Sitting of 13 May 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—National Provident Insurance, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tithe Rent Extraordinary Limitation٭[177]; Land (Compulsory Registration of In cumbrances)٭[178]; Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.)٭[179].
Second Reading—Honorary Freedom of Boroughs ٭ [153].
Considered as amended—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [150], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3),٭ and passed.
Withdrawn—Income Tax Administration Amendment٭ [20].

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEES—ASCENSION DAY—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had to make the usual Motion with regard to Ascension Day—a day the observance of which was recognized by the Church to which the vast majority of the Members of the House belonged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Committees shall not sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he should not trouble the House with a speech, but he must take a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 4: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 185.)

PARLIAMENT—ORDER—COURSE OF PROCEDURE—REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I rise, Sir, to draw your attention, and that of the House, to what I think is a very important question affecting the Procedure of the House of Commons, which arises out of what occurred at an early hour this morning. It will be in the recollection of some hon. Gentlemen now present that a discussion of some length, involving points of considerable interest, took place with reference to certain clauses of the Registration Bill. The result of that discussion was that there was a very narrow majority in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart). That the question raised was open to a considerable amount of difference of opinion was proved by the fact that while one Member of the Government spoke one way, another spoke in the opposite sense, and that while one section of the Administration voted in one Lobby, and another section voted in the other

439
Lobby, a third section, headed by the Prime Minister, bolted, and did not vote at all.
MR. GLADSTONE: I know not whether I caught the expression of the right hon. Gentleman correctly, but I think he said I "bolted," which is a phrase of an invidious and offensive description. I think I can show even the right hon. Gentleman that what I did was reasonable in my particular position.
MR. SPEAKER: I did not catch the expression. I thought the term used was "voted."
MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman objects to my manner of characterizing it, and I will not follow that matter up. I was merely pointing out what occurred, with the view of showing that the public Notice which I subsequently gave was a most legitimate one.
MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. What is the Question before the House?
MR. SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman was rising to a point of Order.
MR. J. LOWTHER: A point of Procedure, Sir. The point I wished to raise was whether, having given public Notice, as I did, that it was my intention, on the third reading of the Registration Bill, to move that it be recommitted, with the specific object of giving the House an opportunity of reconsidering the decision it arrived at, as I have said, by a narrow majority, an opportunity should not have been given me of making that Motion? That Notice, publicly given by me from my place in the House, was handed to the Clerk at the Table. Subsequently, a discussion occurring at considerable length on some minor points that remained to be dealt with in the Bill, and as it was getting on for 2 o'clock in the morning, I relied upon the Forms of the House and the general practice of Parliament that an opportunity would be afforded me, in accordance with the Notice I had publicly given, to raise the question again on the third reading of the Bill.
MR. HEALY: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether questions on points of Order should not be addressed to the Chair?
MR. J. LOWTHER: My question is addressed to Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is going into the question at great length. I am waiting to hear the point of Order on which he appeals to the Chair.
MR. J. LOWTHER: My remarks, Sir, have been delayed by the interruptions which have come from both sides of the House. They have been protracted beyond the length they would ordinarily have attained by these interruptions. The point I wish to put is whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons, when public Notice has been given of an intention to move the recommitment of a Bill upon the Order of the Day for its third reading, with the object of raising a specific question, that the third reading of the Bill should be moved and carried at the close of the Report stage without any opportunity being afforded to the Member who has given such Notice to make the Motion for the recommitment of the Bill?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Before you give your ruling, Sir, upon the question of Procedure submitted to you by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I trust that, with your permission and by the courtesy of the House, I may be allowed to state what actually occurred on the occasion. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have sought to introduce any controversial matter in reference to the conduct of the Prime Minister in submitting his question. We have nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, what occurred last night was this—and I am speaking in the presence of Gentlemen who were in the House at the time—the Attorney General, when the Report upon the Registration Bill was completed, proposed to take the third reading to-day, after the Report of the Irish Registration Bill had been disposed of, or, in case that Bill was not finished to-day, then tomorrow, after the grant to the Princess Beatrice had been agreed to; whereupon the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stan hope), without rising from his seat, observed—"Why not now?"—a remark that was received with cheers from all parts of the House. The Attorney General thereupon said that, looking at the extreme urgency of the Bill, he should have been prepared to have asked the House to read it a third time then; but in consequence of the

