said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give the House any information on the present untoward aspect of Continental affairs, and if Her Majesty's Government has either by itself or in accord with France made any friendly offers to the Governments of Italy and Austria, with a view of soothing existing differences and averting from Europe the threatened calamities of war?

I regret, Sir, to say I am not able to give my hon. Friend any satisfactory information or any satisfactory assurance with respect to the present untoward state of affairs on the Continent. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the causes and events Which have led to that state of things is well known. It is equally well known to Austria, Prussia, and Italy, that Her Majesty's Government would, with the greatest pleasure, make use of their good offices, and do their utmost, for the purpose of preserving peace, if those good offices were applied for, and if there was any prospect of such good offices leading to any satisfactory result. The wish of Her Majesty's Government has been expressed to the French Government to act with them with a view to that object. It is quite evident that it would be unadvisable on the part of Her Majesty's Government to enter alone into any offer of good offices to any of those Powers which I now fear are on the verge of going to war. In the present critical state of affairs it would be unadvisable and improper to enter into any details on the subject.

said, he wished to know, whether any proposal has been made for a Congress?

replied that no proposal had been made for a Congress, but the question had been under discussion.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If it is the intention of the Government to refer the "Commons (Metropolis) Bill" to the consideration of a Select Committee?

said, in reply, that he thought the differences of opinion existing on the subject would be more satisfactorily adjusted by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House, and he should therefore be prepared, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and refer it to a Select Committee.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, When he will be prepared to make his statement respecting the Indian army?

, in reply, said, he would take the earliest opportunity of announcing when he should be able to make that statement, but he did not expect to be in a position to do so before the Whitsuntide recess.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report of the Commission on the Irish Constabulary will be laid upon the table of the House; and, whether the Government have decided upon making any change in the position of the Force, with a view to their increased efficiency?

Sir, the delay in laying on the table the Report of the Treasury Commission on the Irish Constabulary has arisen from some questions of pensions not having been finally settled. These have been now decided, and a supplementary Estimate will be proposed in a few days. I shall also ask leave to bring in a Bill on the subject, and I will tonight move for a copy of the Report. The Commission only inquired into the financial arrangements of the force, and I am not aware that the Lord Lieutenant contemplates any changes in other respects.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he intends to propose the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide recess?

Sir, the intention of the Government is to move that the House shall rise on Friday week and adjourn till the Thursday following.

said, he wished to know if the Government intend to propose the adjournment of the House for the Derby Day?

I do not think that is ever made the subject of a previous understanding. Matters take their natural course on that day.

said, he would beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to move the Resolution in Committee on the National Debt that night; and when, if the discussion is to be taken on the Motion for the introduction of the Bill, that Bill will be introduced?

said, he could only repeat the statement he made on a former occasion. He was quite in the hands of the House; but he thought the most convenient course would be for the House to get the Resolution passed without prejudice and without being committed in any way to the plan, and then to have the Bill in the hands of Members before the discussion took place upon it. If this was agreeable to the House he would take the Resolution that night, report it to-morrow, and then fix some convenient time for the second reading.

said, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) had a Resolution on the Paper on the same subject, which was fixed for that night.

said, he thought that that Motion rather referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and hoped if so that it would not be brought on, as it would be very inconvenient in regard to the course of trade to delay the passing of those Resolutions which related to Customs.

said, he considered that unless they heard what the intentions of the hon. Member for Buckingham were, it would be inconvenient to follow the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

said it would doubtless be exceedingly inconvenient to go into the Motion as to the reduction of the Fire and Marine Insurance Duties, of which he had given notice, after the discussion on the Re-distribution of Seats Bill, and he would, therefore, postpone it if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.

said, he thought that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman were to bring the subject before the House on the second reading.

asked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, whether the Merchant Shipping Act and the Railway Clauses Act would be brought on tonight, and if so at what hour?

said, he would not take them after eleven.

