburgh there were 6,100 such houses; in Aberdeen, 896; in Dunfermline, 1,612; in Perth, 852; in part of Paisley, 5,870; in Falkirk, 920. In all these cases female householders were included. The Return contained a valuable summary at the end, applicable to both counties and boroughs in Scotland, which showed that there were altogether 431,793 houses rented at and under £4 assessed to the poor. Of these, 189,555 were exempted from the poor rates on the ground of inability to pay. That was nearly half of the whole number. Many of the occupants in the large towns were a wretched class, living in one apartment, of ten dark, ill-ventilated, damp—altogether, in many cases, unfit for human habitation—yet these houses were rated to the poor, and the greater number of them were paying poor rates. Under the Bill, the occupants of each of these houses that paid the poor rates would be entitled to a vole. The argument founded on the payment of poor rates had considerable weight from the comparatively large amount of the rates laid on in England. In, Scotland the amount was not nearly so large. There was scarcely a poor rate that in Scotland exceeded 1s. 6d. in the pound, and the landlord paid one-half of all poor rates. If votes were given to the occupiers of all such houses, the door would be open to bribery and corruption by political agents paying for poor persons the trilling amount of poor rates laid upon them in order to secure their votes; and this might be done to an amount which no man could foresee."— [Ibid. 703–4.]
    It might be said there were two ways of dealing with the residuum—one was to exclude or excise it; the other, to overpower it. His objection to the Bill was that it did not proceed upon any consideration of personal rights; it proceeded on the principle of selection. It proceeded by saying that the House should take a certain proportion of the population and enfranchise them, and leave everybody else unenfranchised. As regarded half the population—the best half—it came to this, that while William Sykes, living with his wife and children, and his bull-dog, in a single room, furnished probably with the produce of many burglaries, would have a vote, as a capable citizen, the son of a middle-class man, or a young man of a respectable character, because he lived in his father's house, and was not employed by his father, should not have a vote; and Florence Nightingale and Mary Somerville would not have votes simply be-

    1357
    cause they were women. What were they going to do with the residuum? They must excise them or overcome them; but this Bill would not overcome them. It would give a certain number of votes admitted to be bad. It would admit in towns, and in parts of counties which really were towns, a certain number of votes of a class which everyone must admit to be bad. Both Parties in the State were trying to grapple with the question of improving the dwellings of the poor; but, by this Bill, they would sanctify the squalor of the poor and the vicious, and would encourage and dignify the residences in which fathers and mothers, and children of different ages, and of both sexes, lived in one room; and in that way a great blow would be struck at the progress of sanitary reform, and a very bad class of voters would be admitted, when they need not be admitted. He thought, therefore, that the Amendment he proposed was, at all events, worthy of consideration; and he hoped the Prime Minister would state whether he claimed this class of voters as capable citizens or not? The Prime Minister must either do so, or show a better way of avoiding them. He must either accept them, while excluding capable men and capable women, or admit all capable men and women — the man because he was a man, and the woman because she was a woman.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, at end, add—"A 'household qualification' and a 'dwellinghouse qualification' shall mean, respectively, a tenement containing not less than two habitable apartments."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I feel quite strongly upon and sympathize with the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the place where the Amendment should come in; but I do not suppose there is absolutely any rule of order as to Amendments, or against any amount of confusion which may consequently be introduced into the Bill. As to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), he says that satisfaction may be given to his wishes in one of two ways. He says he will be satisfied if
    1358
    we either adopt the Amendment, and restrict the franchise as it is conferred by the Bill; or, if we largely extend the franchise by going the whole length to manhood suffrage, and woman suffrage also. I am afraid I am not able to meet the wishes of the hon. Baronet in the second course. Let us see, then, what will ensue if we adopt the Amendment. I doubt whether the hon. Baronet has acquainted himself with the extent to which this means disfranchisement. In Ireland this means an enormous proposal of disfranchisement. I will not say what proportion of existing voters might not be cut off from the very narrow franchise now in Ireland; but if we come to this side of the water, throughout the whole of this country, the Amendment would very largely restrict the new suffrage to be conferred in counties, and abolish a large amount of the suffrage already enjoyed in towns. It proceeds on the principle that a person living in one room cannot be a capable citizen.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: Living with his family.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I find nothing about a family in the Amendment; unless the Motion is to be interpreted by the speech, or, at any rate, by what comes from the speech; but, unfortunately, that would not hold good. I dispute altogether the hon. Baronet's doctrine that people cannot be capable citizens because they live in single rooms. There is a case of a Member of this House, who, in virtue of a tenancy of one room, is enfranchised for Westminster, and I am afraid that by this Amendment he would be removed from the Register. I do not admit that because a person lives in one room he is to be considered disqualified. The hon. Baronet has referred to a speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and to a speech of my own, delivered, I believe, in 1867; but it is to be borne in mind that these speeches were delivered when we were comparing a uniform system, to be applied equally throughout the whole country, by fixing a figure for the franchise, which would make it operate alike in the boroughs, with a system which would have been absolutely arbitrary and capricious, and would have made an enormous enfranchisement in some boroughs where rates were paid directly, and in others no en-

    1359
    franchisement at all. Since then we have learnt a great deal. After that time we began by adopting the principle of rating. We then proceeded to abolish all limitations upon household franchise, and we have now had an experience of it for the last 17 years. Is there any reason why we should be dissatisfied with the results? Let us see how this plan will act. I will not speak of Ireland, but I will speak of Scotland. At the time when I knew Scotland, some time ago, there were—and I believe even now, in some parts, there are—a large number of one-room tenements in the country, and multitudes of them in the towns, and the people living in them were perfectly qualified for the franchise. What would be the case in Glasgow? I am sure my hon. Friend is not aware of the operation his Motion would have. In Glasgow, there are 110,000 families, according to the last Census of the population, and out of those 110,000 no less than 39,000 are families living in one room. Are we really going to apply disfranchisement to them? I think my hon. Friend would shrink from such a result of his Amendment. There are many cases in which it is the most legitimate thing in the world for a man to live in one room. Take the case of a single man. What could be more proper than that he should have a vote? But my hon. Friend says that is to be only where there is a family. Take, again, the case of married people before they have children, or who have one child; why should not they remain in one room, if, unhappily, they cannot afford more? Rent is now a great burden upon the artizan. That is the point at which he is weak, and any increase of rent presses heavily upon him, and restricts many of the immense advantages he has derived in many other respects from legislation. Out of the 39,000 families living in one room in Glasgow, no less than 7,000 are, I believe, single individuals. In Glasgow, there are more than one-third of the whole population whom my hon. Friend proposes to sweep away; in Aberdeen, there are about one-fourth. About Aberdeen, I will only say that you will find it very difficult to find any person there who is incapable of exercising the franchise. In Edinburgh, there are 14,000 of these people out of about 52,000—that is, more
    1360
    than one-fourth, and less than one-third. I am persuaded that my hon. Friend will not persevere with his Amendment, which I do believe would lead to results which he has not taken into consideration.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had hoped that if the Prime Minister could not accept the Amendment, he would have stated that the Government would take the object of the Amendment into their consideration. The Committee were now considering a Bill which proposed to confer the franchise on householders, and they were told that the franchise was to be uniform; but there was no definition of what constituted a householder or a dwelling-house in any Act of Parliament. What was the result? The result was that they were introducing a much lower franchise in Ireland than in England or Scotland. The Prime Minister, being in charge of the Bill, objected to any Amendment which would interfere with the structure of this Bill, and said that, no doubt, for the purpose of convenience, it might be better that this Amendment should be upon Clause 7; but if he would look at Clause 7, he would see that that was merely a definition of what constituted a qualification under existing Acts of Parliament. He (Lord George Hamilton) believed, however, that he was correct in saying that there was no existing Act of Parliament which defined either a householder or a dwelling-house qualification. As to the question of enfranchisement, the Prime Minister had stated that this would have a very disfranchising effect; but if they gave a vote to every man who occupied a house, ought they not to define what constituted a house? The Prime Minister had pointed out that in Glasgow 39,000 out of 110,000 families occupied one room only each, and therefore he argued that those 39,000 families would be disfranchised; but although there were these 110,000 families, there were only 66,000 voters. There was thus a difference of something like 50,000 voters in the calculation. No doubt, the actual words of the Amendment would disfranchise these people; but should not the Government undertake to consider whether they would not attempt to define what constituted a house? It did seem to him, at that time, when special attention was being given to the houses

    1361
    of the poor, there could be no better inducement to working men to keep their houses in good order than the promise of the franchise when their houses were fit to be called houses. Those who occupied these tenements had been freed from the direct payment of rates; therefore, they were only indirectly rated, and there was nothing to show what constituted a house. He thought it was well worthy of the attention of the Government whether they could not give some definition of a house such as would exclude a class of buildings which he was certain every Member of the House would condemn as unfit for occupation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was surprised that the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) could give even a qualified support to this Amendment, which would disfranchise a vast number of people who received the franchise under a Bill passed by the late Government. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) objected altogether to the statement of the noble Lord that this was the time to consider what constituted a house. Following the precedent of other Acts, an attempt to define a house would not come in now; but, even if that were not so, the definition would not, in any sense, come within this Amendment, and he could not but think that the noble Lord was going outside the terms of the Amendment in raising the point at all now. The Amendment would disfranchise the existing voters who lived in one room, and would prevent the enfranchisement of any man living in one room. He had lately had his attention called very much to the condition of one-room families, and he ventured to say that the vast majority of them were very capable citizens indeed. The great majority living in one room in large towns were either single men, or, more probably, young couples, either without children, or having only a small number of them of tender years. There was no reason why a newly-married man and his wife should not live in one room; the vast majority of them did so, and they would be disfranchised by this Amendment. These people had been spoken of as £4 a-year people; but the vast proportion of the people living in one room were people who paid as much as £10 a-year. There were some dwellings erected by a Company, of which his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of
    1362
    the Ordnance (Mr. Brand) was a leading member. The people living in them paid 4s. a-week rent. They were very respectable people and extremely capable citizens; and he would venture to say that the people who would live in the dwellings which the hon. Baronet intended to erect for the poorer class, were to a very large extent capable of exercising the franchise.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to second the appeal of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) to the Government to consider the propriety of inserting some definition of a house. The right hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was, no doubt, acquainted with many instances of the confusion to which the present law had given rise. He (Mr. Gregory), himself, had drawn up an Amendment to Clause 7, and he would ask the Government to consider that between now and the time when that clause came to be considered. If they did not consider it worthy their attention, perhaps they would propose something of their own which would be better for the purpose. In that way, they would confer a great benefit on the public, who were now in a state of great doubt and confusion as to what constituted a house.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he felt indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Watkin) for bring forward this question, which he thought had been too lightly, and in a very one-sided way, treated by the Government. It seemed to him, that although there were bachelors living in splendid apartments, although consisting of only one room, and occasional instances such as that cited by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) of model lodging houses where one room was let for 4s. a-week, these were only exceptions to what would be the general rule when they thought of a house as containing only one living apartment. The right hon. Baronet compared things that were different. What the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) was striking at, was not one room in a large house, but the one-roomed house—the house consisting of one room. That was a very different thing from a house occupied in separate rooms by individuals—a bachelor, or a man and his wife. There were eases of families living in some hut, which by

    1363
    some sort of complacency was called a house, and there were in the United Kingdom thousands of cases of so-called houses in which the inhabitants consisted of human beings, and two or four-footed animals—in many cases there being a pig, and dogs and fowls. It was useless for the Government to evade the question raised by the Amendment as they had done. The words of the Amendment were not, perhaps, the happiest under the circumstances; but he thought the hon. Baronet was entitled to credit for having opened up a subject which would, no doubt, be heard of again. He (Mr. Lewis), at all events, submitted that this was a matter in regard to which some attempt should be made to provide an intelligent and legal definition of a house.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said that this was not the right time to consider what was the nature of a house, and that Clause 7 would be the right place; but he (Mr. Grey) would point out that if there had been in Clause 7 a definition of what constituted a house, this discussion would not have proceeded so far as it had. It was exactly because they were ignorant of what constituted a householder, that this Amendment had been proposed and this discussion had taken place. He thought it was a matter for great regret that that clause, which was the crux of the whole Bill, should proceed not by way of definition, but by way of reference. He had taken considerable pains to find out what constituted a claim to be a householder, and he had made some remarks upon the point upon the second reading of the Bill; but he must point out how difficult it was to discover who was entitled to vote as a householder, and would ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board whether it was absolutely certain that it was necessary to occupy even a single room for the purpose of getting a vote? The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to prevent any man from voting as a householder whose house did not comprise at least two rooms. The arguments against this proposal were, he thought, conclusive. He regretted that the hon. Baronet had not inserted "one" instead of "two" in the Amendment, for, so far
    1364
    as he could understand the law, it was not even necessary for a householder to occupy the whole of a single room. If a room was divided into two separate parts by a curtain, or even by a chalk line drawn along the floor, and those two parts were let to two individuals, each of whom occupied his separate part, then each of those occupants would be entitled, so far as the nature of the premises were concerned, to vote as a householder, and two votes would issue out of a single apartment. He should like to ask his right hon. Friend whether he was right or not in that construction of the law?
    MR. GORSTsaid, he felt sure that this Amendment would greatly restrict not only the future, but the present franchise. This was again the old story. the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) and his speech were made on the Bill of 1867, when household suffrage was established in boroughs; and the effect of the Amendment and the speech at that time was that the Attorney General of the then Conservative Government undertook to endeavour, before the Bill left the House, to frame a definition of a house. That definition appeared in the Act of 1867, and was as follows:—
    "A dwellinghouse shall include any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and separately rated for the relief of the poor."
    Since then that definition had undergone a good deal of amendment, because, he believed, he was right in saying that all that was necessary to constitute a tenement or dwelling-house was that the place should be separately occupied. The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) looked askance at this franchise which had been established in England and Scotland, and desired to restrict it by preventing persons exercising it unless they occupied rooms of certain cubic contents. He (Mr. Gorst) felt that the Amendment of which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had given notice was an attempt on the hon. Gentleman's part to put into an Act of Parliament the result of the decisions which had been given in the Registration Courts, and, in fact, to declare what the present law was. He did not understand the hon. Member to be engaged in this disfranchising campaign. It might, or might not, be desirable to

    1365
    put into the Bill a definition of "dwellinghouse" such as that proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex; but if they did put a definition at all in the Bill, it ought to be one which would express the real state of the law as now established by the decisions in the Registration Courts.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that though he did not take quite the view of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he was afraid he saw some difficulty in supporting this Amendment in the precise terms in which the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) had placed it before the Committee. He did not think, however, that the hon. Baronet's Amendment was open to the strictures which had been heaped upon it by the Government. The hon. Baronet was told he had not brought his Amendment forward in the proper place. He (Mr. J. Lowther) never knew what was a proper place for an Amendment of which the Government did not happen to approve. If the hon. Baronet had waited until they had reached some other clause, he would, in all probability, have been told that he had lost his chance. His (Mr. J. Lowther's) experience of the working of Bills in Committee had convinced him that, if any Member desired to obtain an alteration of the original drafting, he could not make his proposal too early in the proceedings. If a Member waited until the end of the Bill, he would probably find that the Committee had ceased to take any interest in the subject, and that he could not obtain the ear of the Committee. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) raised an entirely different question from that which he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood was in the mind of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) when he drew the Amendment. As he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood, his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) proposed merely to apply the decision to what were generally known as separate houses; whereas the strict words of the hon. Baronet's Amendment would include a building which was divided into numerous apartments of the kind described by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). It appeared to him (Mr. J. Lowther) that, under the plan of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis), a Revising Barrister, especially in one part of the
    1366
    Kingdom, which the hon. Gentleman indicated, would have to discharge functions somewhat analogous to those which were usually assigned to an Inspector of Nuisances—he would have to decide whether a house was fit for human habitation, and whether its occupation should confer the right to the franchise. It was perfectly clear that, by the Bill as drawn by Her Majesty's Government, a large number of dwellings, which were undoubtedly unfit for any human being to inhabit, would confer upon the occupier the right to the franchise. Now, if the owners of these dwellings attempted to remedy the present state of affairs, they would probably cease to exist for many days in this earthly sphere. That was all the more reason why the Committee should make an attempt to discourage the habitation of dwellings of this description. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister talked of capable citizens. He (Mr. J. Lowther) preferred the term "loyal subjects," because he preferred a Monarchy to a Republic. The Amendment had succeeded, at any rate, in drawing attention to a most important subject; and, perhaps, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe might be of opinion that his object would be served if he obtained, before the discussion closed, an assurance from the Government that they would consider some means of dealing with this branch of the question. He (Mr. J. Lowther) so far agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that he thought it would hardly be practicable, at the present time, to say that persons occupying very humble dwellings should not have votes at all; but he must take the opportunity of again reminding the Committee that there were means of preventing the lower classes from having a monopoly of the franchise. They saw from the Returns which had been laid before Parliament, that they were about to hand over, in one portion of the United Kingdom, the largest share of electoral power entirely to persons whose dwellings were clearly unfit for human habitation. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said just now that his attention had been called to dwellings not far from where they were now assembled, which came within that category. Did the right hon. Baronet realize that the Government were pro-

    1367
    posing to hand the larger share of electoral power in one part of the United Kingdom entirely to persons who occupied dwellings of that kind? The other plan, which he (Mr. J. Lowther) ventured once again to call attention to, was that persons who were possessed of a larger share in the rateable value of the locality, and who had a greater stake in the country than others, should have a multiplicity of votes, in order to militate against the influence of that enormous prepondrance of persons who inhabited places unfit for human habitation. He hoped they would have some plan submitted to them which would prevent persons of the lower class swamping every other class in the body politic. The Government seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that, as long as a person had a roof over his head, he had as much right to have the same voice in the national affairs as a person who contributed largely to the local and Imperial taxation. How was it they stopped there? Why did the Prime Minister say that a person who, in conjunction, perhaps, with a dozen others, occupied one room, was a capable citizen; while the person who did not occupy a room at all was an incapable one? The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe had done service in introducing this Amendment, and it was to be hoped that, before the discussion closed, he would succeed in eliciting some further explanation from the Government.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to the Amendment, because they were asked to define "dwellinghouse qualification," which words did not appear in the Bill. He considered, however, that the Committee was indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Watkin) for introducing the question. He complained of the easy method the Government adopted of dealing with Amendments. They raised the cry, "Disfranchisement, disfranchisement!" to nearly every proposition that was made. It was very easy to call names; but the cry of "Disfranchisement" was not a sufficient answer to every Amendment. In the firstplace, he asked Liberal Members whether they would lay down the proposition, that there was not, at the present moment, on the electoral roll a single person who ought not to be enfranchised? Would they undertake to say that so perfect was our electoral
    1368
    system that there was not a single person on the Register who ought not to be there? Because, if there was, the cry of "Disfranchisement" would be absurd. He did not scruple to say boldly and distinctly that there were many persons on the Register now who ought not to be there. This was an age of political hypocrisy, and there were a great many men on both sides of the House who had not the courage to say what they really felt and believed. Hon. Members knew that, in their own constituencies, there were a great number of men who had votes, but who were not fit to exercise the franchise. Liberal Members especially were apt to bow down before the idol of vulgar opinion, and act in spite of their consciences. He hoped that, in this age of cant, there would be some few found who had the courage to speak their minds. Unfortunately, there were men like the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who were afraid to speak their minds on this subject. In his (Mr. Warton's) opinion, the Government ought to jump at this Amendment with pleasure, as giving some difinition of what they meant by a house, and by what they meant by household qualification. It was true that the 7th clause was a hash-up of several definitions; but it was equally true that there was not a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who would get up and say what a house was, or what was meant by household qualification. He regarded the Amendment as an honest attempt to solve a very great difficulty—a difficulty from which the Government shrank, because they were incapable of finding a solution, and because, if they could, they had not the courage.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that, whether that was the proper time or not to introduce it, there was considerable force in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). Up to the present there had been no definition of a house, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had begged the question. The right hon. Gentleman said the object of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe was to disfranchise a number of voters who now possessed the franchise. He (Mr. Whitley) did not understand that to be the object of the hon. Baronet. The object of the Amendment was, as