441
fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) had give Notice of his intention to move the recommitment upon the Order of the Day for the third reading, he felt that he could not make the proposal unless the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire could state that, in his opinion, there was no reason why the third reading should not be taken then. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who at the time represented the Opposition, saw no reason why it should not be taken, and it was with his distinct sanction that the Bill was read a third time.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to say that, in my recollection, the statement of the right hon. Baronet opposite with regard to what occurred last night is substantially accurate.
MR. SPEAKER: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is correct. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice that on the third reading he would move to recommit the Bill; but I certainly understood that that Notice had been withdrawn with the sanction of his Colleague sitting beside him, and, consequently, I allowed the Motion for the third reading of the Bill to be made. It was a matter for the discretion of the House, and the House gave its assent to the proposal for the third reading of the Bill.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish to say that I was no party to the withdrawal of the Notice. I had fully intended to move the re-committal of the Bill, and to take the opinion of the House upon the question I had intended again to raise.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 150.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had received any complaints regarding the registration of voters in England such as they had to make regarding Ireland?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had received a few complaints, but letters on this subject were always addressed to the Home Office.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be interesting if the Chief Secretary would now state what would be the sequence of dates as regards the work of registration?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as he understood the procedure it would be as follows:—On the 1st of June the Clerk of the Peace would send his precept to the Clerk of the Union, sending the old registration lists and blank forms for the supplementary lists, and give orders to mark the old Registers, and make out a supplementary list of the newly-qualified persons. Rates were to be paid by the 1st of July, and Clerks of the Unions must return all documents on the 8th of July. The Clerk of the Peace thereupon printed and posted the lists publicly on the 20th of July, and on the 22nd of July the Clerk of the Peace issued his notice calling for new claims, and then these claims and objections would come in. The Courts of the Revising Barristers would commence on the 8th of September.
  MR. SEXTONasked the latest dates when notices of objection could be served?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the 20th of August would be the date of delivery, and the 22nd of August would be the date of publication. The dates for lodgers would be different; the date of delivery would be the 4th of August, and the 11th of August would be the date of publication.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be re-committed with respect to new Clauses regarding temporary provision for remuneration of local officials, and contribution to cost of registration in borough of Dublin by townships of Pembroke and Black-rock."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Motion, by leave,withdrawn.
  Bill considered.
  New Clause (Amendment of date in section seven of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884,")—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. DAWSONmoved, after Clause 5, that the following new clause be added to the Bill:—
  "Every occupier of any rateable property of any value, or of any tenancy, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly, shall be returned by the

  443
  rate collector on the rate book for every qualification dependent upon rating:, no matter who pays or is liable for the rates, and anything contained in the sixty-third and sixty-fourth sections of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Victoria, chapter ninety-one, notwithstanding."
  This was to meet the case of such occupiers in Dublin. There, the Collector General of Rates considered that it was not his duty to place such persons on the Register, although they were duly qualified, and so large numbers of persons were disfranchised.
  New Clause (Rating weekly and monthly tenants,)—(Mr. Dawson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the clause proposed was unnecessary, as its object was already sufficiently provided for. The Collector General was advised that it was his duty to place such persons on the Register.
  MR. HARRINGTON,in supporting the clause, said, that it was unfair that occupiers should have to serve claims every year. Moreover, the clause was necessary for the purpose of making the law clear. Even Dr. Webb, an eminent Q.C., advised the South Dublin Board of Guardians that it was not the duty of the Clerk to place such persons on the lists.
  MR. GIBSONremarked, that it would be necessary to know the case placed before Dr. Webb before discussing his opinion.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if the law was admitted to be as stated, where was the objection to making the law clear? It appeared to him that the object of the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland was to allow the law to be so confused and involved that those having charge of the machinery of registration might be enabled to throw any obstacle in the way of placing persons on the Register. The position of all the officials concerned in the administration of the Act would resemble that of the angel with the fiery sword at the gate of Paradise, and as every person passed in the sacred company of the Registrar these gentlemen would dread an earthquake would follow. Or, to change the simile, every official in Ireland being in his
  444
  heart opposed to the extension of the franchise would, as far as he could, act the part of the spider to the fly and kill as many votes as he could manage to get into his web.
  MR. SEXTON,in supporting the clause, contended that if it were not inserted in the Bill large numbers of these poor people would be disfranchised by the subordinate officials who had to do with the preparation of the Register in Dublin and other parts of Ireland.
  MR. R. T. REID,while not believing that the Government were actuated by the motive imputed to them by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, thought the Amendment ought to be accepted, even if the clause did nothing more than to make clear that which at present was apparently obscure, and as to which eminent legal authorities differed. He could not understand why the Government should oppose the insertion of some clause of this sort.
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the clause on the ground that the insertion of unnecessary provisions tended to confuse those charged with the preparation of the Register. He thought the Solicitor General for Ireland ought to give the House his definition of what the law really was.
  MR. BARRYsaid, the object of the clause was that the matter should be placed beyond doubt.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that the Government had already accepted Amendments which they did not deem necessary, but others did.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the clause referred to an Act which applied only to Dublin. The position of the Government was ambiguous as to the alleged non-necessity for or danger of the clause.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANappealed to the House to make progress with the Bill, the passing of which was a matter of extreme urgency. The desire of the Government was to meet the reasonable wishes of hon. Members; but they maintained that the clause now proposed was unnecessary, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill itself covering the point now raised when taken in connection with what was known as Mr. Goschen's Act; and it was undesirable to encumber the Bill with useless provisions. The Government had accepted from the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan,

  445
  Clause 2 in the Bill; and yet they were charged with doing nothing to assist qualified persons in getting on the Register. They were as anxious as any hon. Member could be for the largest addition that could consistently be made of properly qualified persons to the Register of Voters in Ireland; and ho should be prepared, if necessary, to propose the insertion of words later on to make the matter still clearer in regard to that class of occupiers.
  MR. PLUNKETremarked, that he had been very much opposed to the extension of the household franchise in Ireland, and he had stated very fully at the time the grounds of his objection to it. But that measure having been passed, they had now only to see that it was properly carried out; and as far as he was able to form an opinion of the action of the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland, nothing could have been more earnest than the desire they had evinced to give fair effect to the legislation which had been adopted by Parliament.
  MR. DAWSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, after Clause 10, insert the following Clause:—" A sufficient supply of copies of all the Forms and Notices of Claim and Objection set forth in the Schedule to this Act shall be kept in every county at the office of the clerk of the peace for such county, and at the office of each clerk to a Board of Guardians of a Union any part of which lies within such county, and in a Parliamentary borough at the office of the town clerk, and copies of such forms and notices shall be given free of charge to any person applying for the same on any day, except Sunday, up to the end of the period within which such notices and forms respectively may be served."
  New Clause (Clerk of the peace to keep sufficient supply of forms, &c.,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that, although, this matter was sufficiently provided for by Section 27 of the Act of 1850, he would not object to the clause for that reason. It was desirable that
  446
  this Act should contain some such provision as that proposed by the hon. Member.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added.
  MR. SEXTONbegged to move a new-clause providing that registers and lists should be open to inspection and perusal by every person desiring to inspect and peruse them, copies to be given to applicants. This was an endeavour to extend to Ireland the same facilities which were provided by the law of England.
  New Clause:—
  (Registers, &c. shall be open to inspection, and copies given.)
  "A copy of every register, list, or other document made out or otherwise dealt with for the purpose of registration of voters by any clerk of the peace, clerk of the union, town clerk, or other official, shall be open to inspection and perusal by every person desiring to inspect and peruse it, at any time between ten of the clock in the forenoon and four o'clock in the afternoon of any day except Sunday, during a period of not less than fourteen days after such official has completed such register, list, or other document, and the official having custody of notices of claim and notices of objection shall submit them to the like inspection and perusal; and, during the said period, every official having the custody of such register, list, or other document shall supply a copy of it to every person requiring the same according to the rates set forth in form twenty-nine of the First Schedule to this Act, and every such official shall give public notice, of his readiness to allow such inspection and perusal, and to provide such copies, at one place at least in every poor law union situate wholly or partly within the county, to be specified in such notice,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)thought that the clause might be accepted for the reason which had been mentioned in the previous case.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was of opinion that some provision should be introduced in the clause whereby the lists should be open to some person or persons recognized as being interested in, or connected with, the election, in order to prevent persons coming forward to examine the lists with the object of embarrassing the officials or for obstructive purposes.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was also of opinion that some restriction of the kind should be placed on persons desiring to inspect the lists. He moved that the lists should be open to inspection by every person "on the list of voters."
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "person," by inserting the words "on the list of voters."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONridiculed the exaggerated and visionary fears of the hon. and gallant Member as to the business of the officials being impeded by persons examining the lists. He remarked that as the bulk of the voters were likely to be sympathizers with the Nationalist Party, the persons who would probably be interested in impeding the work of the officials would be the supporters of the Party of the hon. and gallant Member.
  MR. H. G. ALLENpointed out that the 8th section of the English Registration Act provided that a copy of the lists should be kept for the purpose of examination "by any person without payment." No inconvenience had been found to result from the generality of this facility of inspection. He thought, therefore, that it was desirable that the law in the two countries should be assimilated, and that the form adopted in the English Act should be introduced in the Irish Act.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, added.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the object of the next clause he begged to propose was merely to strictly apply the provisions of the English Bill to the case of Ireland with regard to the publication of the register.
  New Clause:—
  (Publication of register, &c.)
  "A copy of every register, list, notice, or other document directed by this Act, or by any other of the Parliamentary Registration Acts to be published, is to be published by fixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous position near the outside of the outer door or on the outer wall of every building used for religious worship, and outside every court house, petty sessions
  448
  court, municipal hall, poor law dispensary, constabulary barrack, office of clerk of the union, office of clerk of the peace, post office, and postal telegraph office, and everything so published must remain there during a period including two consecutive Sundays at least next after the first day of publication; and if any portion of a register, list, notice, or other document so published is destroyed, mutilated, defaced, or removed, the person responsible for its publication is forthwith to place another to the same effect in its place,"—[Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)thought that this clause was a reasonable one, and he would offer no objection to it.
  MR. LEWIStook exception to the last sub-section of the clause, and contended that it would be impossible to apply it with any satisfactory results. It would be impossible for postmasters and sub-postmasters to prevent the destruction or the mutilation of lists unless they had an army of assistants to look after them.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that this was a most laudable attempt on the part of the hon. Member for Derry to obstruct the Bill. Unfortunately, however, for him, the clause was taken out of the English Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 36: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
  Clause added.
  MR. SEXTONmoved, in page 8, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:—
  "A revision court shall be held in every town which, according to the Census of 1881, had a population exceeding three thousand, and whenever it shall appear that any considerable number of voters or claimants cannot attend the ordinary sittings of the court without loss or inconvenience, evening sittings of the court shall be appointed."
  He maintained that evenings sittings would be of great advantage to people in manufacturing towns, where a man might lose half-a-day's wages by having to attend a Court during the day. This was a clause which would be operative in the Northern manufacturing towns for the benefit of the Conservatives as well as everywhere else.
  New Clause (Revision court to be held in every town with population of 3,000,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. LEWISsaid, that the clause went a great deal further than any clause of the kind had ever gone before. It would also operate in towns where there was a lack of railway accommodation involving on the part of the Revising Barrister a delay of three or four days. [Mr. SEXTON: No, no!] The hon. Member said "No, no." He had no doubt that the hon. Member knew everything; but he wished to say that he also had experience of railway travelling in Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that he had no objection to evening sittings.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to undertake that a clause should be introduced into the Bill on re-committal, providing that every borough of more than 10,000 inhabitants should have at least one evening sitting, and that in every town with 3,000 inhabitants they would be held in every place where the Lord Lieutenant thought fit to order.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause (Lord Lieutenant may extend time by Order in Council,)—(Mr. Deasy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment, which he considered would tend to a relaxation of activity on the part of the officers in question. He would, however, look into the matter and see that the Act was enforced.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause (Devolution of tenancies,)—(Mr. Marum,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  New Clause (Revising barristers shall report on conduct of officers executing this Act,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYmoved the following new clause:—
  "It shall he the duty of the clerk of the union to object to the names of all freemen voters who have been inmates of any workhouse during the year for which the voters' list is made out in the same way as objections are now made under the thirteen and fourteen Victoria, chapter sixty-nine, section one hundred and eleven, to persons other than those on the freeman roll."
  The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board had said that if the freemen of Dublin were not disqualified by pauper relief he would see that they were made so.
  New Clause (Pauper relief to disqualify freeman,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was the duty of the Clerk of the Peace, and not of the Clerk of the Union, to make the objection. There was no reason why a freeman who accepted pauper relief should not be disqualified under the existing law.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, there was no machinery whereby they could secure that a freeman who received pauper relief should be kept off the Roll. If it was no part of the duty of the Clerk of the Union to object, the word "Peace" could be inserted in the clause instead of "Union."
  MR. LEWISpointed out that the general law applied to freemen as well as to other persons who were paupers. He objected to any one class being particularized in the way proposed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the reason why they insisted upon the insertion of