    1369
    far as he could judge, to place some interpretation upon the word "house," and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had at all recognized the difficulty which many hon. Members felt. They were about to extend the franchise in Ireland to men paying only £1 rent. Now, they wanted to know whether, in extending the franchise to such a class of men, they might not be extending it to perhaps 10 people in the one dwelling? He asked the Committee to consider whether the people who inhabited the hovels of Ireland were really capable citizens? If they had no definition whatever of "house," one of the huts in Ireland might give the franchise to five or six people. So far as the Committee was given to understand, every one of the persons inhabiting a £1 house in Ireland would be entitled to a vote. It was quite beside the question for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to talk about a great number of capable citizens living in single rooms. They all knew that, in large towns, there were many capable citizens living in one room; but that did not affect the Amendment, which merely sought to define what a dwelling-house was. In common with many Members of the Committee, he desired there should be some definition of a house, because he was very anxious to know whether it would be possible for a house in Ireland, rented at £1, to give more than one vote? This was a serious question, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board, or some other Member of the Government, would answer the appeal made to them by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not answer the appeal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), because he considered he would be entirely out of Order in doing so.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not answer his appeal, it would be necessary for him to move his Amendment when this was disposed of. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to confine the right to vote to those who occupied two or more rooms; and what
    1370
    he (Mr. Grey) desired to know was, whether, under the Bill, it was necessary for a householder to occupy the whole of one room before he could claim the right to vote; whether it was possible to divide a room into two halves, and let the halves to separate tenants, both of whom would have a vote? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain to the Committee what was the exact state of the law on the subject; whether it was absolutely necessary that a man should occupy the whole of a single room before he could vote?
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, hon. Members would do well to consider how the Amendment would operate in their own constituencies. He thought it was quite possible that there were, in every constituency, persons who possessed the franchise now, but who in no sense could be considered capable of taking a rational view of the questions which were on the tapis. Personally, he did not think that any such definition as that proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) would have the effect of discriminating between those who were capable of exercising the franchise and those who were not, and for the very reason, that a certain number of rooms were let for business purposes, and could not be excluded. He could not help thinking that great difficulties and dangers would arise if the word "house" were not defined, because it might be possible for the heads of several families, occupying the same room, to find their way on the Register. He hoped he was right in understanding that the Government would turn their attention to the question of defining what a house was, when the Committee arrived at a later stage of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was certain they would have to discuss the question as to the interpretation of the term "house" at a later period. It was quite true that, in large towns and cities, the same rooms were occupied by more than one family; but he was sure the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) could not mention any case where the head of those families had got on the Register. The Government answered Amendments upon their own merits, and what they objected to answer were other points raised upon Amendments.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) contended that where two families occupied the same room, they could not both get on the register. It would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that one of the families could get on, yet he (Mr. Tomlinson) did not see anything to prevent it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they never could prevent irregularities occurring in great cities.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet was running away from the subject. It was essentially necessary that the Committee should know what the Government meant by "house," and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would give them the information.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he had appealed in vain to the right hon. Gentleman [Sir Charles W. Dilke). He would now appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He did not wish to be unduly importunate. He had asked a simple question, and all he wanted was a simple answer. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would say whether a single room could give two votes?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, in discussing what constituted a house, they were certainly travelling beyond the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). He might, however, at once say that, by the Act of 18G7, one room could not confer two votes.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he would not press his Amendment to a Division; but he should reserve to himself the liberty, when the 7th clause came to be discussed, of joining others in pressing on the Government the necessity of defining what a house was. It was not only desirable to define the term as a mere matter of dry law, but in the interest of sanitation. He was sorry Her Majesty's Government seemed to consider that the matter was of so very little importance, and that men might be capable citizens under every possible circumstances. That was not his opinion. He was afraid, also, that unless some such Proviso as he and the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) proposed were adopted, the Bill would lead to the manufacture of residential fagot votes. With the per-
    1372
    mission of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Tenure of house by office or service not to invalidate vote).
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he would move the Amendment which stood in his name. It was a rather technical Amendment, yet there was much to be said in its favour. Those who drafted the Bill were evidently under some misapprehension as to the language used in the Act of 1867, and therefore this clause would want considerable alteration, if not re-drafting. The Act of 1867, first of all, recited that every man should, on and after a certain time, be entitled to be registered as a voter. It then went on to define the necessary qualifications, the first of which was, that a man should be of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity. That seemed to be omitted in this clause. Surely it was not intended that a lad, or anyone under age, who was placed as caretaker of any house should be entitled to vote? He suggested, therefore, that some words should be inserted in the clause to meet that objection. Then, again, the following language of the clause was not quite correct, and with the permission of the Committee he would read how the clause could be improved:—
    "Where a man of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, has himself inhabited for a period of twelve months by virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is rated, or capable of being rated, and the dwellinghouse is not inhabited by any person, &c."
    He thought that read accurately, and really carried out, better than the language adopted in the clause as it stood, the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory). It would be necessary, therefore, to move the Amendments as they stood on the Paper; and, in the first place, he moved to insert, after "man," "of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, has."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "man," to insert "of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, has."—(Mr. Grantham.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think the Amendment was necessary. He was aware the words "of full age and of no legal incapacity" were in the Act of 1867; but he, nevertheless, considered them entirely unnecessary. When they said a man, they meant a man; and a man was not a man in the eye of the law unless he was 21 years of age. Of course, wherever legal incapacity existed, it took away from a man the right to vote. As a matter of drafting, it had been thought proper to adopt general words, subject to no particular definition.
    MR. GORSTasked whether the clause, as it stood, would include those persons who were in the service of the Crown? because, if, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, it was so drawn, he (Mr. Gorst) would be spared the necessity of moving an Amendment on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) would see, by Clause 9, that—
    "Where a man inhabits a dwelling house in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwelling house belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the Grown, or by reason of any other ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled to be registered as a voter."
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he gathered that the hon. and learned Attorney General considered the insertion of the words "of full age and of no legal incapacity" unnecessary. The words appeared in. the Act of 1867; and it was somewhat strange that they should be deliberately left out of this Bill, because their omission would certainly create difficulty.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)drew the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Grant-ham) to Clause 10, where it was provided—
    "Nothing in this Act shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any right to be registered as a voter or to vote."
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that in the Act of 1867 there were the two expressions—"of full age" and "of no legal incapacity." If, however, the matter had been fully considered by the Government, he would not press the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry the word "has" appeared in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey (Mr. Grantham); because, if the Amendment were negatived, the Committee would not have the opportunity of considering the desirability of inserting the word "has."
    MR. ARTHUR COHENsaid, the doubt which was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Grantham) was removed by the 11th clause—
    "This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation of the People Acts as defined by this Act."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYmoved an Amendment to insert the word "has," which, he said, would raise the whole question of a man's right to vote.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after "man," to insert "has."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'has' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could only repeat that the clause had been very carefully drafted, and that it had been thought better to adopt general words than to attempt to run the risk of defining the right to vote.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, they were now creating a new franchise, and they ought to be precise and explicit. Unless they were so, they might very likely defeat the object which the Government had in view. His desire was rather to assist the Government, because he considered it the duty of the Committee to turn out as perfect a piece of legislation as they could. It was much better to do a thing directly, if they could, than by reference. He thought they could do it precisely and succinctly in the way he suggested, and therefore he ventured to press his Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government carefully considered the matter both before and since they saw the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) on the Paper. This was a purely technical matter, and the reason why some voters were to be called service voters, was that they had previously had no vote because they were not occu-

    1375
    piers in the eye of the law—that was for the purposes of the poor rate, as they did not pay it. What they had done was to say that the person who formerly was not an inhabiting occupier should be regarded for all purposes as an inhabiting occupier of the dwelling-house as tenant. They, therefore, saved the necessity of giving a definition.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, if the Committee did not like to adopt the Amendment, there was an end of the matter. It was a question of some difficulty, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would probably soon have an opportunity of deciding upon it. It was not likely, at any rate, to be brought before himself, and therefore he left the matter in the hands of his hon. and learned Friend. He was not prepared to press the Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was bound to observe that he was not convinced by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; his last argument particularly—that about the payment of rates—seemed to him to have no application to the question at all. Either the clause should be left out, or his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should be inserted, because he (Mr. Tomlinson) thought that if a new clause required all this explanation to make it intelligible, words ought to be put in to make it plain.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he must press the hon. and learned Attorney General to give a definition of what was meant by a dwelling-house, as the term was used in the clause, and how many persons might be enfranchised under it? There was nothing to prevent an employer using the clause as it stood for the purpose of corrupting voters on a gigantic scale. Suppose he, himself, were to build a large number of houses, and give everyone in his service a separate room in them; there was nothing to prevent all those persons voting. The clause might very easily lead to an evil ten times greater than what was called fagot voting.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question raised by the hon. Member was substantially the same as that raised by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Gregory).
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the hon. and learned Attorney General contemplated the system which
    1376
    obtained in Scotland, where many labourers were capable of voting who lived together under what was called the "Bothy" system.
    MR. TOMLINSONcontended that they were entitled to an explanation of the meaning of the word as it existed in the mind of the Government. Was it intended to apply to distinct dwelling-houses?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had already stated that those who framed the Act of 1867 left the word to be defined by the law. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) had an Amendment to propose, let it be brought forward on the Definition Clause, when every opportunity for discussion would be afforded; but he must object to anticipate it, because the Government were not then prepared to give any definition.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that in the Act of 1867 there was a distinct definition; the words were—
    "The term dwellinghouse shall include any part of a house occupied separately as a dwelling."
    MR. GREGORYsaid, as it seemed to be a question of some hon. Member framing a definition, he would try his "'prentice hand" at it at the proper time.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the Government were introducing the service franchise, and the Committee were about to give the vote to anyone who might be put into a dwelling-house by the owner. He, therefore, asked whether it was the intention of the Government that the owner of a house might introduce a number of fagot votes under the cover of the clause? Certainly, that was a most important point to consider in connection with the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would contend that this was not a point to be hurried over. If the Government, having brought in a perfectly new franchise, were to dictate to the Committee how long they were to take in considering that franchise, he must say there were hon. Members in that House who would not be so treated, and he was one of them. The hon. and learned Attorney General did not seem to have the least conception of the extent of the change they were asked to make, and could give the Committee no idea of the meaning of the terms employed by the Govern-

    1377
    ment in their own Bill. The Committee did not even know the meaning of service franchise; they did not know whether it was to be limited to one responsible servant, such as a gamekeeper or a steward, or one occupying a position of responsibility, or whether, as would probably be the case, labourers housed under the Scotch system would be able to vote under it. Had it escaped the attention of the Prime Minister that under this section it was possible for a farmer to arrange any large shed in such a way as would give the vote to each of a large number of persons whom he might allow to occupy it—that was to say, if it were divided into compartments like the stalls for oxen? That was what the Committee wanted to know; and it was that which the hon. and learned Attorney General said they were not to know or consider. If they were not to have an explanation from the hon. and learned Attorney General, he (Mr. Warton) trusted the Prime Minister would at least clear up their doubts.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, at line 35 of Clause 7 there were these words—
    "And for the purpose of the said section and enactments the expression 'dwelling-house' in Scotland means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling; and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be substituted for the definition contained in section fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868."
    Here was a new definition. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): In Scotland.] He was aware of that; but he wanted to know whether it let in what was called the bothy system in Scotland? His hon. Friend had said truly that it was easy, under the Scotch system, to make the parts of a house a separate dwelling; cottages were very often separated in that way. He was personally acquainted with a case of the kind. There might be separate dwellings in one cottage. No one knew better than the hon. and learned Attorney General that, before a Court of Law, it would be very easy to argue on both sides of the question. He thought the Committee and the country ought to be informed what sort and number of people it was proposed to enfranchise under this clause. It was a serious thing that a tenement, artificially separated, should be made the means of multiplying votes, if that was intended. He did not say it was right or wrong; but
    1378
    it was entirely a new idea, and a very important one; it differed altogether from other parts of the Bill, and he thought it was only right to ask how it would work.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it had been decided by legal authorities that the occupiers of a lodge-gate, although it was situated at a distance from the mansion, were not entitled to vote. He was personally acquainted with a case in which it was so decided. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended that lodges so occupied should come within the purview of the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to appreciate the point; but it was a very important one, and showed that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) should be pressed on the Government for the purpose of getting from them a separate definition of dwelling-houses which was to carry with them the right to the service franchise. He did not want to occupy the time of the Committee in arguing the point at length; but he placed the matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Attorney General; because it was very important, when it was considered with reference to the next clause which related to fagot votes. What they were he never knew; but, perhaps, when the clause was reached, the hon. and learned Gentleman would define them. However, if any restriction was to be put upon votes of the kind, it was necessary that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex should be admitted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government had made no distinction whatever in the definition of a dwelling-house from what it was before. That which existed in the Act of 1867 would exist now. Each question as it arose would have to be decided upon its merits—as to whether it was a dwelling-house or not. Whatever legal decision had been obtained in reference to the Act of 1867 would be retained. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitley) had suggested that there might be a system established of making many persons inhabit one house, for the purpose of their voting separately as individuals; but the 3rd clause of the Act of 1867 provided against that; and, under this Bill, there must be separate

    1379
    occupation of the dwelling-house. The question that would be considered was whether there was a separate holding; and if there were not, two persons in the same house could not vote. That existed before, and it would exist hereafter; it was efficient then, and it would continue to be efficient. It had been thought better not to make any alteration in the law in this respect; and the Government had followed the example of the framers of the Bill of 1867; and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought, therefore, to be the last persons to complain of the course they had adopted with regard to the definition of a dwelling-house. As to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), sometimes lodge-keepers were the servants of the owners of the mansion, and sometimes they were simply allowed to live in the lodge and perform the service of opening the gate. A person occupying a lodge in such a manner that the master could not close the gate against him would be entitled to the vote, and it was intended that he should have it. So long as there was a separate house into which the master had not the right to go there would be a vote.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that that was an entirely new proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that hon. Members on that side of the House ought not to complain, because the Government had followed the framers of the Act of 1867 in respect of their treatment of the definition of the term "dwelling-house;" but he (Lord John Manners) reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that that Act did not give the suffrage to householders in counties in England and Scotland. Was it intended that all those who lived under the bothy system should exercise the vote; that only one of them should exercise it, or that none of them should have the vote? As he read the clause, only one person was to exercise the franchise; and he should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could tell the Committee whether that view was correct.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he understood the noble Lord to refer to several persons in service occupying the same tenement. [Lord JOHN MANNERS assented.] Then,
    1380
    none of them would have the vote. The words of the Act were—
    "Provided that no man shall be entitled under this section to vote by reason of his being a joint occupier of a dwelling-house."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, no doubt the hon. and learned Attorney General thought he had effectually disposed of the question; but the Committee had not been informed as to those who were entitled to be considered occupiers in the first instance. They were told that where a man himself inhabited a dwelling-house he was to have the vote. Did that include a caretaker? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No.] Well, then, if any owner had a certain number of servants in occupation of his premises, who was to decide which of them was to be entitled to vote?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENKY JAMES)said, there must be the coincidence necessary to make a man an occupier. Whether he was a caretaker or not, he must occupy the house; he must be the dominus of that house, and able to keep others out of it; he must be in the separate position of occupier, which was a term known to the law.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say—although, of course, he did not mean it—that one of the conditions incident to the vote was that the occupier should be able to hold the premises against the owners. His (Mr. J. Lowther's) point was, that the proprietor might name any one of his dependents to occupy the position of caretaker who would have the vote. If he had made such a proposal, he would have been told that he had concocted a scheme of fagot voting; that he was perpetuating feudalism, and a great deal more. He understood, then, that any person might nominate anyone he chose to be his dependent, and to occupy a position conferring upon him the franchise, and that this was to be revocable at will. Now, that was evidently a matter which, to use a popular expression, ought not to be "rushed" through the Committee. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to think him very dense for not having detected a meaning which had not been given; he hoped, however, he had profited by the instruction he had received at the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he now clearly understood him.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, a difficulty presented itself to his mind in connection with, this matter, which did not seem to have occurred to the hon. and learned Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman relied very much on a definition of the Act of 1867; but he (Mr. Gregory) could not help thinking that the clause, as it stood, would override the definition in that Act. They were now establishing a new franchise, and were introducing a new class of persons, who, in his opinion, would be totally exempt from the qualifying provision of the Act of 1867. He did not mean to say that it was necessarily so; but the matter was one which demanded full consideration.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES): Clause 2 incorporates all those provisions. Even in that case, he thought they required some further definition, seeing that they were dealing with a very difficult matter.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that the discussion seemed to have wandered over the whole clause, instead of being confined to the Amendment before the Committee. He was at a loss to understand the relevancy of the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) to that Amendment. But, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point, he thought he could hardly have applied his powerful mind to the understanding of this clause, because he would, in that case, have seen that, in order to constitute the franchise intended, two things were necessary—one, that the house should be inhabited by a person in virtue of some office; and the other, that it should not be inhabited by the person under whom that office was held. The right hon. Gentleman put a case, saying—"You may have a number of servants in your house." [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Not necessary in your own dwelling-house.] Well, then, he understood the right hon. Gentleman, if a person inhabited a house, and that house was not inhabited by the person under whom he held office, he was entitled to the franchise; but if he put a servant in his house to take care of it in his absence, with the right on coming back to inhabit the house, then he ventured to say it would not come within the purview of the clause. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member for East
    1382
    Susses (Mr. Gregory) had not carefully considered the effect of the clause, which was not to give the franchise, in so many words, to persons named, but to give it by reference to other Acts. All the clause said was, that a person inhabiting a house under the circumstances mentioned therein was to be an inhabiting occupier within the meaning of those Acts; and then, if one read the clause is including the person occupying, its meaning at once appeared. It was unnecessary to attempt to introduce all the qualifications of the franchise into this Bill.
    MR. GRANTHAMasked if, in the case of a house divided into two dwellings by the owner, both or either of the separate occupiers of it would be entitled to the vote? If both were entitled to vote, the system might go on indefinitely. Under the clause as it stood, for the purpose of creating votes, they might have 20 or 30 persons put into houses by the owner, and occupying each one room, who, as far as he could see, could not be prevented from having the vote. The hon. and learned Attorney General persisted in relying on the joint occupation of the dwelling, and said that the provision of the 3rd section was sufficient to meet the case; but, in the case he and his hon. Friends put forward, there was no joint occupation at all, each person having a separate dwelling in the room allotted to him. The result of that would be practically manhood suffrage. The stipulation that in the case of the lodger franchise the rent should be £10 a-year was, of course, intended to limit it to capable citizens; but, in the clause under consideration, there was nothing limiting the character of the persons who were to have the vote. An owner, under the circumstances indicated, might put into a house as many persons of 21 years of age as it would contain in separate apartments, whose wages might be 10 s. a-week, or who, perhaps, had no wages at all, and all of them would be entitled to the vote.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would suggest that the discussion of the point should be reserved until the 7th clause was reached; otherwise their proceedings would get hopelessly confused.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Sir George Campbell) that it would be better to dispose of the subject before

    1383
    the Committee. He believed that few hon. Members were in the House at that moment who were present when the discussion began. The question was whether or not the hon. Member for East Sussex should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment; it had nothing whatever to do with dwelling-houses, or the franchise; and the inconvenience of the present position was that those Members who had just come down to the House, and did not understand how matters stood, asked the same questions which had been put over and over again. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said several times in the last hour that he had already replied to questions that were again asked.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, spoke with great doubt of the propriety of the term "service franchise;" and, from what had since taken place in discussion, he believed the right hon. Gentleman would have had additional evidence that it was not a very happy designation of his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was willing to accept any term that commended itself to the House. They had learned from the discussion that the real object of the Prime Minister, in making this proposal of service franchise, was the extension of the occupation franchise; and it was with that view that he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) desired to suggest that this franchise, instead of being called "service franchise," should be called "limited occupation franchise." That, he believed, would meet the case, and the only alteration it would make necessary would be in the marginal note—not in the clause itself. As he thought his proposal would obviate misconception, he begged to move the omission of the word "service."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, leave out the word "service."— (Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'service' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), he had no objection to say that the proposal should receive consideration. In using the term "service franchise," he had no in-
    1384
    tention of using it in the sense of a legal definition. He did not think that any confusion was likely to arise in the administration of the Act from his use of the popular phrase "service franchise;" but, as he had said, he would consider the matter before the Report.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must confess that, having seen several Reform Bills introduced, service franchise was of the very essence of what former Parliaments considered to be corruption. In the Midland Counties there were large mills and factories, where the workmen formed Liberal Clubs, subjecting the employés to very stringent rules as to politics; and these furnished him with a modern instance of the corruption that was likely to arise under the clause.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEpresumed that under this clause, if a Minister did not inhabit a public office assigned to him, the office keeper would have a vote; on the other hand, it would be that if the Minister occupied the house as a dwelling, the office keeper would lose his vote. He would also like to know, in the event of the latter view being correct, how soon the office keeper could regain the vote if the Minister ceased to reside?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the Minister did not reside at his office the caretaker would have a vote; and if he did reside there would be no vote. As to the question of time, the case would be the same as that of an ordinary occupier, and 12 months' residence would be necessary.
    MR ARTHUR ARNOLDpointed out that there must be some titles under which persons voting by virtue of this new franchise were designated. However, after the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the word "service" was one that the Government would consider between that and Report.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that in his opinion "service franchise" was a good term to apply to this particular description of voting, inasmuch as it exactly expressed what was intended in the case of a gamekeeper or bank manager, for instance, who were to be enfranchised by virtue of their