  451
  some such provision as this was that freemen who were in workhouses were allowed to come out and vote at elections. That was one of the well-known scandals of the Dublin electoral system.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would consider whether words could be inserted in the Bill to the effect that—
  "The disqualification under the thirteen and fourteen Victoria, chapter sixty-nine, section one hundred and eleven, shall apply to freemen."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that in that case he would withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYmoved the following new clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall entitle any person in statu pupillari to be registered as a voter, or to vote, in respect of the occupation of premises in any College."
  New Clause (Occupation by person in statu pupillari,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. PLUNKETexpressed surprise that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have proposed so important a Motion without justifying the course he was adopting.
  MR. HEALY: It was to save time. MR. PLUNKET said, that the proposal of the hon. Member was to disqualify a number of voters who would be otherwise qualified to be placed on the Register for the City of Dublin simply because they happened to reside within the walls of Trinity College. Even if the extreme view were adopted which the House affirmed last night with regard to the students at Oxford and Cambridge, the case of Dublin was different. A provision in the old Reform Act which was held to be incorporated in the Act of 1867 disqualified undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge from being placed on the Register of voters. But there never had been such a statutory disqualification of students in Ireland. If able to satisfy the requirements of the law in respect of age and the occupation of their chambers, there had never been anything in the law of Ireland to prevent them from voting. In Dublin the students lived in their rooms, and paid
  452
  for them like other occupiers. If they lived in lodgings outside the walls of Trinity College they would still, if this clause were carried, be entitled to vote; and there was no just reason why they should be disqualified because they happened to live within the College precincts.
  MR. CEOPPERopposed the clause, and expressed his regret that he was absent from the division last night with regard to the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge. He saw no reason why students, if qualified in respect of age and occupancy, should not be allowed to vote. The disqualification was unreasonable, and would act unjustly. For instance, two young men of the same age might pursue different paths in life. One might serve behind a counter, live in lodgings, and have a vote; the other might wish to improve his mind and study at a University, in which case he would be disqualified from voting. That seemed to him entirely unreasonable.
  MR. ARTHUE ARNOLDsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had moved this Motion without a word. So sincere a Liberal as he believed the hon. and learned Member to be could not speak in favour of so illiberal a proposal without pain. If the Attorney General had not last night made two speeches directly contradictory of each other, the Motion disqualifying students at Oxford and Cambridge would not have been carried. He and other hon. Members left the House after hearing the Attorney General's first speech under the distinct impression that Her Majesty's Government intended not to accept the Motion. He deeply regretted the course taken last night by Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that they would offer a firm resistance to-day to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that last night the Attorney General expressed the opinion that, as undergraduates would not be entitled to vote as the law now stood, it was unnecessary to make a declaration of the law in the Bill. After considerable discussion had taken place, his hon. and learned Friend said that he would not be prepared to negative a clause which asserted what he believed to be the law of the land. He did not think, therefore, the Attorney General