    1385
    position, and not on account of the rent they paid.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he believed the hon. Member who had just spoken (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was not in the House when the hon. and learned Attorney General replied to his inquiry as to the position of lodge keepers in relation to this franchise. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that if an owner had a right to go into the lodge, notwithstanding that the lodge was occupied by the lodge keeper, the latter would not have the vote.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had an Amendment to move in line 20 of the clause. He was not by any means clear, notwithstanding the long discussion that had taken place, whether the intention of the qualifying words—
    "Not inhabited by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment,"
    was to restrict the vote to one person, or whether their insertion was intended to prevent the exercise of any undue influence on the part of the employer upon the person to whom the vote was given. But, as the clause stood, it would appear that the large number of 20,000 female farmers who occupied farmhouses in England would not be enfranchised; and not only that, but no one residing in them would have the privilege of voting. ["Quite right !"] Some hon. Gentleman said that was quite right; but if it were right that the female farmers occupying should not be allowed to vote, was it also just that the house itself, under a system of household suffrage, should be disqualified? He suggested to the Committee that the word "male" should be inserted before the word "person," in line 20, so that if the farm-house were disfranchised by the fact of its being occupied by a female farmer, it might be enfranchised in respect of one person in the service of the occupier.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "any," insert the word "male."—(Lord, John Manners.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'male' be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought this a very unsatisfactory moment for
    1386
    raising this question. The female franchise might be right or wrong; but surely it would be a most extraordinary method of recognizing the political rights of women to say that any woman residing in her own house should in this way have the franchise. It was evident that that would be a most unsatisfactory course to take at that moment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it might be desirable, or not, that a lady residing in her own house should be able to nominate someone else to vote in her place; but how that could be called woman suffrage he could not understand.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he protested against the interpretation which the Prime Minister placed upon this proposal. Instead of being a proposal to insert female suffrage, it proceeded on the assumption that the female suffrage was not to be granted. He took the Bill as he found it, and the avowed intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Attorney General; and, it being the intention of the Government that female suffrage should not be granted, there would be injustice done unless some such plan as this was adopted.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it would be better that the question of female suffrage, of which Notice had been given, should be discussed at large, rather than that any assumption should be made now as to the judgment of the Committee upon it. He was quite ready to enter into the question when the proper time came; but this was not the proper time.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not see that this Amendment raised the question of woman suffrage. It said, if any person occupied or inhabited a house by virtue of a certain office—say a housekeeper or other servant—that person should have a vote in respect of that office, provided that the owner under whom he served did not himself inhabit the house. If the owner did inhabit the house, he did not lose his vote, because he would, as owner, have a vote; but if that person happened to be a female, she would not at present have a vote; and if, at the same time, the servant or person who had the service franchise was to lose that, the house would be altogether disfranchised. What the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) asked was, that they should not

    1387
    disfranchise the house entirely in such a case; but if they did not give the vote to the female who occupied it, then it should be given to the person who owned it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was introducing an entirely new thing into this debate. Now, it appeared, they were to enfranchise a house. He had great sympathy with a disfranchised house, but none with an enfranchised house. If they gave the franchise, the house would look after itself; but he protested against the assumption which lay at the bottom of this conversation— that it was the house, and not the person, who was to be enfranchised.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the heading of Clause 2, he would see "Extension of the household and lodger franchise." It did not say man and woman, or lodger franchise; and what he (Lord John Manners) held was, that there was no reason why 20,000 farm-houses should be disfranchised because they happened to be occupied by women. All through these debates the right hon. Gentleman had been most eloquent in his denunciation of almost every Amendment proposed, because he had said it was a disfranchising Amendment. Now, he (Lord John Manners) tendered the right hon. Gentleman an enfranchising Amendment purely and exclusively; and he pointed to one particular class of people who, to the number of 20,000, would be disfranchised as to their houses. He would not go into the case of other houses which would be disfranchised, unless this Amendment was accepted; but with respect to that particular class of people, as to whose capacity as capable and fit citizens there could be no question, he tendered this Amendment as a proof and recognition of the right hon. Gentleman's extreme anxiety to extend the franchise as far as possible. If the right hon. Gentleman rejected the Amendment pro tanto, he would be sustaining a disfranchising enactment in its place.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked why, if the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) wished to enfranchise a house or a woman who occupied it, should he not enfranchise the house of an infant?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to make it clear what they meant by a service franchise. In the existing franchises there were an occupation franchise and a lodger franchise; and now the Government proposed to create a new franchise to be called a service franchise. He moved this Amendment partly to ask the Government to assent to his words; and, if they could not do that, to ask them to state more clearly the object of the service franchise. At present there was no doubt lodgers in a rated house were entitled to the franchise; but now they were creating a franchise by which a man who lodged in a house which he got through his service was to be entitled to the franchise. In such a house there might be a number of other persons not in any way associated with that service; and, therefore, he proposed this Amendment in order that, whoever occupied a dwelling house by virtue of any office or service, other persons should not get the lodger franchise. As they were creating a new franchise it was advisable to define it, so that hereafter there might not arise those legal difficulties which unquestionably had arisen in defining the lodger franchise. The point he wished to raise was whether or not the lodger franchise should be given on a service franchise.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after "employment," insert "or by any other than his own family."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his meaning was quite distinct; but the noble Lord was quite justified in raising the point. The lodger franchise could not, in his opinion, be grafted on to the service franchise; but if the noble Lord could show that any results would ensue which the Government thought could not ensue, they would be glad to consider the matter.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he knew of a case where a curate lodged with the keeper. The keeper had a vote, and the curate would also have a vote.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that the curate had separate rooms probably.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLadmitted that to be the case; but said it was an instance of the lodger franchise being grafted on the service franchise.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the Committee had discussed the service franchise; but there was another class of persons who would be enfranchised by this clause—namely, Wesleyan Methodist ministers. There were several hundreds of these, and they occupied dwelling houses by virtue of their office. The house was part of the stipend, for they lived for three years at one place and were then removed. He was afraid that unless this Amendment was introduced they would not be enfranchised, because there was this limitation in the clause—
    "And the dwelling house is not occupied by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment."
    The Amendment would meet the case of the Dissenting ministers.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that there would be this objection—that if a Dissenting minister already having a vote were to let part of his house to a lodger, the occupier would be deprived of his franchise.
    MR. R. B. MARTINsaid, that by the Amendment they were going to take away the franchise from persons occupying premises where the premises were habitually also occupied by a caretaker. He might have nothing to do with the overseer or the clerk; but, at the same time, he was the inhabitant of the house, and if the Amendment were adopted, all that large class of occupying clerks whom it was proposed to enfranchise would be struck off.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that suppose a lodge was given to a gardener, and the lodge contained a large number of rooms. He received that house because of his service; but if the lodge belonged to a clergyman, and he stipulated that a room worth more than £10 should be given to his curate, would not the curate have his claim as a lodger? The curate paid nothing, because the clergyman stipulated with the gardener for a room to be given to the curate, worth £10. Surely, then, the curate would have his right as a lodger?
    MR. GRANTHAMthought the hon. and learned Attorney General could
    1390
    scarcely have understood the point raised by the noble Lord. He stated that the lodger franchise could not be added to the service franchise; and where there was a service franchise there could not be a lodger franchise. From the language of the Act of 1867, coupled with the language of this Bill, it appeared that there was nothing to prevent every single person who had the service franchise also having the lodger franchise.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied that, if the occupier let the lodging as a separate occupation, the lodger's right would be the same as if he lodged with a freeholder.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the question raised was not whether the lodger should be enfranchised, but whether the voter should be disfranchised because he took a lodger. That was the case of a head gardener who took someone to lodge with him. There was no reason why the original lodger should be disfranchised, and he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether, under this clause, both the service franchise man and the lodger would have the franchise?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the lodger would have a vote as an ordinary lodger, in respect to the rooms he occupied as a lodger. The occupation of the remainder of the house would give the service vote.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had been answered. The clause seemed to imply that the man who was to have the franchise was the man who served someone; and if the words "under whom such man may serve" were inserted, it seemed to him that the point of the hon. Member would be answered.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that if any of the difficulties that occurred to him forced themselves upon him more between now and the Report, the Government would consider any Amendment he might bring-forward.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he proposed to move, on behalf of his noble Friend (Earl Percy), at the end of the clause—

    1391
    "Any man serving in Her Majesty's sea or land forces, and occupying separate quarters in any building belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the Crown, shall be deemed to be an inhabitant occupier under this section.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)stated that there was no disqualification upon a man serving in the sea or land forces, and the point as to the occupation of quarters in Grown buildings would be provided for.
    MR. GORSTasked whether the clause would cover such persons as Dockyard officers?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied that there would be no disqualification upon such persons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) one more question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that while the occupier of a dwelling-house would have a vote in respect of his occupation, a lodger would equally have a vote; but the clause merely said that where a man himself occupied a house by virtue of service he should have a vote. This stipulation of rent paid by service only applied to the occupier, and not to the lodger who paid his lodging also by service. Unless some alteration was made, the lodger paying by service would not have the same privilege as the man who occupied the house.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had had several communications from people in the country in support of this contention, and, no doubt, the Prime Minister had also had many, especially in the case of curates and ushers in schools, who were supplied with lodgings which were comprehended in their salaries. If these people could not be included in the franchise, it would be very hard upon them, for they were people who ought to be considered as specially entitled to vote, and they were not covered by any clause at present in the Bill. If some provision could be made for giving them a vote it would be an advantage.
    MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD, who had given Notice that he would, at the end of the clause, propose to add these words—
    1392
    "And, notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, no disability shall hereafter attach, with respect to voting, to any member of the Constabulary Forces of the United Kingdom,"
    said, that, in conformity with the ruling of the Chairman, he should bring this proposal up subsequently in the form of a separate clause; but he should like to know at what stage of the Bill he could move the insertion of such a clause?
    MR. GLADSTONE: At the end of the Bill in Committee.
    MR. GORSTasked whether the hon. and learned Attorney General would reply to the questions which had been put by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had been anxious to get a definition of lodgers; but he did not think any real difficulty would arise. A person need not pay rent, if it could be shown that the rooms he occupied were above the yearly value of £10. If the lodger were in the house in a capacity which provided him with his rooms in return for his service, he would be entitled to vote. But he (the Attorney General) could not say how it would apply in the case of a person serving so as to entitle him to a lodging; but having a superior in the house who was not the owner, and who occupied a position above him. However, he would consider the matter before the Report, and see whether any difficulty would arise.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to know how the Bill would operate in such cases as that of the gatekeeper of the Constitution Hill Arch, where there were a principal park keeper and half-a-dozen other occupants above the annual value of £10? How many of them would be entitled to vote?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Only one—the principal keeper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 (Restriction on fagot votes).
    MR. ELTONmoved an Amendment to insert, after the word "voters," in line 1, page 2, the words, "and persons at the time of the passing of this Act entitled to be registered as voters,"

    1393
    He said the object of the Amendment was simply to meet a case which had come within the range of his own experience of a person who was a rent-charger for a large amount, but who was in such a position that he could not get on to the Register in time for the current revision. He suggested whether such a person ought not to be taken into account and given the benefit of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 1, after "voters," insert "and persons at the time of the passing of this Act entitled to be registered as voters."—(Mr. Elton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he must ask for some explanation of the grounds on which the clause was proposed. The first paragraph of the sub-section (1.) appeared to him to be a most objectionable one. They had been informed, since the Bill was introduced, that persons who lived in mud cabins, and others who clearly paid a merely nominal consideration for their dwellings or holdings, were to have votes.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I might suggest that the subject of the clause should not be discussed just now—it would arise after the Amendments are disposed of. I remember once being extremely anxious, when in charge of a Bill, to state the general subject of a clause and its bearing and effect, and to commence with its discussion; but I was put down by a Predecessor of yours, Sir, in the Chair, and ruled out of Order.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought that perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman. (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would postpone any observations he might have to make until he (the Attorney General) had answered his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton). It was desired, in passing this Bill, to provide certain safeguards, and one of those safeguards was that where there was a sub-division only one person should be entitled to vote. But while imposing these safeguards, the Government had thought it right, following precedent, to preserve the right to vote claimed by all persons upon the Register. Now, his hon. and learned Friend wished them to go further, and not only to preserve the vested rights of
    1394
    those who were already on the Register, but to perpetuate the system of these rent-charge voters and sub-divided votes by saving the rights, not only of those who were on the Register, but of those who were at present entitled to go on the Register. He would put a case, which was not a suppositions case, but one well known to his hon. and learned Friend. In 40 years time a man of 61 might come forward and say—"Forty years ago I had a rent-charge subdivided into 41 portions, in the Western Division of the county of Somerset; and having that I have come to claim that I may be put upon the Register, so that I may record my vote."
    MR. ELTON: The voters in question would be on the Register long before the 40 years elapsed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes; but a forty-second share might not be. The man might say—"I neglected to register 40 years ago, when I should have been entitled to be put on; and although my neighbours are not now entitled to vote for sub-divided rent-charges, I claim my right now." Was it reasonable that such a case as that should be met? He really thought his hon. and learned Friend was asking too much from the generosity of the Committee.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he merely put it forward as a suggestion. He was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The next Amendment on the Paper, which stood in the name of Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON, proposed to insert, after the words "with reference to elections," in page 2, line 3, the following sub-section:—
    "A man shall be entitled to vote in any county or borough election, whore the place of polling is more than three miles from his residence, by voting paper, in the same way as votes may be recorded in an election for a University,"
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, would not be in Order.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Oh the point of Order, Sir, I must call your attention to the fact that this Amendment is to enable non-resident voters to vote, and that the clause itself is in tended to restrict and to alter—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have stated that, in my opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Member has no reference to the clause.
    MR. M'LAREN, in rising to move the insertion of the following sub-section, after line 4, in page 2:—
    "(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in more than one county or borough, and if, but for this sub-section, he would be entitled to be registered as a voter for more than one county or borough, he may elect for which county or borough he shall be registered as a voter,"
    said, he should take the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General as in favour of this Amendment. It was, no doubt, the intention of the Government to make a compromise on the question of fagot voters; but the compromise which they had adopted would not satisfy the Radical Party in this country.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Sir, I rise to Order. If my Amendment is out of Order, this Amendment, proposed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren), which is the converse of it, must be out of Order too. I should like to have your ruling on the point.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford is perfectly in Order.
    MR. M'LAREN, continuing, said, that if the Bill passed in its present form, there could be no possible objection to a man having a vote in every county in England. Where the principle held good of giving a man voting power according to his wealth, as was done in many countries, there might be some reason for such a state of things; but, in this country, why should a man have votes in 20 counties, when he was only permitted to use one in each? A vote used to be a thing of considerable value, when there were contests in counties; and in Scotland one or two votes had been known to turn an election; but under this Bill, which would increase the electorate so tremendously, a vote would be of very small value; and when travelling was so expensive, a man who had a vote in more than one county would have not a privilege, but a burden. Under these circumstances, he had put his Amendment on the Paper. He did not know whether the Government would accept it; but it was, at all events, an Amendment in the direction
    1396
    of Liberalism, and, whatever might be its fate now, he could only say that those Liberals with whom he had been accustomed to work outside that House would never rest until legislation in that direction was accomplished.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after line 4, to insert the following sub-section:—"(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in more than one county or borough, and if, but for this subsection, he would be entitled to be registered as a voter for more than one county or borough, he may elect for which county or borough he shall be registered as a voter."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the course which we take with regard to this Amendment has no exclusive reference to the merits of the Amendment itself. we announced, at the time of the introduction of this Bill, that in making so grave a proposal as the enfranchisement of a number of our fellow-citizens estimated at 2,000,000, we deemed it a capital part of our duty so to adjust all the conditions of our proposition as to give it the best possible chance of passing into law. Now, among those conditions, we had to consider, first and foremost, the crowded state of the Business of the House, and the enormous facilities which that state of Business gives for opposition. We then, of course, had to consider that we should have to contend with the susceptibilities, on the one hand, of those who are jealous of all the privileges which property enjoys in this country, and who are anxious to extend them, and, on the other hand, with the desires of those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) are anxious to push popular privileges and equality to the furthest point that can be reached. We came to the conclusion that under this state of facts, if we were in earnest in our desire to pass the Bill, we had but one course to take, to set ourselves steadily against all changes in the Bill in whatever direction they might be aimed to alter the basis of the measure. We do not pretend, Sir, to offer a perfect system of franchise—we find that to be entirely out of the reach of possibility. We might have laid an elaborate Bill upon the Table, dealing with each and all of these subjects in a multitude of divisions, and we might have been able to

    1397
    boast of a very scientific measure; but if we had done so we should have been betraying the interests intrusted to our charge. A simple, and even a rough method of dealing with the subject was a matter of absolute necessity under the conditions of the case if we were to have a practical end and aim in view. I am quite sure my hon. Friend will understand the spirit in which I make these observations. I do not wish in the least degree to limit the field of discussion for such propositions, and I do not find it necessary to intimate any opinion upon them myself. But my belief is that the security of property and the privileges of classes in this country do not really rest upon certain artificial advantages which they possess under the present structure of our laws, but upon the general good-will of the community. I have no bigoted or extreme sentiments on a proposition like this; but I put it to my hon. Friend with all respect that we, who are very anxious to pass this Bill, cannot afford to discuss these propositions. Perfection is not within our reach; if we go to work in that spirit we shall infallibly fail in it altogether. We have in view a great practical object—the meeting of the desires and necessities and providing for the interests of vast numbers of men who desire the franchise and who are qualified to enjoy it. We must go straight to our point, and decline to deviate either to the right or to the left for the purpose of introducing theoretical perfection. We do not want to prejudice discussion in any way whatever; but we earnestly beg the Committee, and especially those Members who, like my hon. Friend, are anxious for the Bill to pass, to waive their efforts for the present, and to reserve them for another opportunity, resting upon this—that all these are questions which anybody can raise when they like—I cannot undertake to shut the door against them for ever—and relying on it that if they are just and needful the enlargement of the franchise which we are now making will not tend to delay their adoption.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, there was one anomaly involved in the Amendment, and that was that, if the Amendment were passed, the only persons in the country who would be left in possession of dual votes would be the graduates of Universities, who were not
    1398
    mentioned in the Amendment at all. They would, of course, have a vote for their Universities, and they might also possess the franchise for some county or borough. He only mentioned this to show how crudely the Amendment had been drawn. He would not enter into any argument on the subject; but he trusted that the Amendment would not conciliate any support on either side of the House.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should have been anxious to see the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford adopted if it were not that he was still more anxious to see the Bill passed. What had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister carried great weight among hon. Members who sat below the Gangway; and he (Mr. Dillwyn) would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for (Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) that he should withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought that if the people against whom, the Amendment was aimed were not to be allowed to vote, they should be honestly disfranchised, and not be disfranchised dishonestly by a side-wind. The Bill should not be arranged so as to make it impossible for them to vote. If they ought to vote, they ought to enjoy every facility they had at present. But the fact was that the whole of the freeholders of England were to be swamped, and to lose their legitimate influence in Parliamentary elections, through the bringing into the electorate of enormous numbers of persons who had no interests whatever in common with the freeholders. That was the position to which this Bill would reduce the constituencies. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) said—"Get rid of all the freeholders who are non-resident altogether;" and that, no doubt, was a fair and honest view to take, and one which ought to be either combated or accepted. But the Prime Minister and the Government would not do either—he simply put all sorts of limitations and restrictions in the way of those who held this most ancient and honourable freehold franchise, which was by far the most independent of any. This, surely, was not a time to lessen the influence of the owners of property in the electorate. The works of such men as Mr. Henry George had already sown much seed,

    1399
    which would soon grow up; and he (Mr. Leighton) would have thought that this was a time when the influence of those who held this old freehold franchise should not be destroyed, but should be very much strengthened in the electorate. The answer which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to the Amendment was most unsatisfactory, especially as the right hon. Gentleman had told them that there would be plenty of opportunity in future years for re-opening this question. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had thought that this was to be a final settlement of the question for ever so long—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had put himself forward as a sort of finality Minister—but now the right Gentleman said—"Oh, dear no; I do not approve of the Bill at all; it is anything but perfect; and I hope you will take the opportunity, as soon as it is passed, of trying to amend it." That was hardly a satisfactory position to be taken by the Prime Minister of England when bringing forward a Bill which was to enlarge the electorate of the whole country.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he cordially agreed with the intention of the Amendment. Nobody was more firmly persuaded than he was that our electoral system would not be thoroughly established until the principle of "one man, one vote," had been accepted. But, at the same time, he fully recognized what an enormous advantage this Bill would give as it stood. Therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) would act upon the request of the Prime Minister, and leave the Bill as it was without any further alteration, and that the same principle would be acted upon with regard to all other Amendments, Those hon. Members who, like himself, hoped for still further improvements in the electoral system of the country would do well to wait for that further opportunity which the Prime Minister had spoken of, and which he (Mr. Morley) felt quite sure would come some day or other.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished, before the Amendment was withdrawn, to call attention to the marginal note attached to the clause, which was "restriction in fagot votes." He had a special purpose in this. In
    1400
    the first place, he wanted to know what was meant by "a fagot vote." The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) had moved an Amendment, providing that one man should only have one vote. The Prime Minister, on the introduction, or on the second reading of the Bill, gave them some of his own personal experiences of what the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to call "fagot votes" in Mid Lothian, and told them of a very ugly building which qualified 45 persons. Now, he (Lord George Hamilton) had seen a still uglier building—he had a photograph of it in a drawer at home — and that building qualified no less than 205 persons. The history of that building was somewhat peculiar, and made it quite an interesting matter to know why it was that the hon. Member for Stafford, who came from Mid Lothian, should propose this principle of "one man, one vote." When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was standing for Mid Lothian, a number of charges were brought against the Conservatives of creating fagot votes, and a rumour was circulated that a most distinguished Member of the Liberal Party had erected a huge tenement just outside the burgh of Edinburgh to qualify 205 voters who would support the right hon. Gentleman. He (Lord George Hamilton) went to visit that building, because he could not believe that the story was true, and he went late at night. He saw double gangs of men at work—working by night as well as by day to complete the building within the statutory period. It was obvious to everyone that the tenement, when put up, would be perfectly uninhabitable; but it was put up in order that 205 persons might have a claim at the next revision, and might attempt to come upon the register. The learned Gentleman who supported these claims was the brother of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren)—a Gentleman who, for services to the Liberal Party, of which this particular instance was an important item, had since been appointed a Judge. He (Lord George Hamilton) was not speaking from hearsay, for the whole of these transactions were before a Court of Law. It was one of the most extraordinary and one of the most fraudulent transactions that ever came out, because the men who qualified were men who had

    1401
    had money advanced to them for the purpose of procuring the qualification, which money they were never asked to repay. The result was not encouraging; for everyone connected with the tenement had lost money or been ruined; and, now that the whole transaction was over, down came the brother of the Gentleman who originated this gigantic fagot-voting machine and proposed that hereafter the principle of the franchise should be that one man should only have one vote. He (Lord George Hamilton) must say that the whole thing appeared to him to be a piece of humbug. It was all very well for the Prime Minister, after that, to stand up in this House and talk of what he termed "the wholesale creation of fagot votes in Mid Lothian." What he (Lord George Hamilton) had stated was an incontrovertible fact, and anyone who disputed it need only consult the records of the Law Courts of Scotland, where it was all set forth.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would endeavour to answer the question which the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had put. The noble Lord had asked what constituted a fagot vote, and he gave the history of a building erected for living purposes. The persons living in that building would not constitute fagot voters; but they would each be entitled to vote. If, as the noble Lord said, the building was erected as a habitation for working men, who could only reside in one place, those men would be perfectly legitimate and proper voters, and not what were called fagot voters. But he would tell the noble Lord what would be a fagot vote. If a rich landowner put up a large building of which there were only nominal occupiers—if the persons in question, relatives or dependents, were never to live on the property, but to reside in other places, they would be fagot voters, because their votes would be colourably created for the purpose of opposing the candidature of some particular man or men. If a man were to put up a large building, with the bonâ fide object of providing habitation for working men, he would be doing that which was perfectly legal. He (the Attorney General) had no desire to enter into personal matters; but if the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) desired particular instances, he could give them.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Perhaps it would not be well to say more about fagot votes; but everyone must remember that the first great advocate for the creation of fagot votes was the late Mr. Cobden. In a celebrated speech of his he said—"The more men you can put on the Register the better." That was his object when he had one particular point to carry. No one could possibly have supposed for a moment that the petty dwellings which were put up in certain places were really not meant for fagot votes. I rise, however, to address myself to a different matter. I listened with surprise and a great deal of alarm to what fell from the Prime Minister. What said the Prime Minister on this particular Amendment; what had fallen from him on several occasions in the course of the present discussion? His first object was to pass this Bill as it is. Well, I know there are a great many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who may have the same object; but, at the same time, due consideration ought to be paid to special points which are raised, especially such a one as this, which is of vital importance, and everybody knows it is—no one knows it better than the hon. Gentleman who has introduced it (Mr. M'Laren); because it is a question whether the old freeholders throughout the country are to be enfranchised or not. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) knows perfectly well that his object is to obtain a residential franchise, and nothing else. That is the point put before the Prime Minister, and that is the point which the hon. and learned Attorney General raised before the country two years ago. The hon. and learned Attorney General said he could not defend the dual vote anywhere. Although men might have property in several counties, he could not defend their having more than one vote in one place. That I took, being at that time in the country, the opportunity of saying was the disfranchisement of property. The hon. and learned Attorney General went further. He said—"We must apply this case to the Universities; and if the question was raised about the Universities, he did not see how he could defend the present system; he did not see how he could defend it any more than he could defend the right of freeholders." That I took, at the time, the

    1403
    opportunity of saying was the disfranchisement of learning, as well as the disfranchisement of property. No one can doubt that, at that time, the hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was put forward as a pilot balloon to see how far the country would accept this question of Reform; and it was quite evident from the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that when he came to discuss the question in Lancashire he found that public opinion was so strong he dared not adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he put forward as his own opinion—which everyone knows perfectly well was his own opinion—that this question of disfranchising the county 40 s. freeholder was one which the country would not accept; and ever since that speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the question had disappeared. The point that I have to complain of is this—and the House has a right to complain of it—that when this very vital principle is raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren), the Prime Minister will not venture to express an opinion upon it. All the right hon. Gentleman says is—"This must be put off until a future period; pass this Bill, and then we will see whether we can pass that other principle or not." What the Government want to do is this—they want to pass this Bill. We had it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who some time ago said that the wisest course would be, in a matter of Reform, to pass the Franchise Bill, then to dissolve, and then have redistribution. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, but that is true; that was the expressed opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. That I believe to be the view of the Government. That I believe to be the desire of the Government, and I believe that the Government, if they possibly can manage it, mean to pass this Bill; then to dissolve; then, if they are returned to power again, to bring in a Redistribution Bill. ["Question!"] The question I am raising is one of vital importance. The Prime Minister will not give his opinion upon any one of these points raised; and the natural result is that we look with suspicion upon this Bill; we look with suspicion upon the views of the Government with regard to this Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot admire either the courtesy or the logic of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross). What is the specimen of the courtesy that he has given us? We have uniformly declared in this House, at every stage of this Bill, that our desire is to pass the Franchise Bill; that having passed the Franchise Bill we wish to deal with the subjects of redistribution and of registration, and having, in that way, completed, not according to a theoretical but a practical fashion, our plan of Parliamentary Reform, then to dissolve Parliament. The right nho. Gentleman, with the courtesy all his own, tells us he does not believe a word of what we say, and that he is convinced that our intention is directly the opposite of our words. Well, Sir, I say that is a kind of discourtesy, and a degree of discourtesy, very unusual in this House; very unusual in those who have held high Office under the Crown; a mode of proceeding I have never adopted towards him, or towards any of those who sit near him. I have always received with amplest credit the account that they gave of their own intentions. I leave the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter to be considered by himself, so far as he may deem it a worthy subject of reflection. Now, as to the right hon. Gentleman's logic, that is a hard case. One would suppose, to have listened to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was in some sharp conflict with the Government. Instead of that, what are we about? We are about opposing, and getting rid of a Motion of which he entirely disapproves, and which he declares, if I understand him rightly, would be vital to the established state of things in this country; and yet, when we are engaged in that, instead of encouraging our humble efforts, and patting us on the back, and dealing mildly with our defects, the right hon. Gentleman rises to his highest state, and fiercely denounces us as if we were in the sharpest conflict upon the most vital question. What is the complaint? The right hon. Gentleman's complaint is that I have declined to give an opinion upon the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren). Yes, Sir; I have declined to give an opinion upon it, and I intend to go on declining to give an opinion upon Amend-

    1405
    ments which, we do not wish to see made to the Bill. And what is the right hon. Gentleman's view? I suppose, in recommending to me a particular course, he intends, at any rate, not to suppose I am goose enough to adopt a course that I know to be fatal to the Bill; and the course he recommends to me is that upon all Motions which hon. Gentlemen put down, raising every imaginable question with respect to the franchise, and with respect to the vote and other matters, I must give my opinion upon them, although I do not wish to have them introduced into the Bill, and entreat the Committee not to discuss them. That is the logic, and that is the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman, and that, I presume, is the mode in which he would conduct a Bill through this House. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of this debate to cast a slur upon the memory of Mr. Cobden. Mr. Cobden did not seek to multiply sham votes or non-resident votes; but he sought to afford easy means of enfranchisement to men whom he thought were competent to exercise the franchise, and of those he said—"The more you put on the Register the better." But this is not a question of putting more men on the Register. The reference I made to what was going on in Mid Lothian was quite a different matter; the reference I made was the making as few as possible do the work of many by investing them with unreal non-residential, and perfectly shadowy proprietary interests in every county where their votes can be made effective for the purpose of turning the scale between the different Parties. The distinction is palpable between the case in Mid Lothian, to which the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) referred, and the case I referred to before. The case I referred to before was the case of the creation of these sham proprietary votes, the case to which the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) referred was the case of an attempt to create a great number of real and true residential qualifications which were to be offered for sale to persons able and disposed to buy them. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) referred to precautions as to which I cannot follow him; I presume they are such precautions as would happen in every place where builders became bankrupt, or where any element of fraud was in-
    1406
    troduced into such transactions. Now, the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) bore no approach to this matter, because all the hon. Gentleman desires is the enfranchisement of the people upon the principle of their being supplied with property qualifications to exercise their vote in the county where they resided.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is very sensitive as to anything that looks like a suspicion as to what the intentions of the Government may be with regard to future proceedings in the matter of the representation of the people. Now, what I wish to point out to the Committee, and to the right, hon. Gentleman is this—that he himself, and his Government, have themselves to thank for the difficulties in which they are placed, and for the misrepresentations to which they have been exposed. What is our position? We are dealing with a subject of the utmost importance, involving very large interests, and involving a complete recast of the representative system of this country, and we are not informed of what the views of the Government are upon the whole subject; and whenever we come to any point which lies outside the four corners of the Bill, we are forbidden to discuss it, because we are told it belongs to another branch of the subject. We cannot help remembering that we have speeches made all over the country by Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman—important Members of the Government—calculated to cause a good deal of alarm; and if we are somewhat alarmed at the reticence which is observed upon matters of such importance, I must say it is really owing to the manner in which the Government have brought forward this measure.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, it was not his duty, and he was sure the Committee would not wish him, to follow the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) as to what constituted, or what did not constitute, a fagot vote. If he were entitled to do so, he would ask the noble Lord to explain how it was that many gentlemen, many noble Lords of the name of Hamilton, voted for a cabbage garden in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh? His (Mr. M'Laren's) Amendment that afternoon had, no doubt, been received with disfavour; but he was persuaded that the Prime Minister and many

    1407
    of his Colleagues would not seriously object if it were pressed to a Division. He might remark, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), that if he thought the withdrawal of this Amendment would advance this Bill, or insure its passing, he should be the first man to assent to the adoption of that course. He appealed to the Prime Minister and his Colleagues if, in their experience, it was not a fact that Bills which were adopted without any amendment, or attempt at amendment of any kind, did not very often meet with an untoward fate in "another place?" It seemed to him that, unless questions in which the Radical Party took an interest were pressed forward in the House, those questions never would come to an issue at all before Parliament and the country. In his opinion, a Bill had a very much better chance of passing if it was found that a large number of persons wore anxious to make it stronger and more drastic; and, therefore, under the circumstances, he intended to press his Amendment to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 235: Majority 192.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: In accordance with the statement I made on Friday, and again to-day, I beg now to move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman would observe that the Bill had made very fair progress to-night. Nineteen Amendments had been disposed of, and two clauses would have been disposed of, but for the unfortunate contest which sprang up between the two Front Benches. But fair progress had been made, and he wished to ask the Prime Minister, in view of his statement to-day, that he intended to take this Bill again on the first Friday, at a Morning Sitting after the holidays, whether it would not be possible, without embarrassing the arrangements of the Government seriously, to take the
    1408
    Bill, not on the Friday, but on the Monday after the holidays? That would be very convenient to many hon. Members who were anxious to assist the Government in making progress.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would consider the question, and state the decision of the Government to-morrow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  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.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: It is more than four weeks since, at the conclusion of my Financial Statement, I dealt briefly with the proposals of the Government in connection with the reduction of interest on the National Debt; and I think it would be well, so long a time having elapsed, if I were to repeat a part of the Statement I then made, and give some further details in explanation of the plan. I have had one advantage in so long a time having elapsed since the original suggestion of my plan; for I am aware of the criticisms which have been addressed to certain conditions of the measure, and I also have gained information as to the manner in which it has been received in the City, where, of course, public opinion is directed closely to questions of this kind. With these advantages I will now state as clearly as I can what are the outlines of my plan, and I will refer especially to one or two points of criticism which I can now deal with better than I could before. Now, what is the proposal? The amount of Three per Cent Stock at the present time is some £612,600,000, and we propose to commence the conversion of that Three per Cent Stock into Two and Three-quarter per Cent and Two and a-Half per Cent Stocks. At present we do not propose to apply towards that conversion any compulsory process whatever. I will explain later on what the compulsory powers are under the existing Statutes, and how possibly they will be at some future time applied, but at the present moment we

    1409
    only ask Parliament to authorize us to make offers to present holders of Stocks—which they may or may not accept at their own goodwill. As to the Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, we propose to offer to the present holders of Three per Cent Stock £108 of that Stock. As to the Two and Three-quarter per Cent Stock we propose to offer them £102 of that Stock, so that all the holders of Three per Cent Stock will have the option as soon as practicable, after the Bill is passed, of receiving £102 of Two and Three-quarter per Cent Stock, or £108 of Two and a-Half Stock. I do not expect that so large an amount of the Two and Three-quarter per Cent Stock will be taken as of the Two and a-Half per Cent Stock. Some holders will doubtless prefer it. It will be agreeable to those who prefer a moderate reduction of interest with a moderate increase of principal to a larger increase of principal and a larger reduction of interest. But we believe that there will be a lesser application for the Two and Three-quarter per Cent than for the Two and a-Half per Cent, and that the main reduction will be made into the Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, which, we hope, will be largely increased, and which, as I have said before, is already considered in the City the Stock of the future. The House will observe that in Clause 2 of the Bill we ask for power to carry out this operation, from time to time, within two years. Our object in doing that is that we do not expect that in the first instance anything like the whole of the present Three per Cent £600,000,000 will be converted into Two and a-Half or Three and Three-quarter per Cent Stock; but we ask Parliament to allow us to reserve to ourselves power to make after the first offer a second offer, when the Two and a-Half per Cent Stock will have obtained a certain magnitude, and when it will be possible to repeat the operation we propose now.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Does the scheme apply to all the three denominations of Three per Cent Stock?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am going to explain that. We propose to make an offer to the holders of the three classes of Stock—Consols, New, and Reduced Three per Cents. The £600,000,000 includes all these three Stocks. If we should make a second offer, of course it
    1410
    will not be expected to be so good as the one we propose to make now. The effect of the first offer will, in my opinion, be to appreciate the Two and-Half per Cent Stock; and if we find that later on it is desirable to make a second optional offer to the remaining shareholders of Three per Cent Stock, they must not expect that that offer will be either at the rate of £108, or £102. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not?] Because we expect the Two and a-Half per Cent Stock to be appreciated by the first operation. Then I ask the House and the public to take note that in addition to the conversion of £100 Three per Cent into £108 Two-and-a-Half per Cent—and I will deal especially with that offer—those who take advantage of the offer will have one advantage, which has already been recognized as a great been by the present holders of Two-and-a-Half per Cents — namely, that payments of dividends will be quarterly instead of half-yearly. For instance, those whose dividends are now payable in July and January will have quarterly dividends payable in April and October, as well as the two other quarter days; and in that way they will have the advantage of half their dividends being anticipated by three months. The Reduced and New Three per Cents will obtain the same advantage. As to these, we propose that the dividend payable in October next shall be a whole half-year's dividend, and that in January next they shall take half the dividend falling due in the following April; and I will explain later on how that would operate with reference to the charges for dividends falling due in the first financial year. But, postponing that for a moment, I come to the general effect of the proposed conversion on the interest on the Debt. I said before that the exchange into Two-and-Three-quarters per Cent Stock will not be quite as advantageous to the public. But I also said that, from the information we had received, I did not expect that so many would exchange into Two-and-Three-quarters Stock as to Two-and-a-Half Stock; and, assuming for the moment that the whole conversion would ultimately be made into this Stock at no better terms than 108 for 100 Three per Cents, the gross saving of interest on the £600.000,000 will be £1,800,000 a-year. But I stated last month that