  453
  could be accused of any inconsistency. The view they held on this subject was that a student at a University had nothing to do with politics. He was placed at the University, in statu pupillari, for the purpose of education; and it was their opinion, as well as that of University authorities, that it was undesirable, on the ground of public policy, to introduce the element of politics. It was entirely, therefore, on educational grounds that he was in favour of the Motion made last night; and he should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, because he believed that the laws of the two countries on this subject should be identical.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORpointed out that up to the la9t Register there were over 300 students of Trinity College who had votes. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath had succeeding in reducing that number to about 100, because many of the students "chummed together." The distinction of joint qualification had been abolished, and so the number of students having votes in Trinity College would be largely increased. Perhaps by the energy which the Conservative Party in Dublin had always shown the number might be increased to 500 or 600. The question was simply this—Was the House, which had for purely academic reasons disfranchised the students of Oxford and Cambridge, going to enfranchise the students of Trinity College, Dublin, for political reasons?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that, as the rule that students should not be allowed to vote had been applied to Oxford and Cambridge, the question was whether it should be also applied to Dublin. It seemed to him that every argument that applied to Oxford and Cambridge applied equally to Dublin. Even if he laid himself open to the charge of inconsistency with Liberal principles, he should vote as ho voted last night on the Amendment, as he could not see the justice of adopting one principle in the case of an English and another in that of an Irish University.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that when the Franchise Bill was introduced there was in the Press of Scotland an extraordinary unanimity in the opinion that Ireland should be excluded from the ope-
  454
  ration of the Act; and he believed he was the first Member sitting for a Scotch constituency who made this the subject of his address, and urged in the strongest terms he was capable of that Ireland should be included, on the ground of its being a simple measure of justice. That being so, he thought he was entitled to be credited with having his action guided, not by any fear or desire with regard to any particular election, but by principle. But in the consideration of this matter it should be remembered that there was a third country embraced in the United Kingdom, and that was Scotland, and there they had no proposal in the Registration Bill such as the one with regard to England, and the one now proposed for Ireland. In Scotland students would be entitled to vote, and if, as he hoped, Halls would be established, and the students residing within them should be held by the judicial interpreters of the law to be qualified, they would be entitled to vote under the Scottish Registration Act. Therefore, if they proposed to apply a similar law to the Three Kingdoms they should include a similar clause to the one under discussion in the Scottish Registration Bill. He entirely dissented from the view that, on grounds of public policy, it was for the advantage of the country that students should be prevented from taking part in political affairs. In Scotland the students took a particularly lively interest in political affairs, and politics entered very largely into the constant recurrence of the election of Lord Rector, and in nine cases out of ten they were chosen from eminent men. The students on these occasions engaged in political matters, and they obtained the advantage of hearing the orations of some of the greatest orators of the day. He objected altogether to this grandmotherly care of students. Hon. Members who wished to disfranchise the students of Dublin University appeared to lose sight of the fact that they had strenuously urged—and, he hoped, obtained—the establishment of some University conducted entirely in accordance with their views; but if this clause were introduced those students would also be disqualified. [Irish cheers.] Hon. Members cheered that; but he doubted if they saw the force of the application of the principle in the one case as deeply as they did in the other. The