    1411
    we proposed to establish a Sinking Fund to pay off the nominal addition to the capital of the Debt; and, assuming that it is invested in Two and a-Half per Cents at par for 50 years, the Sinking Fund necessarily required will be £490,000 a-year, so that the net reduction of the annual interest on the Debt, setting aside this sum to pay off the additional nominal capital, will be £1,310,000 a-year, when the whole of the £600,000,000 had been converted. If Two and a-Half per Cents are purchased at under par for this Fund, the term will be proportionately less than 50 years. In my opinion, it is right to set aside that Sinking Fund of £490,000 a-year, and not let the taxpayer have the benefit of the entire £1,800,000 a-year; but I am bound to say that in both the conversions of modern times in which a larger amount of Stock of a lower denomination was given for a smaller amount of Stock of a higher denomination, a Sinking Fund was not insisted upon. In 1822 the Five per Cents were reduced to Four per Cents by giving to the owners of the Five per Cents £105 of the new Four per Cent Stock, but no Sinking Fund was established for the increased capital; and in the same way, when my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister in 1853 proposed the conversion of certain Three per Cents into Two and a-Half per Cent Stock at £110 instead of the £108, which I now propose, he did not, at first, accompany that with any proposal for a Sinking Fund, although ultimately Five per Cent was so applied. But in my humble judgment it would be wise and prudent for Parliament, when increasing the nominal amount of Debt, to set aside at the same time a Sinking Fund; and, although the taxpayer gains less now, the operation is equitable for posterity. But let me point out that so great has been the recent reduction in the amount of the Funded Debt, that even if the whole of the £600,000,000 of Three per Cent Stock were converted into £648,000,000 of Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, the Debt will stand considerably below the amount last year. The amount which was written off the Funded Debt last year under the plan of Terminable Annuities which the House adopted was £72,000,000, so that this increase of £48,000,000 would still leave the nominal Funded Debt £24,000,000 less than it was in 1883.
    1412
    At this point, perhaps, it would be convenient that I should explain how we propose to deal with the quarterly payment arrangement, which in the first year would, to a certain extent, add to the amount required for paying the interest of the Debt. So far as Consols are concerned it will make no difference. Consols are payable in July and January, and the financial year ends on the last day of March. If you anticipate half the July dividend by a quarter's payment, it will be made on the 5th of April, and therefore in the same year as the July payment, and if you similarly anticipate half the January dividend, it will be made in October, also in the same financial year; so that by converting into quarterly interest Stocks, the interest of which is payable in January and July, you do not affect in any way the charge on the financial year. That, however, is not the case with respect to Stocks, the interest of which is payable in April and October, and five quarterly payments will be made in the first year. Now, the total amount of Reduced and New Three per Cents is about £267,000,000. What we propose in the 4th clause is, that if in any year there should be five quarterly payments of dividend, one of them should be converted into a 20 years' annuity, always, however, liable to be redeemed. Thus there will be no appreciable increase in the total charge for the year in consequence of the five quarterly payments occurring within it. Let me say a word or two as to the general policy of this measure. I think the House, as responsible for the interests of the taxpayer, will admit that as a matter of general policy it is advisable to take advantage of the reduction from time to time in the general rate of interest to reduce also the rate of interest on the public funds. That has always been the policy of Parliament. Whenever the funds have permanently risen above par, it has always been the policy of Parliament to endeavour to reduce the rates of interest. I may go back as far as 1749, when the Four per Cents were at a considerable premium, and when Mr. Pelham carried through Parliament his well-known measure for reducing the interest on the then Four per Cents, first to Three and a-Half per Cent, and afterwards to Three per Cent. In 1822 the Five per Cents were at a considerable

    1413
    premium, and the interest was reduced to Pour per Cent. In 1830 these Four per Cents were at a premium, and were converted into Three and a-Half per Cents; and finally, in 1844, the Three and a-Half per Cents, which were also at a considerable premium, were reduced first to Three and a-Quarter per Cent, and then to Three per Cent—the three last operations—those of 1822, 1830, and 1844—making together the great operation, under which what are now called New Three per Cents were created. I have seen remarks about the hardship to persons of small means—widows, and annuitants, and others, who believed that the Stocks they held would be perpetual, and who it was supposed were hardly used by the necessity of the interest on these Stocks being reduced, or the capital being paid in full. That sort of complaint is not new. It was vigorously, and I am glad to say unsuccessfully, urged more than 100 years ago. There is a very amusing description of the objections which were taken in the last century to the proposal to reduce the Four per Cents in Francis's well-known book, Chronicles of the Stock Exchange. The author of that work says—
    "Reasons which time has since repudiated, fallacies which almost repudiated themselves, evils which had no existence save in the brain of the prophet, were freely circulated. It was said that the landed gentry and the noble families of England would be ruined, and their children would become beggars; that the interest of younger sons' portions would not enable them to associate with the cooks and coachmen of their elder brothers; and that merchants, shopkeepers, and tradesmen would be ruined. The farmers would lose their farms; families would be undone; and such a deluge of distress be brought upon all ranks that the consequences would be fatal to the 'free and happy Constitution,' which has been so often ruined in the brains and in the prophecies of partisans."
    Well, that was the style of argument with which Mr. Pelharn and Sir John Barnard had to deal in the last century, and, fortunately, it did not prevail then, any more than I am confident that it will now. The real fact is that it is in the interest of the nation, with a view to the reduction of taxation, to maintain a steady reduction both of the principal and interest of Debt if the state of the Money Market justifies such operations being carried out. But, Sir, an attempt has been made to injure the proposal which I am now making by reducing Fundholders to refuse our offer on the
    1414
    ground that compulsion cannot take place. That is a very serious statement, and one which I feel it my duty to deal with very plainly. I freely admit that it was stated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) in 1853 that the mass of Three per Cent Stock was so enormous as to exclude the possibility of any immediate extensive compulsory operation, and that any attempt to give notice to the entire holders of Three per Cents would have been, then hazardous, if not impossible. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) referred, in the debate in 1853, to the aggregate amount of the Three per Cent Stocks—not Consols only, but the whole—and he recoiled from any attempt upon the mass of those Stocks, as I should do now, if the circumstances were the same as then. But the circumstances of that day were very different from the circumstances of the present day. At that period Consols were only at par, or about par, for a very short time. There existed no Two and a-Half per Cent Stocks; and when you looked outside the Government Stocks to the first-class Stocks of the country, you would have found that they stood at a very different price to what they stand at the present time. Railway Debentures at that time produced about 4 per cent. I think our modern Railway Debenture Stock did not exist; but ordinary Railway Debentures could be bought to produce 4 per cent. [An hon. MEMBER: More!] Well, I am on the safe side. Indian Railway Stocks, at fixed interest, hardly existed, and Municipal Stocks were at that time unknown. But at the present time matters are in a very different position. For four years Consols have been above par. My right hon. Friend's (Mr. Gladstone's) prophecy about the effect of the creation of the Two and a-Half per Cents upon the Minister who might have to propose some such plan as I am now proposing is so remarkable that I will venture to read it to the House. My right hon. Friend, speaking on the 5th of April, 1853, said—
    "Give us the Two and a-Half per Cent Public Stock, and then I say we shall have made solid ground where now is only morass; then we may tread where we could not before; and then we shall have a fixed point down to which we can work; and we shall have something by which to direct our operations in future with certainty, where now all is comparatively speculation and suspense."—(3 Hansard, [125] 833.)

    1415
    I mentioned just now the rate at which Railway Companies borrowed at that time—namely, at 4 per cent, or something over. But the London and North-Western Company's Four per Cent Debenture Stock stands to-day at 121; the Great Western and North-Eastern Debenture Stocks stand, I think, at about the same price — that is to say, our Railway Companies at this moment are borrowing at 3¼ per cent. The Metropolitan Board of Works' Three per Cent Stock has been issued lately at par; and in the same way the great cities of the country, which some time ago could not have borrowed at less than 5 per cent, have now borrowed at 4 per cent and 3½ per cent, and I should not wonder if their fortunes followed those of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) with a prophetic eye referred, is now at 93, which is the equivalent of Three per Cent Stock, were that Stock irredeemable, at something over 111. Therefore the circumstances are entirely different from what they were then; and an operation, which my right hon. Friend looked forward to as impossible, on a great scale, without the existence of a Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, now comes within practical performance, and I hope the House will allow me to carry out the experiment. Still, as I said before, there remains the question—Does the power of compulsorily paying off these Stocks at par in manageable quantities really exist? It has been said that that power is an illusory one, and does not exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) has been so kind as to help me in this matter by writing letters to the newspapers, in which he has put forward the line which he intends to take. There is no question that in the Act of 1870, which consolidates all the existing Acts relating to the Public Debt, the words are very plain that Consols and Reduced Three per Cents can be paid off in parcels of not less than £500,000 at a time, with due notice, and under Acts to be passed by Parliament. As to that there can be no question. I know it has been said that this provision is only to be found in a note; but, as a matter of fact, it is the substance of the Schedule to the Act. But I will go a little
    1416
    further back, and I will explain to the House the origin of that condition of redemption and how it applies. I will not weary the House by references to the earliest Stocks created in the times of William III. and Queen Anne and George I. The great Acts consolidating the Public Debt commenced to have a clear shape about the year 1716, when Parliament was employed in bringing together the different funds which in a very confused manner had been raised to provide for the wars of William the Third's and Anne's time. The object was to bring them into a focus, as it were, so that they could be more satisfactorily dealt with, than if each one had to be dealt with separately. The custom during the Reigns of William III. and Queen Anne was this — a certain amount of money was borrowed, and a tax was imposed out of which the interest on the sum borrowed was to be paid, and the principal was to be paid off by degrees; but it almost invariably happened that the tax imposed for a short period was not sufficient first of all to pay the interest, and then to pay off the principal. By degrees, then, those small funds charged on particular taxes were brought together, and the taxes themselves were also brought into one account. In the year 1749 the first of two great operations was successfully carried out—namely, the bringing together of all the then existing Four per Cent loans, the interest of which was reduced, first to 3½ per cent, and then to 3 per cent. That operation was followed, in the year 1751, by the great Act passed by Mr. Pelham, which is the foundation of our Consols and Three per Cent Stock, and which is the law applicable at the present time to their interest and their redemption. The Act is 25 Geo. II., c. 27, passed at the end of 1751, or the beginning of 1752; and it is, I may say, the starting point of our modern finance in reference to the Public Debt. By the 1st clause of the Act, Consolidated Three per Cents, now called Consols, were formed by the consolidation of five or six different Three per Cent Funds. By the 11th section Reduced Three per Cents were formed in their present shape by the consolidation of a number of former Four and Three and a-Half per Cents. The 24th section of the Act, as I have said, provided for the manner of redemption of

    1417
    these two great Stocks; and I will read at length, if the House will forgive me, that section. It says—
    "At any time upon one year's notice, to be printed in The London Gazette and affixed upon the Royal Exchange in London, and upon repayment by Parliament, according to such notice of the said several and respective sums, or any part thereof, for which the said several and respective annuities, or any of them, shall he payable by payments not less than £500,000 at one time in such manner as shall be directed by any future Act or Acts of Parliament in that behalf; and also upon full payment of all arrearages of the same annuities; then, and not till then, so much of the said several and respective annuities as shall be attending on the said principal sums so paid off shall cease, determine, and be understood to be redeemed; and any vote or resolution of the House of Commons signified by the Speaker in writing to be inserted in the said London Gazette and affixed on the Royal Exchange in London, as aforesaid, shall be deemed and adjudged to be sufficient notice within the words and meaning of this Act."
    Now, Sir, let me repeat that this clause of redemption is part of the very Act which created Consols and Reduced Three per Cents. There is in it nothing new, nothing obscure. Consols and Reduced Three per Cents owe their authority to the same Act which constitutes the method of paying them off, and on this subject there ought not to be a shadow of a doubt. Now, ever since 1716, the year which I explained to the House was the year when consolidation commenced, the practice was introduced of providing for repayment in sums of £500,000 a-year. This practice was applied to all loans that had been made. Some of those loans were loans from Companies, some were called general Stock, just as Consols were called afterwards. What is more, I have taken great pains to inquire whether that law of paying off in sums of £500,000 or £1,000,000 was ever put into operation, and I think I have found that it was put into operation in nine different years—in 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1736, and 1749, and other years which I need not enumerate to the House. Now, this has been the law of Parliament ever since that time—ever since the time of the formation of Consols and Reduced Three per Cents. I need not refer to New Three per Cents, because they are of very modern construction, being derived from the Navy and Irish Five per Cent Stocks which were reduced in 1822. But as to the £428,000,000 of
    1418
    Consols and Reduced Three per Cents, there is no question whatever that they can be paid off at the rate of not less than £500,000 at a year's notice, unless the holders accept commutation, and they are absolutely subject to that condition by the same law which constitutes the Stock. I therefore say that it is cruel to the actual holders of Stock to delude them by the notion that they are not liable to be paid off when by law they are liable, and by such representations to induce them not to accept a good offer on the strength of the idea that Parliament has not the power to pay them off if it thinks fit. It is not for me at present to disclose the method of applying this compulsory power, although I shall, of course, be prepared to do so at the proper time. As I have said before, I have no desire to apply it. But the operation is a perfectly simple one which I contemplate, and which I shall not hesitate to propose to Parliament. By giving successive notices to the holders of manageable amounts, although a simultaneous extensive process would be perilous, the whole might be commuted within a reasonable time. What I now desire to point out to the House is that when Three per Cent Irredeemable Stock would be worth £111, it would be dereliction of duty on the part of a Minister not to propose to Parliament to deal with Redeemable Stock, and it is because we feel this very strongly that we ask the House to pass this Bill. I am sorry to have been obliged to detain the House at this late hour; but I believe I have placed before them a feasible and practicable plan for commencing the reduction of the interest upon the Debt, leaving intact the working of the Acts of 1876 and 1883, under which the Debt is paid off from year to year. We have been pressed to make large remissions of local burdens at the cost of the taxpayer, besides reductions of taxes and other increases of charge. This is, I think, then the time, considering the value of money, to propose a simple method for the reduction of the Debt expenditure. I hope that the arguments which were brought to bear against Mr. Pelham and Sir John Barnard on the reduction of the Debt carried out in the last century—130 years ago—will not have greater weight with the present House of Commons than they had with the

    1419
    House in 1750. Sir, apologizing again for the length at which I have detained the House, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he assured the House that it was with extreme pain that he found himself obliged to move the rejection of the Bill, which his right hon. Friend had asked the House to read a second time. He would give, as briefly as possible, the reasons which had been convincing to himself in this matter, and which, he trusted, would enable hon. Members to follow his advice. He would, in the first place, go back to the Financial Statement of the right hon. Gentleman, in which, after introducing what he rightly described as a very important measure, he said—
    "There are three classes of Three per Cents all liable to be redeemed, but under different conditions. (1.) Consols and Reduced under the Act of 1870 at one year's notice may be paid off in quarterly parcels of not less than £500,000."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I did not say quarterly.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD: Then he presumed the report was not quite accurate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "Omitting the new Three per Cents which may be paid off without notice, but the whole at one time, the other Three per Cents—£400,000,000 in amount—can be paid off, however unwilling the holders, by giving a year's notice to the holders of manageable amounts, unless they accept the offer of a Stock of lower denomination. It must be remembered that the compulsory process lies behind these offers, and that it could without any practical difficulty be applied to Consols and the Reduced.… But, I repeat, we are not desirous of applying compulsion, if the same end can be obtained by voluntary agreement."
    Now he (Mr. Hubbard) said that with regard to Consols and Reduced the present possession of this compulsory power was an absolute illusion, and he would prove it. The right hon. Gentleman had cited the different Acts on which it was imagined that this supposed compulsion rested, and in the first instance he quoted the Act of 1870, and he read accurately from that Act the clause which stood there, and which
    1420
    had been translated from the Act of 1752; but here he must remark that the words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer read from the Schedule were entirely different from those which he read when he made his Financial Statement. However, he passed from the Act of 1870 to what had been properly described by the right hon. Gentleman as the birth Act of the Consolidated Fund—namely, the Act of 1752. That Act contained in its 24th clause the precise words which had been read by the right hon. Gentleman, and which were embodied in the Schedule appended to the Act of 1870. With the permission of the House, he would now read that Schedule, as he understood it, and in reference to the Stock to which it applied. The Act of 1752 began by reciting half-a-dozen minor Stocks, and said that they should constitute one Joint Stock of £8,200,000. It then went on to cite some other minor Stocks which were to form a Joint Stock of £17,570,000; and it was to those two combinations, each constituting "one Joint Stock of Annuities," that the 24th clause of the Act of 1752 applied. The Redemption Clause in the Act of 1870 ran thus—
    "At any time, at one year's notice in The London Gazette affixed on the Royal Exchange."
    That was the first step; one year's notice was to be given with reference to one or the other or both of the Joint Stocks mentioned in the Act itself. The next condition was—
    "And on repayment by Parliament according to such notice of the several sums or any part thereof, for which such several Annuities or either of them are or is payable, of Stock not less than five hundred thousand pounds at one time and in the manner directed by any Act to be passed.…. and also on payment of annuities."
    That seemed to mean that notice must be given before either of those Stocks were dealt with, which then stood at £8,000,000 and £17,570,000. These had grown very largely; but the law applicable to them now was the same as it was formerly. The Act of 3 Geo. I. was much more explicit, and he would summarize to the House the meaning of it, being, of course, open to correction in respect of any false gloss which he might place upon it. It said, in reference to the Stocks under consideration—
    "Be it enacted, that if at any time or times notice be given…by authority of Parlia-

    1421
    ment for the redemption of the said Annuities by the Bank, and if payment after such notice be made by Parliament to the persons entitled to the said Annuities according to their interests in the said Annuities of any sum or sums not being less than five hundred thousand pounds to all the proprietors at a time in part of the respective principal sums for which the said Annuities be payable then so much of the said Annuities shall cease."
    The notice was not to be given to any in particular, but to all the proprietors interested in the Stock dealt with by the Act. The interpretation which he could not help putting on the Redemption Clauses of the Acts of 1716, 1752, and 1870, was that notice must be given in respect of all Stock under notice of redemption. The Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, had taken this view. Having spoken of the large amount of Debt and the power of redemption, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "A circumstance, which may not be so generally within the notice of the Committee, but which is yet more fatal in its bearing on the position of the public debtor and the public creditor in this—that of those great Three per Cent Stocks, which I have stated in round numbers as amounting to £500,000,000, the whole are secured by a provision requiring a Parliamentary notice of 12 months' duration before any measure of reduction or commutation can be applied."—(3 Hansard, [125] 811–12.)
    If that was not evidence of the truth of his proposition, he did not know what could be. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say—
    "Therefore, I lay it down in the first instance that a large operation of a compulsory character is totally out of the question.… I come, then, to my plan, which consists of three portions. The first of these is certainly a minor portion of the scheme; and I will enter upon it first, in order to dispose of it and put it out of view. It is the liquidation of certain minor Stocks which appear in the Schedule of the National Debt.… (The whole amount of those Stocks is about £9,500,000 sterling.) It is proposed, with respect to them, that we should make what is called a compulsory operation—that is to say, that we shall offer certain alternatives to the holder of the Stock, and, at the same time, inform him that if he should not accept one or the other, he would, at the expiration of a proper period, be paid off.… I now come to the second and third. The second of these portions relates to the issue of Exchequer Bonds; and the third relates to a voluntary commutation dependent entirely on the option of the holders of the great Three per Cent Stocks."—(Ibid. 812–14–16.)
    He did not think that anyone could doubt the meaning of these words with reference to the Three per Cent Con-
    1422
    sols and the Three per Cent Reduced, which together made a total of nearly £500,000,000. But there was stronger evidence even than that of the Prime Minister. Parliament supported the financial experiment of the right hon. Gentleman by passing a Bill for the redemption of Stock and for the creation of new Annuities in 1853. The very distinct title of that Act confined the main purpose of the measure, at all events, to those Stocks which were capable of being compulsorily redeemed. The first 12 clauses referred to the South Sea Stocks doomed to redemption. Clauses 13 to 16 dealt with Consols and Reduced. He asked the attention of the House to the way in which. Parliament, in 1853, dealt with the Stocks which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer now vainly thought he had under his thumb. The marginal note of the 13th section of the Act of that year said—
    "The proprietors of Consols or Reduced Three per Cent Stock may commute on the same terms as proprietors in the aforesaid Stocks."
    Of course, they might do so. He was Governor of the Bank of England in 1853, and many persons asked him for his opinion to guide them in this matter; and to these he replied—"There are three classes of persons who will assent—Trustees, patriots, and idiots." Under the Prime Minister's scheme, out of the whole National Debt of £800,000,000, only £3,000,000 New Two and a-Half per Cent Stock was created in 1863, and of that £1,500,000 only came from Consols and Reduced; the rest came from Commutable Stock compulsorily disposed of. He did not suppose that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider himself to be more persuasive than his Predecessor; and if the Prime Minister did not succeed with an offer in 1853 of £110 Two and a-Half per Cent Stock in exchange for £100 of Three per Cent Consols, was his right hon. Friend likely to succeed now with an offer of £108? He thought not; particularly when it was found there was no compulsion at the back of his scheme. His right hon. Friend said he wanted the country to be with him; the way to secure that was to make a fair offer and tell the people the truth; if he possessed a coercive power, let him tell them where it was. He had shown,

    1423
    first, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no power of compulsion in this matter; and, secondly, that the Prime Minister having failed to find acceptance for his offer in 1853, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a worse; offer, would fail also. Now he came to the Bill itself; it was about the worst he had ever seen; its title was enough to shock one. It began thus—
    "A Bill for giving facilities for the conversion of Three per Cent Stock into Stock of a lower denomination."
    Where would they find a Finance Minister who could congratulate himself upon such a step as this—a financial proposition not for the purpose of a loan, or for meeting a loan which was to be paid off, but converting Stocks with a given interest into Stocks with a lower interest by adding to their nominal amount? What did the Prime Minister say of such a scheme in 1853? The right hon. Gentleman said, when proposing the concurrent creation of a Two and a-Half per Cent Stock and of a Two and a-Half per Cent Stock—
    "The objection urged against this portion of the proposal is, that, in order to reduce the annual charge, we are going to increase the capital of the Debt. Now, let us carefully weigh this objection, for, in my opinion, it is an objection to which considerable force attaches.… It is proposed to secure for ever, and absolutely to posterity, a reduction of J per cent upon the annual charge. … But I wish the Committee to understand—and I urge this as a plea on behalf of my proposition—that I freely assent to the general doctrine that it is not desirable to increase the nominal capital of the Debt. … The great object which Her Majesty's Government had in view was to establish, if it be possible, an irredeemable public debt, which will bear a respectable price in the market, and bearing an interest of not more 2½ per cent. It is for that purpose we propose to include these among the various forms of the conversionable Three per Cent Stock." —(Ibid. 830–32.)
    A motive was alleged in excuse for the combined conversions. The Two and a-Half per Cent Stock was to be an irredeemable Stock; to be representative of the credit of the country; it added nominally to the Debt; but it was to be irredeemable. The proposals of 1853 never aimed at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed. In the first place, the Bill required the Accountant of the Bank to create new Stock to such an amount as the National Debt Commissioners might deem suffi-
    1424
    cient for the purpose of exchange. As a matter of regularity, he had never before heard of Stock being created except for a specific purpose—either to replace Stock, or for some other purpose of State policy. But now he came to the point which was of more importance than phraseology. That was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid great stress on the gain to the country by this operation. He was quite aware that it was the duty of the Finance Minister, whenever he could fairly do so, to reduce the-interest on the National Debt; but he must take care that he was not working on two different tacks, and that one did not prevent the other. Last year the Finance Minister was full of enthusiasm upon a plan for redeeming the Debt itself; and in that he followed—and he could not have done better than follow—the lines of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). There was a definite step proposed, and he followed it with great alacrity; but now he proposed to cut the ground from under his own feet. If the operation was to be carried out as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, what would be the result? This proposal contemplated a conversion of Consols into Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, to be redeemed at par at the end of 20 years. He would tell the House how the operation would work. They took £5,000,000 Consols and turned it into £5,400,000 of the Two and a-Half per Cent at £108. The interest on the Consols would be £115,000; and the interest on the Two and a-Half per Cents £135,000; therefore, there would be an annual saving of £15,000, and £15,000 improving for 20 years at 2½ per cent interest would amount to £407,000. But what about the Stock not redeemed, and which at a month's notice had to be redeemed at par. Having realized a gain of £407,000 for interest, they had now to pay for extra capital, £400,000, so that they had just made £7,000 profit by an operation ranging over 20 years and occupying £5,000,000. There was one part of the scheme upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer plumed himself, and that was the quarterly dividends provided in his Bill. In 1870 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) intimated to the Bank of England his desire to pay quarterly dividends; but

    1425
    the Bank sent in a remonstrance so strong that Mr. Lowe dropped his idea. They pointed out to him that the scheme was perfectly useless; that nobody could want it, because if anyone wished for a quarterly dividend he had only to vary his investment, and take the half dividends due in January and the half due in April. The effect of this proposal would be to double the labour of the Bank and increase the burden on the State, for they could not put a double duty on the Bank without some extra cost. Therefore, he thought that proposal ill-judged. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained, with reference to the obvious disadvantage of increasing the nominal Debt, this idea—that they counteracted that by a system of Terminable Annuities. These Annuities were described as correcting the evil of an increased capital Debt; but they could not alter the nature of things. They were only a mode of paying a Debt in which the capital and interest were combined. That made no difference to the profit or loss of the operation; and the conclusion was therefore this—that if they had to redeem Three per Cent Stock or Consols, for every £1 of Annuities they had to pay £33; and if they had to redeem New Two and a-Half per Cent Stock, for every £1 of Annuities they had to pay £43 4s. That was the real and formidable result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from this operation. He was going to make the future reduction of the National Debt more burdensome; therefore, he could not think that that was an operation which, deserved the approval and support of that House. He was, he knew, open to the remark that if, after all, the difference was so slight between what the Chancellor of the Exchequer won or lost, the difference to the community would be equally unimportant; and, therefore, he might be asked why he was so eager and anxious to protect the interests of the fundholders, and to guard them against accepting the offers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The difference was this—the holder whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer punished now was the present holder; but the holder whom he would benefit was of a different generation altogether; in fact, it was a case of robbing the present generation for the sake of future generations. His clients
    1426
    were the present generation, and it was on behalf of the present generation of widows and orphans that he protested against an operation which despoiled them of a portion of their income, and years hence, forced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repay it all to other creditors of the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked on the reception of this scheme in the City. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House who in the City had approved of it. He should like to hear their names. He could only say he knew some people in the City; he knew his 24 brother Directors of the Bank of England, and he could say with confidence that there was not one of them who did not consider this scheme as detestably bad. If the right hon. Gentleman had any countervailing authorities he should like to know where they were to be found. His brother Directors were absolutely adverse to this scheme; and, for his part, he was incredulous to a degree of there having been such a reception as to give it any standing or authority in that House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)asked whether these gentlemen had authorized the right hon. Gentleman to state that they considered the Bill detestably bad?
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, they had not done so; but when the right hon. Gentleman quoted the approval of the City he brought his knowledge of the City to bear on the matter. He had no authority to speak for anyone but himself. If, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not found this support, how was it that he could submit this proposal to the House with such confidence? Some supporters of the scheme could always be found, and he noticed this eulogistic commendation with regard to the National Debt scheme in an important newspaper—
    "Few Budgets of recent years are likely to exceed in permanent interest for economists the statement of Mr. Childers last week. Each of its two main proposals is certain to be considered memorable. The definite proposal for the conversion of the Debt into Stock bearing a lower interest than 3 per cent marks an era in the economic and financial developments of the country which is full of fascination for the economists."
    Full of fascination for the economist! Was that an authority upon which the House was to base its approval of the

    1427
    measure? Was it to be memorable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had propounded this measure? The right hon. Gentleman had been memorable in reconstructing the Navy, and memorable while reorganizing the Army—he must be also memorable for his administration of the national finances. All he would say, further, was that he solemnly and earnestly protested against the further progress of this measure. He earnestly trusted that his right hon. Friend would forgive him if, in speaking on a matter upon which he felt strongly, he had said anything that might seem offensive. He would conclude by offering, on behalf of his constituents in the City, this entreaty—"Leave us alone." He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. W. Lowther.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I must say I am extremely sorry that the discussion of the principle of the Bill cannot be carried on somewhat longer. It would have been very much bettor if, before the Recess, we could have adopted the principle of the Bill, so that after the Recess we might have gone further into it in Committee without delay. But if it is the wish of the House not to proceed further now, of course it would be folly on my part to resist the Motion. But I ought to say that it is proposed to take the adjourned debate on Thursday week.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to the adjournment of the debate, because it was really impossible at that hour (1 o'clock) to enter upon such a discussion as the Bill required. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that although his scheme was stated four weeks ago, and that although the Bill was brought in on the 2nd of May,
    1428
    it was not until the 17th of May that it reached their hands. There had been some loss of time, for which, of course, the House was not responsible. He did not hold the Government responsible for not bringing on the Bill as the first Order, yet it was a matter of such importance that it might well have deserved to have had that place. He remembered that in 1853 the scheme of the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had priority given to it over everything else; and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have given the House the same advantage on the present occasion. He did not think the House would be prepared to take the Bill on Thursday week. It was generally understood that Supply would be taken on the day they re-assembled after the Whitsun Holidays; indeed, on reflection, he found it had been absolutely agreed that Supply should be taken on Thursday week. There was just one other point he wished to mention now, and it was that the House could hardly be expected to proceed with the Bill unless it received some information as to the nature of the compulsory process of conversion. It was the duty of the Government to give the House that information at the earliest moment.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some assurance that the Bill would not be proceeded with on Thursday week. He hoped so, because there was a distinct engagement with the House to take Supply on that occasion. Some hon. Members—he for one—had made arrangements which would prevent their being in their places on Thursday week. They, of course, had relied on the engagement made by the Prime Minister. Nothing could be more destructive of the due despatch of Public Business than that a distinct engagement with the House should be broken.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would consult the Prime Minister upon the subject. he was not aware that an engagement of the kind mentioned had been made. [Mr. WARTON: Twice over.] He repeated, he was not aware of the engagement. His extreme anxiety that the Bill should be proceeded with as soon as possible was shared by a

    1429
    great many persons out of the House; but if there had been an engagement that Supply would be taken on the day the House re-assembled, he should not think of putting the Bill down for that day. He would confer with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and state at the meeting of the House tomorrow on what day the Bill would be taken.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I do not propose at this very late, or rather early hour (1.15), to detain the House more than a few minutes in asking leave to bring in this Bill. I shall assume that all who are interested in the Scottish Universities, and the legislation proposed for their improvement, are familiar with the Bill of last year; and therefore I shall only in a very few sentences point out the leading particulars in which the Bill I now ask leave to bring in differs from the Bill which was placed before the House last year. In the first place, it was felt in many quarters that the Bill of last year might possibly give too large powers to the Commissioners in dealing with the constitution of the Universities. I think that was a somewhat visionary fear, because it was not intended to confer upon those Commissioners the power of revolutionizing the constitution of the Universities, as some persons apprehended. As that was not intended, we have in the Bill of this year made such references to the Act of 1858, and such other provisions, as will make it clear that the powers of the Commissioners in dealing with the constitution of the Universities are powers to be exercised by way of amendment, and not in the manner in which it was feared in some quarters the powers conferred last year might be put in force. With regard to this point, I will only add that we have introduced into the measure of this year express provisions for the amendment
    1430
    of the constitution of the University Court in the manner recommended by the Commissioners. I do not enter into that, because those who are familiar with the Report of that Commission are no doubt aware of the way in which it recommended that the constitution of the Court ought to be amended, and that matter is dealt with by this Bill. But the point in which, perhaps, of all others the greatest interest is taken in Scotland with regard to this Bill is the matter of finance. It will be in the recollection of those who are familiar with the Bill of last year that the substantial provision which it contained on this subject was that a sum of £40,000 should be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund towards the purposes of the Universities, that sum having been calculated on the footing that it would give a clear addition of £10,000, or something more, to be allocated by the Commissioners among the four Universities of Scotland. Statistics were obtained and actuarial calculations made, from which it appeared that there was reason to fear that the sum which appeared in the Bill of last year would not leave £10,000, but something less, probably between £7,000 and £8,000 of addition, and it was very strongly maintained that that would not be sufficient to carry out the leading purposes of the Bill. But there was another criticism which was made upon the pecuniary provision of last year which had undoubtedly also very great validity, and it was this—that in ascertaining the aggregate sum which would have remained to the Universities sufficient regard had not been had to the possible increase of pensions which might arise from the disability of Professors; and it was pointed out that when that sum came to be allocated amongst the Universities, the Commissioners would not have had it in their power to appropriate any part of it to any permanent purpose, because of the liability to have the amount invaded by the demand for additional pensions. In the present Bill, all these points have been met in a way which I hope will prove generally satisfactory. Instead of the sum of £40,000 which entered into the Bill of last year, there is a sum of £43,000 proposed to be paid from the Consolidated Fund, which sum, even upon the most unfavourable calculation, we hope will leave £10,000 at least as an increased allowance to the

    1431
    Universities. But, over and above all that, there is a provision for the case of pensions substantially to this effect—that the Commissioners shall, in case of each University, specify the amount of the pensions payable to retired Principals and Professors; and if, at any future time, the amount of pensions payable by a University to retired Principals and Professors, having vested interests, shall exceed the specified amount, such excess shall be paid by the Treasury out of public money, so that there will not now be any fear of the amount appropriated by the Commissioners to each University being encroached upon. I believe, without going into further details, that these two improvements in the present Bill will be generally welcomed, and will be regarded as a reasonable settlement of this question. There are just two other points in regard to which I desire to say a word by way of explanation, although there are various new matters which are dealt with by the Bill. In the Bill of last year there was a provision which, to state it shortly, amounted to this—that the Commissioners should have to exercise, amongst other powers, the power of providing that it should not be necessary for a Principal or Professor of the Theological Faculties to take what is commonly called a test. That provision was made the subject of a great deal of criticism from many and various quarters. Whilst there were some persons who were against any interference with the test, there were many others who, while they thought that there should not be a test confining the election of Professors to persons belonging to one religious communion, considered, on the other hand, that it would be unsafe to set the question entirely adrift, and to leave the Theological Chairs without any safeguard whatever with respect to the opinions of those who might be called upon to fill them. It was pointed out that that matter had not been gone into by the Royal Commission, and that it was not a very fitting subject to be discussed in Parliament, if there was any probability of a modification as distinguished from a total abolition of the test being proposed; and, accordingly, in lieu of the provision of the Bill of last year, there has been introduced into the Bill this year a clause to the following effect:—
    1432
    "That the Commissioners shall have power to call before them and examine the Principals and Professors of the various Theological Halls within and without the Universities, and such other witnesses as they think proper, with a view to ascertain whether any and what changes as to the subscription of tests by Principals, Professors, and other University officers, are necessary and expedient, and shall make a special Report to Her Majesty upon this subject."
    By this provision we hope that this somewhat difficult question, upon which such infinite variety of opinion prevails, will be matured in a way that will lead to satisfactory legislation. Then there is another point as to which I should desire to say a word. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members from Scotland that in the Bill of last year there were certain provisons with respect to the University of St. Andrew's—in particular two, that the Commissioners should have power to determine that any one or more Faculties of that University should cease to exist; and, further, that they should have power to inquire and consider whether, in consequence of the want of sufficient endowments, it was any longer possible for the University to continue to perform its functions with advantage. Both of those provisions have been omitted from the present Bill. It was explained to those who were interested in St. Andrew's, on more occasions than one, why they came to be introduced, and it did appear that there had been some misapprehension as to the representations made on the part of that very ancient and famous University. Accordingly, these provisions are omitted from the Bill, and the only special provisions which the pro-sent Bill will contain, with respect to St. Andrew's, are two, which contemplate its continued and increasing usefulness, but have no regard to the possibility of its ceasing to exist. The first is that the Commissioners, besides the general powers conferred upon them with respect to other Universities, shall possess the power to make Ordinances for uniting the University and the Colleges into one corporate body under the name of the University of St. Andrews, under such conditions as may seem just, having due regard to vested interests; and the second is that the Commissioners shall have power to make arrangements for affiliating or uniting with the University other Colleges duly

    1433
    incorporated in other towns. Now, I believe these provisions will be not only satisfactory to the academic authorities of St. Andrew's, but also to the people of Scotland generally. There are various other provisions of a minor kind in the Bill; but I do not propose to go into them. I may, however, mention among them the proposed constitution of the University Committee of the Privy Council. Having made these observations to explain the main changes in the present Bill as compared with the Bill of last year, I would ask permission of the House to bring in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better administration and endowment of the Universities of Scotland."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. BUCHANANasked whether the clauses as to the Botanic Gardens and University Buildings had undergone any change?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been the subject of great consideration, and they remained substantially as they were.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate with regard to the way in which it was proposed to deal with the declaration and test imposed on Professors had greatly disappointed him, and would be considered very unsatisfactory by many in Scotland. In the Bill of last year the Government had, by providing for the abolition of the declaration and test, made a distinct advance in the recognition of the principles of religious equality; and the announcement now made could not fail to be regarded as a decidedly retrograde step. The Government had apparently become afraid that they had last year conceded too much, and now sought to withdraw from the position they had taken up. He did not wish to oppose the Bill at this stage; but on the second reading the proposal he had referred to must be fully discussed, and he trusted the Lord Advocate would not take the second reading without giving time to all in Scotland interested in the measure to consider the provisions and to make their opinion on them, known.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill 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 230.]

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR, LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and to provide facilities for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    Debate arising;
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LABOURERS ACT) (NO. 7) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883," relating to the Tipperary Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. TREVELYAN.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to the Fulham District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 232.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Sewage Works of the Burgh of Kirkintilloch, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 229.]

    TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRE LAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Colonel COLTHURST, Bill to amend "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883," ordered to be brought in by Colonel COLTHURST, Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. PARNELL, Mr. DEASY, Mr. SHEIL, and Mr. SHAW.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 231.]

    STRENSALL COMMON BILL.
    Select Committee nominated:—Sir ARTHUR HATTER, Mr. HICKS, and Mr. CHEETHAM:— Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee,
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, the sum of £6,519,368 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Mostyn, after the death of his grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) (109).
Second Reading—Commons Regulation Provisional Order * (100).
Third Reading—Water Provisional Orders * (92); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) * (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton-Barnes, &c.) * (85); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c.) * (86): Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.) * (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.) * (88); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.) * (90); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.) * (91); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (The (Labourers Act) (Enniscorthy, &c.) * (64); Greek Marriages * (96); Colonial Prisoners Removal (44), and passed.

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Continuous Brakes Bill as proposed this Session?
LORD SUDELEY: The Regulation of Railways Bill was introduced and read a first time on Thursday last in the House of Commons. It has been distributed this morning; and Section 10 provides that the- Board of Trade may, at any time, order a Railway Company, within a limited time, to provide continuous brakes of some pattern approved by the Board. This provision will, I trust, meet the noble Earl's wishes in the matter.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he wished to ask, after the decision of that House last week in reference to the Wellington Statue, Whether the Government have decided upon the course which they would adopt? There were a great many schools of thought as to what should be done with the statue;

  1265
  but none, he believed, who wished to leave it as it was. He was told that a Vote of £6,000 had been taken in the House of Commons for the erection of a new statue. It was obvious that that would not be sufficient in the present state of the statue to do all that was required. He wished to know what action Her Majesty's Government intended to take; and, whether they proposed to ask for a further Vote from Parliament to carry out the intention which had been expressed?
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he did not consider that this was the case.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he would like to know who had paid for cutting off the head?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood that there would be no further application to Parliament beyond the Vote which had been sanctioned. The present statue would be removed by the military authorities to Aldershot, where it would be erected upon a suitable site. The cost of the removal of the statue would be borne by the fund to be raised by the Prince of Wales's Committee. With regard to the Question put by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Redesdale), he had to say that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was very sorry indeed for what had happened. The taking of the statue to pieces was begun early next morning after the Vote. Out of deference to their Lordships' decision, his right hon. Friend had sent early in the morning to the military authorities to stop the taking of the statue to pieces; but the men from Woolwich were already at work, and he could not stop them in time to prevent the head being taken off.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYASKED whether the cost of the decapitation was to be borne out of the Prince of Wales's fund?
  [No reply.]

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, who had given Notice to call attention to the means of abating smoke in the Metropolis; and to present a Bill upon the subject, said: My Lords, it would take up too much time and verge
  1266
  too much on egotism to explain all the circumstances which have led me to this Notice. It may be enough to say that during many Sessions I have been on the point of giving it, whenever the moment seemed to be propitious. It occurred to me some time ago to suggest to a few persons the formation of a society for abating smoke in the Metropolis. Although my efforts were not of much value, the same impressions afterwards led others to organize a body in the very sense which I had contemplated. It exists under the auspices of the noble Duke the Master of the Horse. It is sustained by various distinguished Members of the Legislature. A considerable movement has grown up under its auspices. At the South Kensington Museum the best contrivances for abating smoke have been exhibited. An extraordinary stimulus has been given to invention with regard to them. Last year, on the 16th of July, a public meeting to abate smoke was held at the Mansion House. The support of the late Lord Mayor was obtained, and the whole subject powerfully ventilated. The upshot is that many propositions, which ten years back it would have been necessary to establish slowly and minutely, may now be rapidly submitted to the House without much fear of having to contend with them. For instance, it is now widely known that so early as 1300 a Royal edict against smoke was promulgated by one of the most enlightened as well as the most active of our Sovereigns. In the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the matter occupied the Legislature. In the Reign of Charles II., Evelyn, the author of the celebrated Diary, brought the question before the King, who urged him on to prosecute it further. During the present century there have been various inquiries—in 1819, in 1843, and in 1845. They led on to the measures of Lord Palmerston just before the Crimean War, when he presided at the Home Office. Reduced to what might seem for him an insignificant Department, he took advantage of obscurity to promote the interests of daylight, and, unable to act upon the world abroad, conceived a germ of Metropolitan improvement of which the fruit may long survive the Treaties he originated. However, the essential point to be remarked is that these Acts were but preliminary in their character.