  455
  possession of the franchise was a right and not a privilege; and he thought the House ought not, therefore, to impose any disability on any people or any special class of persons, but should leave the Courts to decide who was in possession of the requisite qualifications and allow him to vote as he chose. In a Session devoted to enfranchisement it appeared to him to come with a bad grace from the Representatives of a country whose population had been so widely enfranchised.
  MR. J. LOWTHERremarked that those hon. Members who, regardless of apparent Party interest, had vindicated Liberal principles had not stood alone in their treatment of the question, for the late Mr. Fawcett said he would support a proposal to enfranchise undergraduates, even if he knew that the vast majority of the votes thus conferred would be given in favour of Conservative candidates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had spoken of the necessity of proving his consistency by voting to-day exactly as he voted last night; but he might observe that the present proposal was somewhat different from that brought forward yesterday, inasmuch as it would disqualify not only resident undergraduates, but also Bachelors of Arts. The Representation of the People Act was an enfranchising Act; but the present proposal was essentially one for disfranchisement. No properly constituted University authority had pronounced an opinion in favour of this monstrous proposition.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he mentioned yesterday that the Hebdomadal Council of the University of Oxford had recently passed a resolution to the effect that it would be subversive of discipline to allow undergraduates to vote at Parliamentary elections.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwent on to say that the question to be considered was whether they should, for the first time, introduce into an Act of Parliament a disqualifying clause of this kind for the purpose of disfranchising the occupiers of College rooms on the distinct ground that they were already represented by the Members' for the University. The present proposal was illogical from every point of view; and if it were carried the adult undergraduate would be the only human being living under the
  456
  Constitution of the Queen who was entirely debarred from the exercise of Constitutional rights.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) had referred to the case of Scotland; but everyone who knew anything about the Scottish Universities knew that there were no students who lived within the walls of those Universities. His hon. Friend had alluded to the possibility that there might hereafter be University Halls in Scotland; but he was not aware that there had ever been any serious proposal to that effect. He was clearly of opinion that the same rule ought to be applied to those who might live in Scottish University Halls as to English or Irish students. Could it be alleged that these students had any interest in the cities of Oxford or Dublin? They would be in those constituencies a totally foreign element. He had heard his hon. Friend declaim in equally vigorous language as to the foreign element which had been imported into the constituency of Peebles and other Scottish counties; and those students, he considered, would be an equally foreign element in the burgh constituencies. If they adopted this Amendment they would undoubtedly be departing from the principle of one man one vote, because they would be giving a double vote to many of those students. He was sure, if the House would only look at this question apart from Party considerations, and would consider the interests of the Universities and of the students themselves, they could come to only one conclusion on that subject. He looked at the matter primarily and solely in the interests of the Universities, and of the due maintenance of discipline in the Universities; and he certainly should vote for the Amendment.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Reform Bill, said what he desired to do was to give the franchise to all capable citizens. Where would the right hon. Gentleman find more capable citizens than men who had been trained for the University, and who must have stayed there probably for two years before they could enjoy the franchise? The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Buchanan) had said these students would have a double

  457
  qualification; but that was just exactly what they would, not have. He ventured to say that 99 out of every 100 of these students would be men who had no vote elsewhere. They were the sons of other people, and the only votes they would nave would be in respect of the chambers they occupied. There was another objection to this proposal that was equally strong. When the Prime Minister brought forward the Franchise Bill, he stated that no one was to be disfranchised under it; and in Committee the Postmaster General admitted that the Government were precluded from voting for the Amendment, since in doing so they would be infringing the rule laid clown by the Prime Minister. Even if the Universities did object, he maintained that after the House had declared that every capable citizen should have a vote they were going beyond their province in venturing to recommend that undergraduates should be disqualified. He regretted the vote which had been given last night with reference to the Oxford and Cambridge Universities; but the question as to the University of Dublin stood on a totally different footing, because, while the students at Oxford and Cambridge had not the right to vote, the students of Dublin University had. He called upon the Government to stand by their declarations made openly in that House, and concluded by stating that if the Amendment were carried, he would, on the third reading, move the re-commitment of the Bill in order to raise the question again.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as his name was on the back of the Bill he should like to say a few words, although he was not in a position to speak with authority on behalf of the Government. Since the debate in Committee a good deal had taken place, and the whole question had assumed a different aspect. Personally, he had not been able to take the same view as some of his hon. Friends on that side of the House, and as some Members of the Government had done. His contention—and he did not see how it could be overset—was that if young men occupied rooms, or in any other way possessed qualifications which would be valid if they were not students, they ought not to be deprived of the franchise because they were students. That principle was simple
  458
  and universal in its application. If these students were not duly qualified, that would be settled by the Courts. He did not pay much attention to what had been said about breaches of discipline. As to Oxford and Cambridge, they were reduced to this ludicrous position—that that which was to upset discipline in the case of an undergraduate living in a College was to be harmless if he lived in lodgings. Those who lived in lodgings were subjected to more discipline than those who lived in a College; and it had been remarked to him that one of the advantages of living in a College was that you were able to sit up all night. From Ireland there had come no expression of authoritative opinion that discipline would be involved. The House had removed the restrictions on the enfranchisement of those who lived in College in Oxford and Cambridge, except in the case of undergraduates. This was not disfranchising anybody, but enfranchising a class, with an exception. Now, the House was dealing with a class who, by the decision of the Supreme Courts, was qualified. He was in favour of leaving the franchise to all who had the proper legal qualification. If these students were duly qualified, do not let the House interpose an artificial disqualification.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was perfectly amazed on reading the papers this morning to observe the decision which the House came to last night, because he was one of those who did not come down to the House because they believed it would be actually impossible that the Government, which in a full House allowed a clause to be added to the Bill, enfranchising the students at Oxford and Cambridge, would in a small House, without protest, allow that decision to be revoked. Not only that, but when he came down to the House to-day he found the only argument brought forward by hon. Members in favour of disfranchising the Irish students was that because they had done a wrong to the members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge they must extend that wrong to the members of the University of Dublin. The arguments advanced against giving students votes, that undergraduates were wandering gipsies or birds of passage, and that their having the franchise would be detrimental to the discipline of the Uni-