  1267
  They are imperfect for two reasons. They do not reach the aggregate of smoke arising from domestic houses. They are but partially enforced, in consequence, if I am not mistaken, of that very limitation. It is in some degree invidious to proceed against furnaces, which at least contribute to the public wealth, and leave untouched the ordinary fireside, which only burns for the advantage of the circle who surround it. Although, perhaps, it ought not to exist, there is a lurking conscience in executive authority. Inspectors, constables, and others, in theory machines of State, are not devoid of an unconscious sensibility, which makes them rigorous or lax, according to the estimate they form of laws intrusted to their maintenance. The Acts of Lord Palmerston, as a first step, have been invaluable. But they will not be thoroughly enforced till something more is done, and if they were enforced in every case, would leave an intolerable residue of evil to be otherwise disposed of. So much is commonly admitted, and there are other points, which, owing to the labours of the movement, are deemed to be beyond the range of controversy at this moment. It has been shown by the Hon. Mr. Russell, in a striking pamphlet which the Society under the noble Duke the Master of the Horse has circulated, that fogs which must, in. any case, arise from exhalations of a tidal river, derive their yellowness, their blackness, and their odour from the smoky or carbonic particles which mingle with them; that if these particles were absent the fogs would not be graver than those which now exist at Eton and at Windsor, or than the mists which frequently repress the latent sunshine of the Highlands. It has been shown that the actual type of fog is deadly in its consequences, not only fertile of disorder, but conducive to mortality. In the week ending February 7th, 1880, remarkable for fog, the number of deaths, above the average, was 1,657, of which 1,118 were put down to complaints in the respiratory organs. Without statistics, we are well aware that, from the atmosphere which smoke involves, London is avoided more than otherwise it would be; that after Parliamentary Divisions, which bring men from a distance, there is a rush into the Provinces; that down to the beginning of the Session the Metropolis is nearly empty;
  1268
  that when the Session closes no one will remain more than a week, who has the power to absent himself. We know also that many hundreds who are prosperous and educated prefer the heavy inconvenience of daily locomotion to their offices and warehouses by railway to the evil of residing altogether in the capital, thinking it better to shorten life, which probably they do, than to depress vitality, the solo alternative presented. It is not necessary either to insist with much detail on the advancing nature of the influence which smoke exerts over the atmosphere of London. It is calculated in the works which the Society distribute that every year adds more than 25,000 houses. If we allot three chimneys to a house, 75,000 chimneys increase the aggregate of smoke during the twelvemonth. Even in 1819 it was shown by medical authority to the Select Committee of the House of Commons to what injurious extent the atmosphere was vitiated. Let such a process be permitted to go on till the end of the century to adopt another and a smaller capital will be a probable necessity. It is true that if you glance over the world, or think of St. Petersburg, Madrid, or Berlin, capitals have frequently been altered. But there are many risks in the transition. Public Offices and Parliaments might be located elsewhere without insuperable difficulty. But a serious decline in the value of house property would follow. This tendency was shown in Dublin after the Irish Union. Lord Cloncurry, in his Memoirs, has given curious examples of it. Leaseholders would sell at no little disadvantage. Proprietors would lose immensely on the leases being exhausted. The middle classes, in the absence of society, would see their profits rapidly declining. The demand for labour would be in consequence impaired; and although, no doubt, the labour would be wanted elsewhere, you cannot, without a period of much embarrassment, replace it. The conclusion which arises is, that an evil which threatens to impose another capital upon us requires much consideration, and even justifies enactments which would not otherwise be tolerated. My Lords, my first intention was only to move for an inquiry by a Select Committee of your Lordships. Those who are entitled to be heard, and whose support I was bound to aim at, were not

  1269
  disposed to such a method. They may have deemed that the evidence collected before the Acts of Lord Palmerston were carried now suffices; or that the Association of the noble Duke the Master of the Horse is better qualified than any other body to augment it, where deficient. It has, undoubtedly, augmented it, and may augment it further. I have been forced into the position of a legislator on the question. When it is remembered that Governments, with the command of every intellect, of every adviser, of every document they wish for, with Chancellors to warn, Law Officers to guide, the most accomplished Bill-drawers to help them, are often hurried into errors which form the staple of discussion, both in Parliament and out of it, it is not likely that an unofficial person will entirely avoid them. At least, instead of needing, as some do, three hours and three-quarters to explain it, this Bill may be at once submitted to the judgment of your Lordships. It will give authorities the power of directly acting against what may be termed exceptional and aggravated smoke in dwelling-houses by repealing a few words in the Sanitary Act of 1866. But this is not a leading or even necessary feature of the measure. It enables local bodies to form bye-laws, under the revision of the Home Office, by which in all existing houses smoke may be gradually abated. It enables local bodies, who now administer the Building Acts, to form bye-laws, also under the revision of the Home Office, by which in a short time new houses will be rendered smokeless. It extends—but this is an entirely subordinate provision—the area in which the Acts of Lord Palmerston are valid. My Lords, every project has a tendency to arm the mind against itself. Men may be inclined to listen to the proofs of a considerable evil. They may hear with moderate indulgence a train of reasoning to show that some new measure is desirable. But when its character is stated, when its modes of acting are betrayed, antagonism usually and unavoidably suggests itself. It is well, perhaps, that it should do so, otherwise the Statute Book would be more full of crude and mischievous enactments than it is at present. The defence of this scheme resides in the impossibility of all alternative proposals. To compel its adoption at once, directly, universally in London has been
  1270
  objected to by a noble Lord who once presided at the Home Office on the ground of its indicting a whole people. It would not be supported by opinion, the essential basis of all coercive legislation. Again, Parliament might choose a quarter, such as South Kensington, or May fair, or the squares of London, in which trees deserve a vigilant protection, and thus tentatively operate. I have dwelt much on that expedient, and unwillingly renounced it. But it might lead to many controversies as to the quarter to be chosen, and even reclamations from the quarter when preferred. The transfer of the power to local bodies is the only mode of settling the difficulty. If one local body acts the object is attained. Either the example would be followed by the others, or stringent legislation would be based by Parliament itself on the experience afforded. There are many reasons for anticipating that at least one local body will exert the powers which are given to it. I shall not mention them this evening. It is not worth while, by a measure which involves so little hazard and so studiously consults the temper of the age, to prevent London from being abandoned as a capital, which, if the evil is allowed to grow unchecked, is not a visionary prospect. It may, indeed, appear to some that however much the atmosphere deteriorates, that result will never happen. But there are still considerations which may guide them to the necessity of legislative action if the existing capital is certain to remain. The influence of smoke on architecture to those who value London is a melancholy drawback to improvement. Until this obstacle is gone London can never rank with Florence, or even Paris, Berlin, and St. Petersburg in the approach to classical perfection. Not only colour is important, but light is known to be indispensable to excellence in building. When light is wanting effort languishes, conception fails, and there is a perpetual struggle between beauty and deformity. That struggle is the ruling character of London at this moment. St Paul's excites the admiration of the world, and there is a hideous viaduct in front of it. The Thames Embankment is regarded justly as a Metropolitan improvement, and it is effectually marred by railway bridges which no edile would have sanctioned. St.

  1271
  Martin's Church is allowed to do honour to its great designer, Sir Christopher Wren, and almost in a line we see the long-regretted domes of the National Gallery. The cause of the deficiency is found in the collision of two principles which springs out of the want I have referred to. At one moment it is felt that London exists only for purposes of commerce and of business; that it is not a home for the Fine Arts; that no sacrifice to beauty is desirable within it; that economy, convenience, and despatch, are the only aims to be considered. At another, it is fancied that as a seat of Government and Empire it ought to assert itself and challenge admiration by its edifices. In this frequent balance of ambition and despondency, wealth is lavished, splendour unattained. To remove smoke is not the only course essential to a different principle arising. It is a requisite preliminary. No Pericles would have succeeded in making Athens what it afterwards became, unless the atmosphere had seconded his effort. The object is not unimportant, or confined to a small number of appreciating judges. The architecture of a city is the only education the grown-up masses cannot possibly escape from. You may have lectures, galleries, and theatres; but it is not compulsory to profit by or enter them. It might be shown easily that men engaged in public, and still more in official life, are deeply interested in this question. But they are a minority, and they may frequently absent themselves from London for a day or two. The burden of the climate falls more heavily upon large classes without the power to escape it. We should reflect upon the distant melancholy suburbs of Islington and Camden Town without the life which Clubs or Courts of Justice, or Legislative Bodies furnish, and which would scarcely be inhabited except by families too much reduced to find refuge elsewhere—their means would not permit them to escape from time to time into the country. We should reflect upon the condition of domestic servants, who must be more stationary than the masters they live under. It well becomes also the dignity of this House to realize the state of men and women behind counters who must be all the year, except a week or two, in the Metropolis. Your Lordships will remember also that
  1272
  the whole female sex, from the highest to the lowest, have not the same facilities as men for moving a short time out of the smoke of the Metropolis. As regards the over-crowded numbers who inhabit Eastern London, whose cause has been so ably and so conspicuously supported, there is something to be added. Do what you will, their mode of life must act unfavourably on the domiciles they enter. To allot space to inmates—the essential change—demands such legal interference that in a free country it is scarcely possible to compass it. But while you can do little for their domiciles, you may do something for their atmosphere. The happiness of these classes must be mainly out-of-doors, because it cannot, from their narrow circumstances and sordid hearths, be indoors. But if out-of-doors they are exposed to darkness instead of light, to leaden fogs instead of purifying breezes, they have no escape from their depression except the public-house, which, in the long run, inevitably aggravates it. The whole tide of recent agitation on the domiciliary condition of the most abandoned class may fairly be directed to the object which this Bill is meant in some degree to forward. It may be asked, however, when the Bill is read a first time, what consequence will follow. It is not easy for anyone, unless the Leader of a Party, to carry a Bill through all its stages in this House, and it would not be possible to do so in another. But it is a maxim, not I think unknown in political society, that if a Bill adapted to an object which requires legislation is launched in either House it never perishes, however great the obstacles it meets, however long the interval which bars its entrance to the Statute Book. It may be but a stitch in legislation, but such a stitch is wanted at this moment. It is not likely to complete itself until the Liberal majority is more awakened to its great responsibility as to measures and to men, and thus more free to act in unison with those who labour for its object. I now present the Bill, and move that it be read a first time.
  Bill to amend the Acts for abating the nuisance arising from the smoke of furnaces and fireplaces within the Metropolis—Presented (The Lord STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL).
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, that it was characteristic of the British public that they liked to grumble at the laws and the administration of them, and especially with local government. It was another British characteristic that when a man had had his grumble he was often content to let the grievance slumber. But his noble Friend, after a good grumble, had attempted to deal with his grievance in a practical manner, though his threat, that a continuance of smoke might drive the Legislature to some other town, was not very alarming. There was no doubt that further legislation was required on the subject. The clumsiness of our mode of warming our dwellings caused a large portion of the fuel to escape unconsumed. It mixed with the air, concealed the sunshine, scattered showers of "blacks" everywhere, and made London dull, unhealthy, and murky. The Smoke Act of Lord Palmerston in 1853 was the best that could be passed at the time; but the area in which it was applied was smaller than the present Metropolis, and its application was imperfect. The fines imposed were frequently below the minimum mentioned in the Act. The overindulgence towards the offenders might have arisen from the circumstance that the magistrates had not the scientific knowledge that might enable them to determine whether the smoke could have been properly consumed. They ought to be assisted by experts or scientific officials, as tinder the Alkali Acts. The river steamers also ought to be brought under the Act. Their smoke might easily be diminished to one-fourth of what it was at present. Furnaces belonging to many trades were not brought under the operation of the present Act. Open grates were still a difficulty, for they had not yet been contrived to burn bright, cheerful coal without smoke. He was grateful to the noble Lord trying to deal with this question, and hoped he might be successful.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 109.)

METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE— "UN WARNED STORMS."

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in rising to move for a—
  "Return of the storms which have visited the British Islands between 1st January 1874 and
  1274
  31st December 1883, and of which no warning has been issued from the Meteorological Office; with a notice of the quarter from which each unwarned storm has reached the coast,"
  said, the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper was a renewal of the Motion in reference to which he had the honour of addressing their Lordships a week or two ago. He, therefore, need not address their Lordships on the present occasion at any length; but there were two points on which he desired to say a few words. A suggestion was made to him by the noble Earl on the Front Bench that he should alter the extent and scope of the Motion. He had taken counsel on that matter, and had come to the conclusion that for the purpose he had in view the Motion as it stood was more simple and more likely to be effective. Consequently, he had not altered his Motion. The other point was this. Since the last discussion of this subject, the noble Lord who represented the Government in matters of this kind had placed in his hands the Report of the Meteorological (Council of the Royal Society for the year ending the 31st of March, 1883. There were in that Report some sentences which entirely supported his Motion. For example, it was stated that last year formed no exception to its predecessor in the fact that more than once serious storms occurred of which no warning was issued. The Report went on to describe the arrangements, which certainly could not be regarded as satisfactory, for signalling the approach of storms. There was some little difficulty in identifying storms, and in guarding against the error of counting them twice over; but, as far as he could make out, about 10 storms reached our coasts in the year 1882 without any warning having been issued by the Meteorological Office. The matter, therefore, was a very serious one, and deserved careful consideration. The Report to which he had already referred stated that in the month of May the Council was requested by the Foreign Office to express its opinion on a proposal emanating from the Danish Government to lay a telegraphic cable to Faroe, Iceland, and Greenland. The Council thought that the scientific importance of such a cable was indisputable, but added that the financial considerations did not come within the province of a conference of meteorologists. In point of fact, the

  1275
  whole question was one of money; and, consequently, it must be decided by the nation. If we could increase the number of our stations and improve our system of telegraphing, he trusted a mere question of money would not prevent this great nation from doing its duty.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Return of the storms which have visited the British Islands between 1st January 1874 and 31st December 1883, and of which no warning has been issued from the Meteorological Office; with a notice of the quarter from which each unwarned storm has reached the coast."—(The lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, there was no objection to be made to the Return, provided the right rev. Prelate thought it worth while, and was desirous to persevere with his proposal; but he might, however, point out that much of the information required was already accessible in Blue Books. Would the right rev. Prelate be satisfied if the whole of the information sought for by the Return were included in the future publications of the Meteorological Office?
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that the noble Lord's reply would be satisfactory if it were merely a matter of satisfying his personal curiosity. What he wanted to do was, if possible, to bring this matter before the mind of the public, and to influence public opinion upon the subject; and he thought that for that purpose a tabular statement for 10 years would have a very useful effect.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 98.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 98.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to direct what proportion of the expense of the improvements should be defrayed by the parishes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, interposing, inquired whether this was not a privileged Bill?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Bill simply affected the rates, and the practice was less severe with regard to rates than it was with regard to taxation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobserved that this might be made a precedent for future occasions.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it was remarkable that when it suited the Government they pleaded that Bills were privileged; but, on the other hand, when they wanted to go on they ignored the question of privilege. He hoped the question would be settled on this Bill.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that as there appeared to be some doubt on the matter he begged to postpone his Motion for the second reading of the Bill until after Whitsuntide.
  Second Reading put off to Tuesday the 17th of June next.

CUSTOM HOUSE—SEARCHES OF PAS SENGERS' LUGGAGE—THE NEW RE GULATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD LAMINGTONrose for the purpose of calling attention to the new Custom House Regulations at Folkestone and other English ports, under which every small box or parcel belonging to innocent travellers was opened and its contents examined with rigorous strictness. In his own ease, a small despatch box had been stopped because the key was not forthcoming at the moment, although his name was painted upon it. He was quite sure that it did not contain anything like such explosive matter as was introduced to the notice of the House every night by the noble Earl in those ominous-looking red boxes which were brought to him. In another case a box containing a wedding cake, sent to a friend of his, was not only broken up, but the wedding cake itself was chopped up to see whether it contained dynamite. He hoped that something would be done to mitigate the severity of these regulations; they were absurd, and more especially be when they were carried out in the case of persons who could not be expected to have any complicity with dynamite outrages. He did not object to a reasonable examination; but he thought that such instructions should be given as would enable it to be carried out with as

1277
little inconvenience as possible, and without that ridicule which at present attached to the proceeding.
EARL GRANVILLE: I am not personally responsible for these instructions, which were simply issued through the Foreign Office; but I have no desire to escape from any responsibility that may attach to me officially for their promulgation. I can entirely sympathize with the annoyance which the noble Lord must have felt at his luggage being stopped; but the necessity for these examinations has arisen from a very odious reason, and as some justification for the issue of these regulations I can point to the fact that only yesterday at Dover a large quantity of dynamite was discovered in one of those innocent-looking carpet bags to which the noble Lord has referred. As it is necessary in the present state of circumstances to make these examinations, it would only make them much more unpopular and invidious if the luggage of any particular class of persons were exempted from them. Anyone who has the most superficial acquaintance with my noble Friend must be convinced that he would not bring over dynamite. But the very fact of his not having the key of his box, and of the box being therefore passed without examination, would have created what would have been little short of a mutiny on the part of his fellow-passengers.
THE LORD CHANOELLOR: I am very glad that the noble Lord has brought this matter before the House, because his speech will convince some of my correspondents that they are not the only persons who are subject to these regulations. A learned and excellent gentleman who has been a candidate for a seat in Parliament, and who may be so again, seems to be incapable of being persuaded that there is no special suspicion directed against himself. He will now probably alter his opinion when he sees that the luggage of the noble Lord has been subjected to the examination of which he complains.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COM MISSIONERS)—MR. WILLIAM GRAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether Mr. Gray, just appointed a Sub-
  1278
  Commissioner of the County of Cork, was the same Mr. Gray who had been acting in a similar capacity in Donegal? This gentleman was a farmer, and previous to his appointment in 1883 he had been known as a stump orator in the North of Ireland. He had in his hand a list of 14 speeches made by him during the years 1880, 1881, and 1882; but he did not propose to refer to those delivered in the two former years, inasmuch as great excitement prevailed, and as with others so with him there might have been much said which it was not desirable should be revived. He would, however, quote from two speeches made in the year 1883, and one particularly, in which, referring to the uselessness of Griffith's valuation, he said, if he took it and found that ground was valued by it at £1 per acre, he should deduct the taxes, 3s., and then reduce the amount by half. Thus the unfortunate landlord would get something like 8s. 6d. per acre. In the next speech he denounced Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Lord Monck, and others. Mr. Gray, however, was effectually muzzled by being appointed a Sub-Commissioner. He (Viscount Midleton) did not wish to blame the Government for having appointed Mr. Gray, for from the manner in which recommendations and testimonials were given, not only in Ireland, but elsewhere, it was quite possible that they had been led to believe that he was a proper person to be appointed a Sub-Commissioner. But since Mr. Gray's appointment the attention of the Government had been called to the matter, and the Lord Privy Seal had promised to look into it. That was no more than he expected of the noble Lord, because he remembered that Lord Spencer, in a letter to Sir Thomas M'Clure, mentioned that the qualifications that would be looked for in Sub-Commissioners were judicial experience, independence of character, and complete impartiality. He asked them, now that they knew something of Mr. Gray, to say whether he possessed these qualifications, especially in view of the fact that about 80 appeals from his decision had been made to the Land Commissioners? It was important that Sub-Commissioners should command the confidence of both parties; and the fact that there were so many appeals from one Sub-Commissioner was more inconvenient to the tenant than to the land-

  1279
  lord, because of the expense that was involved. It was now reported that Mr. Gray was to be transferred to the South of Ireland to exorcise his duties in that part of the country of which he knew nothing, whether as to the character, the climate, or the conditions under which agriculture was carried on. Was it fair or just to those who were to be the subject of Mr. Gray's decisions that a gentleman who had failed to command confidence with those with whom he had had to deal in the North should, as a matter of convenience, be sent to the South of Ireland, where he would be more completely ignorant of his business than he could possibly be in the North? He did not mean to say Mr. Gray would administer justice in the South of Ireland worse than he had administered it in the North. What he was now dealing with was Mr. Gray's fitness for the post, and he denied that he possessed any one of the three qualifications which Earl Spencer said were absolutely necessary for the office.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that he was, of course, not personally responsible for Mr. Gray's appointment. It had been his duty, however, to acquaint himself with the facts of the case, and he would give all the information in his power. As to the transfer of Mr. Gray as an Assistant Commissioner from the North to the South of Ireland, he was not able at that moment to toll the noble Viscount the particular reason for that change in the composition of the Sub-Commission. But then he (Lord Carlingford) knew that, whatever else might be said about Mr. Gray, he was at least admitted to be a first-rate farmer, and a man of the fullest and best agricultural experience; and he (Lord Carlingford) did not doubt for a moment that he would be perfectly capable of performing his duty in the county Cork, or any other county, so far as skill and experience as a farmer were concerned. As to the express language said to have been used by Mr. Gray in a certain speech or speeches, he (Lord Carlingford) had not been made aware of the number of speeches to which the noble Viscount had referred: but there was no doubt that before his appointment Mr. Gray had taken rather an active part in connection with certain meetings in the North of Ireland. With respect to the speech which had been the
  1280
  main subject of inquiry—namely, a speech delivered by that gentleman at Armagh before his appointment, Mr. Gray had been asked for explanations, and had given them. Mr. Gray entirely denied that he was correctly understood, or reported, as laying down that 8s. 6d. per acre was the proper rent for a landlord to obtain for his land. The reference to 8s. 6d. an acre was not given as an opinion of his own, but was used in illustration of an argument which he was directing against the doctrine that Griffith's valuation was a fair and proper valuation for rent. He argued that the proper basis upon which to fix rent was contained in the actual capabilities and situation of the farm, and not Griffith's valuation; and he stated that the sentence referred to by the noble Viscount was never intended to bear the construction which the latter put upon it, and was not used as expressing any opinion held by the speaker. What passed at the meeting had been totally misrepresented. Mr. Gray had been made responsible for certain seditious cries which were raised at that meeting in favour of persons who were at that time called "suspects." The fact was that those cries which were raised by a small number of persons were directed against Mr. Gray and his friends. As to those speeches by Mr. Gray which had not come to the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, he (Lord Carlingford) must say—and the noble Viscount seemed to be aware of it—that the Lord Lieutenant had received the most favourable recommendations and testimonials as to, Mr. Gray's fitness in all respects for the post of Assistant Commissioner. These testimonials included some from land-lords—from Mr. Gray's own landlord, he believed—certainly from his own agent— and were of the strongest kind as to his experience, ability, intelligence, and impartiality. Nevertheless, the Lord Lieutenant would not have appointed Mr. Gray if his attention had been called to the fact that he had taken a somewhat active part in the land agitation in Ireland. But the Irish Government had ascertained from the Laud Commissioners that they had no evidence that would justify them in recommending the dismissal of Mr. Gray. The legal Assistant Commissioner with whom Mr. Gray had been working (Mr. Ulick Burke) had given very strong testimony

  1281
  to the fairness and impartiality, as well as ability, with, which Mr. Gray had fulfilled his duties since his appointment. He had said that Mr. Gray was a perfect farmer, and that he did not care in the slightest degree whether he offended landlord or tenant. Under these circumstances the Lord Lieutenant, feeling bound to look, not to the speeches at land meetings which Mr. Gray had made before his appointment, but to his conduct since then, did not consider it his duty to take any action in the matter.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that although, when the Act was passed, it was stated by the Government that these appointments would not be of a partizan nature, unquestionably many of the appointments had given rise to the impression that they were of that character. As he had previously pointed out, there could be no doubt that much difficulty arose in the choice, not only of the Sub-Commissioners, but of the Chief Commissioners. It might be possible there was no one in the whole Kingdom more fitted to fill the post of one of the three Commissioners than Mr. Litton; but unquestionably the fact was that Mr. Litton had throughout shown himself a thorough partizan with regard to the law that he was called upon to administer.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, he was sorry that his first address to their Lordships should be of a personal nature; but, as his name had been mentioned in connection with this matter, he wished to say that he had not strongly recommended Mr. Gray for the appointment, and he was surprised if anything which he wrote concerning the gentleman caused the appointment to be conferred upon him. He denied that he really made such a recommendation. To the best of his belief, for he had not kept a copy of his letter, what happened was this—Mr. Gray, who was a small tenant of his, wrote to ask him to recommend him for the post of Sub-Commissioner. He declined; but some time after he received another letter from Mr. Gray saying that he thought he was likely to be appointed, and asking for a character. Upon that he wrote back saying that Mr. Gray was a very respectable man and a good farmer. That was all that passed until the other day, when he received another letter
  1282
  from Mr. Gray asking him to recommend him for reappointment, and that he declined to do. He could not vouch for the actual wording of the letter, but these were, he believed, the true facts of the case; therefore, he thought it hardly fair to attempt to throw the responsibility for Mr. Gray's appointment on his shoulders, as he believed had been done in "another place."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not desire to make more of the noble Marquess's testimonial than was justifiable. The letter was not addressed to Lord Spencer, but to Mr. Gray himself. It was practically the same as had been described by the noble Marquess, but it was only fair to all parties that he should quote the exact words. The letter contained such statements as these—
  "I regret that the letters have remained so long unanswered. I cannot write to Lord Spencer himself, as I hardly know him; but I shall he happy to answer any questions that may be put to me as to your character and ability as a farmer, as I believe you to be a thoroughly respectable man and a good farmer as far as I can judge."
  And again—
  "Having heard that you are anxious to be appointed Sub-Commissioner, I have every reason to believe that if you obtain the appointment you will discharge the duties successfully."
  He (Lord Carlingford) thought that was a distinctly favourable letter; but it was not that letter alone, but others of a similar nature, which had induced the Lord Lieutenant to appoint Mr. Gray. A much stronger recommendation was received from the noble Marquess's agent, whose letter testified to Mr. Gray's great skill, and his knowledge of land, and the successful manner in which he had cultivated a large farm, and spoke of him as a model for the other tenants. The agent also said that he had every reason for believing that Mr. Gray would discharge his duties conscientiously.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, it was satisfactory that they had now for the first time a distinct acknowledgment from the noble Lord that a certain Sub-Commissioner would not have been appointed if the Lord Lieutenant had been acquainted with his antecedents. In that case, he thought if the antecedents of the Commissioners from the highest to the lowest had been con-

  1283
  sidered they would never have been appointed, because their antecedents were such as would have shown that it was impossible they could have acted impartially.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the antecedents to which he had referred consisted in the fact that the gentleman in question had taken an active part in tenants' meetings in Ulster.

THE SUGAR TRADE—WEST INDIAN SUGAR.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he rose to ask, Whether the Secretary of (State for the Colonies had arrived at a decision with regard to the questions relative to the West Indian sugars, submitted to him by a deputation from the West India Committee on 4th of April last? The total amount of sugar imported from the West Indies had fallen off since 1878 by nearly one-third, while side by side with this there was a large increase in the consumption of sugar. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that while the West Indies exported less, the United Kingdom imported more. On the Continent, on the other hand, the production of beet sugar had, since 1878, greatly increased. The result was that the West Indies were in danger of being completely shut out of the market. The United States were importing large quantities of beet sugar, and they had agreed to Treaties with Mexico and the the Sandwich Islands, by virtue of which sugar would probably be introduced in very large quantities. In that direction, again, the West Indies were likely to be very badly off, and their trade to be placed in a position of very great difficulty. The Petition of the West India Committee submitted three questions to the noble Earl—Whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to promote an International Conference with a view to the abolition of bounties; secondly, whether they would do all in their power to procure a Favoured Nation Clause from the United States; and whether they would encourage the West Indies to conclude an arrangement of a reciprocal character with the United States. They had no power of themselves to make such tariffs, and it could only be done subject to the control of
  1284
  the Imperial Government. He was afraid a West Indian Conference would have very little chance indeed, because it was hardly likely that any argument that could be used with foreign, nations would induce them to abolish the bounty system. The Favoured Nation Clause, he believed, would be a reasonable proposal. The West Indian Colonies had had so much trouble and difficulty that they deserved the favourable consideration of the Government. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is not a difficult or disagreeable task to answer the Questions which have been put by my noble Friend, because in his statement of fact to which I have listened there is nothing from which I can dissent. It is quite true that there has been a very considerable falling off in the importation of sugar from the West Indies coincident with the very large increase in the general consumption in this country; and although that is partly balanced by the increased exportation from the West Indies to other countries, there is no doubt that the sugar-growing interest in the West Indies is in a state of depression. That does not imply a corresponding depression in all industries, because the Native population are developing various others, some of them with considerable success; but the planting interest is still by far the most important. I am afraid that the history of that interest during the last 50 years would show that its condition in that time has been much more frequently disastrous than prosperous; and I do not at all dispute the noble Lord's proposition that the condition of the planting industry is such that we are bound to do anything which may reasonably be in our power to remove the difficulties under which it labours. Now, the noble Earl referred to three questions that were raised by the deputation which called upon me at the Colonial Office and to which I gave a reply. The first question is that of bounties given by Foreign Governments to exporters of sugar from their country; the second is that of extending the most-favoured nation treatment by the United States to the West Indian Colonies as regards their production of sugar; and the third is the question whether special arrangements of a reciprocal character shall be

  1285
  made between the West Indies and the United States. Upon none of these points have I anything material to add to what I stated to the deputation. As to the bounties, I do not see any more now than I did then any prospect of inducing Foreign Governments to depart from the system which they have adopted. They are not likely to yield to any representation from us. They are within their rights, and it would be impossible, consistently with present ideas, either to give bounties ourselves or to impose differential duties on goods which have received bounty in their own country. We could not tell them that they should alter their system because it injured the trade of the West Indies, for, if we did, I anticipate they would reply that they found it benefited their own trade, and that was what most concerned them. The only question is whether we can take any steps to make it to the interests of those countries to abandon the system? I do not think that in this country the idea of granting corresponding bounties prevails to any great extent, or that it is likely to prevail. A system of bounties is, undoubtedly, faulty in principle, and not likely to be acceptable to the English taxpayers. No doubt, we might impose countervailing duties upon the goods corning from the countries where bounties prevail; but there, again, we should be acting contrary to all modern practice; and apart from that question, with regard to which a great deal may be said, the attempt to return to differential duties would lead to many complications and difficulties, and hold out such opportunities for fraud that the disadvantages arising would be far greater than the benefits. As to the system of foreign bounties, I am not going to defend it in principle; I think it indefensible; but, taking the English nation as a whole, it is not to us an absolutely unmixed evil. In effect, France and Germany are giving some hundred thousands yearly to provide England with sugar at an exceptionally low rate. Frenchmen and Germans may have much reason to complain; they are taxed that we may buy cheaply; but to the English consumer it is a gain. Sugar is an article of universal consumption, and the price of it affects the poor more than any other class. It may be asked, further, are the present low prices likely to last? I do not think
  1286
  that the present state of things is likely very long to continue. There is overproduction of sugar just now, and exceptionally low prices follow as a natural consequence; but if all our beliefs in these matters are not delusions, overproduction will remedy itself, prices will return to their normal level, and the superiority of cane sugar over beetroot will show itself. We may hope, therefore, that our sugar manufacturing industry will hold its own, notwithstanding the disadvantage of bounty. As to the practical step of calling an International Conference to deal with this question, I told the deputation that I would consider the matter. I have considered it, and consulted my noble Friend at the Foreign Office, who came to the conclusion, in which I entirely agreed, that, at any rate, at the present time it would be useless to call a Conference for the purpose. I am bound to add that I do not believe that there is any chance of Foreign Powers agreeing to a Conference with a view to abolish bounties. If it were possible, this Government would readily join; but it does not seem possible now. The next proposal of the deputation was to obtain the most favoured-nation treatment from the United States for the West Indian Colonies. The matter has often been discussed before, and we have not hitherto succeeded in attaining that object; but we hold the case to be a strong one, since we give the most favoured-nation treatment to the United States. I have been in communication with the Foreign Office on the subject, and a despatch has gone, or is going, out to Washington upon it. It is better, if possible, to obtain what we want in that way rather than by separate negotiations between the West Indies and the United States, because these might involve giving to a Foreign Power advantages in regard to the trade of a British Colony which the Mother Country and the other Colonies do not enjoy, which is a contingency not to be overlooked, and certainly not to be desired. But I do not ignore the fact that the natural market for West Indian produce lies rather in America than in Europe, and I am not disposed to veto any special arrangement which might have the effect of increasing that traffic if it did not seem likely to inflict practical injury on our trade here. The first thing to do will be to endeavour to obtain the most

  1287
  favoured-nation treatment from the United States with the West Indian Colonies, and then, if that negotiation fails, we shall have to consider some other and more special arrangement, if any of a satisfactory character can be come to.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House all correspondence relating to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Cambridgeshire, and to that brought by the steamship 'Toronto.' "—(The Lord Harlech.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked whether it was true that there had been an alarming outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Lincolnshire which had not been properly dealt with by the local authorities?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he regretted there had been several cases in that county, and he looked upon every outbreak as alarming, because the disease had been reduced to such a small compass in this country, and any neglect which might lead to its spreading again was certainly a matter for alarm. He was sorry to say that in Lincolnshire there had been the greatest neglect on the part of the local authorities; but the Privy Council had sent down an Inspector, who was now in communication with those authorities, and they had complied with all the advice given to them, and the infected places were carefully watched by the police, as they ought to have been at the first. He should be glad to give the Return moved for by his noble Friend.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE BLENHEIM PICTURES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGANasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it was true that some of the most valuable pictures of the Blenheim collection had been offered for sale to the country by the Duke of Marlborough; and, if so, whether such offer bad been finally declined by Her Majesty's Government? Since he had
  1288
  come down to the House he had heard that a legal decision had been given upon the question whether the Duke of Marl-borough had a right to dispose of those pictures. That decision left very little doubt that those pictures, in some form, or other, would before long be offered for sale. Under these circumstances, and considering the historical and artistic value of the pictures, he ventured to hope that the noble Earl would inform the House whether any negotiations had been carried on between the Government and their owner, and whether the correspondence could be produced for the information of their Lordships without detriment to the Public Service or to the negotiations. He would further express a hope that the Government would not come to a final decision in the sense of refusing to treat for the purchase of these valuable works of art until after the Whitsuntide Recess.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is perfectly true that the Duke of Marlborough is prepared to sell the pictures at Blenheim—12 for £420,000, or five for £173,250. The offer was communicated to the Director and the Trustees of the National Gallery, and the reply of Her Majesty's Government to the Trustees was, that the Government were prepared to entertain and consider with care any definite proposal which might be made for the sale and purchase of these valuable pictures, but that the scale of price asked by the Duke of Marlborough was excessive. The Trustees were further asked to state a sum at which they valued any picture the purchase of which they recommended. I conceive it would be inconvenient if the negotiations for the purchase of pictures with a Government agent were published and placed in the possession of other agents.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he would again say that he hoped the Government would not come to any final decision until after the Whitsuntide Recess.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I very much doubt whether the negotiations for the sale of any of the pictures will be brought to a close within a fortnight.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that, as a Trustee, he wished to mention that the pictures in question comprised the famous Ansidei Raffaelle—an equestrian portrait of Charles I.—by Vandyck; two full-length portraits by Rubens, probably the finest pictures he ever painted; also other

  1289
  allegorical pictures by Rubens. The Government had declined the offers, and there did not at present seem any great chance of the negotiations ending successfully in a national purchase; but the letter of the Government to the Trustees did not preclude further negotiation. The responsibility of recommending a purchase rested with the Trustees. Undoubtedly, the prices asked were high, but the pictures were unique; and, in every way, it would be deplorable if they were allowed to be bought by another country.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there was a strong feeling at Oxford that these treasures should not, if it could be avoided, be allowed to leave the country, as works of art, books, and manuscripts had done within the last two years.

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION— THE BOROUGHS OF IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the numerical proportion of the boroughs of Ireland. The urban boroughs had a most remarkable history. They had been an important means of administering English law in the country some 300 years ago. In some there was a distinct line of demarcation between the English city and the Irish city, and in others between the Scotch city and the Irish city. By modern changes those towns had ceased to be the centres of political and municipal life which they used to be. There were three periods at which such Returns as he asked for had been given. The first was in 1832— the period of the great Reform Act, the second in 1851, and the last in 1866. Out of the 32 Irish boroughs two, Cashel and Sligo, had been disfranchised. Almost every one of those boroughs had diminished in population, both absolutely and relatively to the increase in other parts of the United Kingdom. It was evident, therefore, that some change must be made. Since he had the opportunity of placing the Question on the Notice Paper a valuable Return, which was moved for by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Limerick), had been presented to the House. That Return contained most accurate information. The new suffrage would be
  1290
  a household suffrage, and the Return to which he referred gave the number of inhabited houses in Ireland, dividing them into four classes. First, there were houses of £12 a-year and over; next, those between £4 and £12; then those between £1 and £4; and, lastly, those under £1. In most of the boroughs the last class needed hardly to be taken into consideration; but under the first three classes were included no fewer than 130,715, as against 58,051 on the present register. It was quite evident that in such a state of facts some new arrangements would have to be made. Now, there were few boroughs in Ireland, excluding Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Galway, and Waterford, which were entitled to independent representation. There was one method of dealing with the subject which he hoped would not be adopted, although it had been adopted in Scotland and England to some extent—that was the grouping of boroughs. The circumstances of Ireland were totally different from those of Great Britain, and the principle of grouping was totally inapplicable to that country. The Bill which was now being discussed in the other House would soon come before their Lordships, and it was desirable that they should be prepared to deal with the vast questions which would shortly come like a flood upon them, and it was for that reason that he had ventured to bring forward the question for their Lordships' consideration. In conclusion, the noble Lord said he had carefully formed the opinions which he had expressed, and which he believed would be verified whenever the subject was fully discussed by their Lordships.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): I rise for an instant, in order that I may not appear to treat my noble Friend with any want of civility, but also for the purpose of saying that I have nothing to say in reply to the speech which he has just delivered. Whatever valuable observations I might make on that speech, if I chose, is a secret known only to myself; but it is not my duty, on the part of the Government, to express an opinion on the subject of redistribution of seats in Ireland. The whole question of redistribution as applied to the Three Kingdoms the Government hope in due time to take in hand, and it will not be their

  1291
  fault if their proposals are not laid before Parliament in a very early future. In the meantime, I think my noble Friend will hardly succeed in forcing the matter upon the attention of your Lordships' House. I must leave without comment the remarks he has made, which, from the circumstances of the case, must be somewhat in the nature of a soliloquy.

COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.
(The Earl of Derby.)
COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.

  (No. 44.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(The Earl of Derby.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHpointed out that, under one of the provisions of the Bill, the sentences passed on soldiers and sailors by courts martial in the Colonies might be altered and reduced at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. He did not object to such a power being vested in the hands of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies; but persons might be appointed to the Office who entertained peculiar views concerning military and naval discipline, and he should object to their having power to interfere with the sentences of courts martial without first referring to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the military authorities.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was glad that the Bill had been scrutinized by the noble Viscount with such minute care. He thought, however, that the danger apprehended by the noble Viscount was of an imaginary kind. No doubt, the Bill conferred upon the Secretary of State the power to alter and shorten sentences in the case of a prisoner being removed from one Colony to another; but the object was not to lessen the punishment, but to prevent its being aggravated in consequence of the prisoner's removal. In regard to the removal of naval or military prisoners, the Colonial Secretary would, doubtless, in all cases consult the naval or military authorities as a matter of course.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW AND POLICE—POLICE PROTEC TION OF HER MAJESTY'S MINISTERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ASHBURNHAMinquired of Her Majesty's Government, How many members of the police force are employed in the protection of Her Maiesty's Ministers; what is the total annual cost of such protection; and what proportion of such annual cost is borne by the ratepayers of this Metropolis?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he is distinctly of opinion that it is not desirable that I should make any statement in reply to the Question of the noble Earl. I venture to remind your Lordships of the great authority with which the Secretary of State for the Home Department speaks upon this subject, and of the immense responsibility of the constant and continuous duty of the police to meet threats and attempts of a perfectly monstrous and unusual character against life and property in this country.
  THE EARL OF ASHBURNHAMasked whether the noble Earl would object to answer the latter portion of his Question?
  EARL GEANVILLE: I have no statement to make in reply to the latter part of the noble Earl's Question.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.