  459
  versities, seemed to him to be of a very flimsy kind. The argument as to their being birds of passage was a bad one. It applied to other classes as well, for they knew both in England and Scotland colliers came and lived in a place for a month, got qualified, and were brought up to vote at School Board elections. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) said students had not only no abiding interest in the place, but they took no part in local politics. He (Lord Elcho) thought there was no matter, either social or political, in which the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge did not take a prominent and beneficial part. Their activity might not always be well considered or reasonable; but that objection was not applied to other classes—as, for instance, those who pulled down park railings. It was impossible to believe that this action was not due to Party motives.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, that in Committee he voted in favour of continuing votes to Dublin undergraduates; but last night he came to the conclusion that it was not expedient that votes should be conferred on the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge. Holding the opinion that it was not expedient that there should be any difference between England and Ireland, and adhering to the conclusion he formed last night, he was not prepared now to give a vote in opposition to that he gave last night.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the last speech deserved the recognition of every fair-minded man in the House, exhibiting as it did a right application of that logic which, in the hands of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, became a terrible weapon indeed. The House had decided last night that students of Oxford and Cambridge Universities were not capable citizens; and, therefore, what was the meaning of asking whether a student at Trinity College, Dublin, was or was not a capable citizen? The question now before the House was simply whether they should give to students on one side of the Irish Channel a franchise which was denied to students on the other side of that Channel. Irish Members only asked that the decision given by the House last night with reference to a certain class of persons at Oxford and Cambridge Universities should be extended to the University of
  460
  Dublin; and the effect of its rejecting I the present Amendment would be to complete the "jerrymandering" of a certain portion of the City of Dublin.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he was one of those who, having voted yesterday for the Amendment excluding undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge from the Parliamentary franchise, felt bound to apply the same principle to-day to the case of the University of Dublin. He might point out that undergraduates were only allowed to use the College rooms for three years from the age of 19; that they did not acquire the right to vote until they were 21; and that thus they could not have this vote for more than one year. In these circumstances he did not think it so very important that for one year they should not be registered. All the arguments which supported the decision arrived at last night with regard to undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge appeared to him to hold equally good in respect to the University of Dublin; and he thought that they would belie the professions which they frequently made of their wish to have equal laws for the Three Kingdoms if they did not apply the same rule in that matter to both English and Irish University students. For this reason he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. HARRINGTONsupported the Amendment, contending that it would prevent what amounted to an abuse of the franchise. The effect of the rejection of the Amendment in the case of Dublin University would be to still further aggravate the "jerrymandering" of a partizan Boundary Commission in their division of the city. As to the argument that the Representation of the People Bill was an enfranchising and not a disfranchising measure, he pointed out that that Bill had the incidental effect of actually disfranchising a large number of persons who were already upon the Register; and he could not see why they should enable a student, by mere residence in a College, to have a vote which he would not otherwise possess. He reminded Irish Conservative Members that whatever provision remained in the Bill in favour of students of Trinity College, Dublin, would have to be extended to those of Maynooth; and he asked them how they would like to see COO clerical students walking out

  461
  of Maynooth College and completely out-voting the electors of the district where that Institution was situated? Ho believed that if the Amendment was not accepted, every principle of justice and fair play would be set aside, and the decision would be highly detrimental to the interests of such a constituency as Dublin.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 190: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 187.)
  MR. HEALY,in moving the following new clause:—
  "The lists of voters in boroughs shall be made out by streets, and not alphabetically, and in counties said lists shall be made out as far as possible as in boroughs,"
  said, that he moved this clause in consequence of a promise which had been given by the English Attorney General upon the English Bill of the late Home Secretary (Sir B. Assheton Cross), who said that he would support a proposal of this kind.
  New Clause (Lists to be made out by streets,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that a great deal could be said on both sides. Some persons wore very much in favour of the alphabetical arrangement. He would consider the matter.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSwas bound to say that the matter had been brought to his notice by a person who had had considerable experience. He would be in favour of having the matter left optional with the Local Authorities.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that such an Amendment could not be accepted. He had, however, no objection to give boroughs an option as to the manner in which the lists should be made out; and if a Bill dealing with the subject were introduced the Government would entertain it.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that in withdrawing the Amendment he should say that he believed the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly delusive.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause (Power to alter wards in Dublin and Belfast,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the gist of this suggestion was good; but he could not see how they could deal with it in this Bill. The wards were for municipal, and not Parliamentary elections, and, therefore, could not be touched here.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYmoved the following new clause:—
  "Where any person claiming to occupy or to have occupied as owner or tenant any dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, shall show that such premises are subject to an outstanding tenancy, and that he was, during the whole of the qualifying period, in the occupation of such premises, exercising dominion over them, and paying the rent thereof, such person shall be deemed to have been in occupation of said premises as tenant, and it shall not be necessary for him to show that said outstanding tenancy had legally become vested in him."
  He said his object was to provide that the real person who paid the rates should have his name on the list of voters. It was the custom in Ireland to give the receipt for rent to the widow of a deceased man; and, consequently, the actual occupier of the house or land was frequently excluded from the franchise.
  New Clause (Presumption in favour of occupying tenant,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. LEWISsaid, there was a good deal of subtilty in the legal phraseology of this clause. Its effect would be to create numbers of sham voters by putting non-qualified parties on the list. For instance, a man who was living with his mother, if his was the hand by which she paid the rent, might claim under this clause to be placed on the list of voters. Even if he stood alone, he should think it necessary to divide the House against it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the object of the hon. Member was already

  463
  achieved by other provisions of the Bill. The Government could not accept the clause. There were many evils to which it would lead. The clause went so far that the mere receipt for the rent would entitle a man to a vote, whether he occupied the premises or not.
  MR. SEXTONsupported the Amendment, and said that any proposal which would give the franchise to the people was opposed by the hon. Member for Derry and his Friends.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there were often efforts made by the sons of widows to get the mother's farm into their own hands, and the result most frequently was that the old woman had to go to the workhouse.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, on the other hand, there were many cases in which the female tenant was desirous of having her son on the Register, and at present could not accomplish it.
  SIR HERVEY BRUOEsaid, he foresaw a legal difficulty in collecting the rates if this Amendment were passed. The man on the rate book might refuse to pay the rates, on the ground that he was not the occupier.
  MR. HEALY: If he did not pay the rate he would not get the franchise.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HEALYproposed a new clause, providing that a technical breach of a tenancy during the qualifying period of occupation should not disqualify a person claiming to be placed on the Register. The clause was intended to meet the case, which was only too common in Ireland, of a man being ousted from his holding for a short period, in order to deprive him of the franchise.
  New Clause:—
  (Technical breach of tenancy shall not disqualify.)
  "Where any person claiming to occupy or to have occupied a dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, was evicted from such premises during the qualifying period of occupation, but was subsequently reinstated in the possession of same, such person shall be deemed, notwithstanding such eviction, to have been in occupation of said premises during the whole of the qualifying period if he can show that ho has paid the poor rates for such qualifying period," —(Mr. Healy;)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that, according to the Amendment, a man might be out of possession for 11 months and 29 days, and have the franchise.
  MR. HEALYsuggested the insertion of the words "by writ of restitution" after "reinstated."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)agreed to support the clause if it were amended so as to exclude the case in which an evicted tenant was reinstated in his holding as an act of grace. He suggested that words should be placed in the Amendment making it clear that the clause was only to apply to tenants reinstated in their holdings in consequence of the payment by them of their rents within the period of redemption.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 2, after the word "premises," by inserting the words "for non-payment of rent."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 3, after the word "reinstated," by inserting the words "by writ of restitution."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  MOTION FOE LEAVE.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for The LORD ADVOCATE)moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the tenure of land by crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for other purposes relating thereto. [Sir HERBERT MAXWELL: No, no!"] It is for the purpose of the arrangement which was made in a full House the other day.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I understand the arrangement was that the Bill was to be introduced, accompanied by a statement, to-morrow.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; at an early hour. Of course, if this Motion is objected to, it can only be done at 3 o'clock in the morning.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Then I withdraw my objection.
  MR. WARTON: I do not; I object. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman still object?
  MR. WARTON: Yes; I object to any step whatever being taken on this Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The second Business to-morrow will be the Irish Registration Bill; and the third Business, now that the Crofters' Bill has been objected to, will be the Telegraphs Acts Amendment Bill; and the fourth Order will be the East India Loan Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: What does the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) propose to do about the Crofters Bill?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: It will be put down in the proper place tomorrow; and, if not too late, we will proceed with it then.

  TITHE RENT EXTRAORDINARY LIMITATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DANIEL GRANT, Bill for the Limitation of Extraordinary Tithe, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DANIEL GRANT, Sir EDWARD WATKIN, Mr. DUCKHAM, and Mr. BORLASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 177.]

  LAND (COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF INCUMBRANCES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bill for compulsory Registration of Incumbrances, with a view of facilitating the sale of agricultural land, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARCOURT, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. CHARLES ROUNDELL, and Mr. STAVELEY HILL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 178.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER OF REGISTRY, &C.)BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts by making better provision for the Registry of British Ships, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 179.]

  NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSURANCE.
  Select Committee on National Provident Insurance nominated of,—Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Mr. STANHOPE, Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Mr. WILLIAM LOWTHER, Mr.
  466
  CHARLES JAMES, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. RANKIN, Mr. JOHN HOLLOND, Mr. HEALY, Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Mr. PELL, and Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, With power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
House adjourned at Four o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.