I rise, Sir, to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats. And though my duly will not, I hope, require me to detain the House for any great length of time, yet I must commence by pointing out that I shall have to advert to three several subjects—first, to the re-distribution of seats, properly so called; secondly, to certain questions as to the provisions which are most fitting and convenient to be made with regard to the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs; and thirdly, I must deal with that question of the procedure upon these Bills upon which so much has been said, and with regard to which so much interest has been excited. Now, Sir, as regards the re-distribution of seats. I will say a word at the commencement as to the principles upon which such a re-distribution should proceed. And I must say on behalf of my Colleagues and for myself that we have never seen any room for doubt or any reason to entertain any desire for innovation, or for departure from previous example, with regard to these principles. There are, indeed, in detail an almost boundless number of questions that may be, some plausibly, and some fairly, raised, if there be a disposition to rake them in disposing of the subject of re-distribution. And there may also be a fair difference of opinion as to the scale upon which those principles shall be applied. The process is a double one; first of all there is the process of disfranchisement, of the withdrawal or curtailment of the privilege of representation in Parliament; and secondly, there is the process of enfranchisement. I do not think that as to either the one or the other there has ever been, either in this House or among the various Governments that have dealt with the subject, any vital difference of opinion as to the principles upon which these two processes should be worked. In every case in which a Bill for the re-distribution of seats has been brought in, whether in 1854, in 1859, or in 1860, the seats which it was necessary to obtain have been obtained not by extinguishing, but by limiting the principle of the representation of small boroughs. To that method of proceeding I need scarcely say we shall adhere. Now, Sir, with respect to the subject of small boroughs, it is well that we should give the House to understand with what view and in what sense we propose to deal with them. There is an impression that is too widely spread perhaps in the opinion, at least in the superficial opinion —if I may so speak—of the public, that by this sort of either extinction or restraint of the representation of the small boroughs, to be introduced into a Re- distribution of Seats Bill, we may serve an invaluable purpose by putting a stop to corruption in Parliamentary elections. Now, Sir, no person so far as I am aware, who has ever been cognizant of this subject in a responsible capacity, has dreamt of carrying the process of re-distribution of seats, or of an extinction or restraint of small boroughs, to any point which would make it in any manner effectual for the purpose of putting a stop to Parliamentary corruption. And, indeed, in order to correspond in any degree with such an aim, we must attach to the name of a small borough a signification far wider than it has hitherto ordinarily borne. When we speak of small boroughs, while there is no precise definition of the term, perhaps we may be understood generally to mean towns that are under 8,000, 9,000, 10,000, or 12,000 inhabitants, according to the shades of meaning which people may attach to that term. But it is not the fact that corruption in this country is exclusively to be found in boroughs under, say, 10,000 in population. It is not even the fact that corruption—so far as I understand the matter—is especially to be found in those boroughs. I believe that as far as this subject is capable of being illustrated by Returns, it will be shown that if you take for your test boroughs which have been the subject of Parliamentary investigation on the score of allegations of bribery during a considerable number of years, not only nor perhaps mainly the boroughs from the very lowest figure up to 10,000 in population, but those from 10,000 to 20,000 in a very considerable degree, and then, again, those from 20,000 up to 40,000, or even higher, would be found—melancholy as it is to me to make the confession—to be tainted with this most disgraceful offence. Therefore, in proposing a limitation of the representation of small boroughs, which has, in point of fact, been the basis of every scheme suggested for the re-distribution of seats, we must not attempt to recommend such a scheme upon the supposition that it has of itself any effectual tendency to the extermination of the evil of corruption. No doubt it will have this effect—it may strike at certain boroughs, which, being small, are also corrupt, and perhaps we may carry our opinion with justice as far as to say that, where a small borough is corrupt, it is more difficult to cure the evil than in a large borough, because there is less of sound public opinion in the constituency to which you can appeal. And the seat so withdrawn is sure to be given to a constituency less likely to misuse its power. On the other hand, Sir, there has been in former times—at least, as far as I know, a widely spread opinion that, as the small boroughs were liable to the special demerit of corruption, so also they were entitled to claim the special merit of opening the door of this House to some classes of representatives who could not otherwise find their way here. I have already distinctly stated in this House my opinion that, in former times and circumstances, small boroughs did very extensively serve that purpose, especially in one particular mode. They introduced into this House a very important class of young men whose family connections were not of such a nature as effectually to recommend them to the confidence of large constituencies, as candidates who might in the first instance be taken upon trust. Now, however, the large constituencies, especially those of counties, much to their credit and to the advantage of the country, are usually willing to return as their representatives young men belonging to families which have tra- ditionally enjoyed their respect, and to look to them with hopes for the future. Thus, an opening is found for the younger members of families of rank, birth, and opulence. But how do we stand as to youths of families who have not these advantages? I am bound to say that, having particularly watched the working of our small boroughs, especially during the last two general elections, and having just striven to exempt them in some degree from especial censure, I do not think we can say, testing the matter by experience, that the small boroughs now possess that special advantage in the degree they did at one time, or indeed in any degree beyond other classes of constituencies. If we were to take the cases of gentlemen—it would be invidious, perhaps, to refer to names—but if we were to take the cases of gentlemen who in a Parliamentary sense might be called young —I suppose Parliamentary youth need not be held to expire before thirty—I say, then, taking the case of gentlemen not above thirty years of age elected within the last ten years or more, or to bring the matter more closely to a test, taking those only who now sit here, whether on the one side or the other, and who have not come into Parliament through the direct exercise of family influence, or through the credit and position of their families in the places which they represent, I think there is not more than one single instance in which an hon. Gentleman at the happy time of life, and of the class I have named can be said to hold his seat at the present moment. [An hon. MEMBER: There is not one.] Yes, there is one. I think there is one instance, and only one as far as my researches have gone, in which such a gentleman can be said to hold his seat for a small borough, understanding by a small borough one under 10,000 in population. All the rest sit for larger, chiefly for much larger places. One of them I may name; for it can only be named with honour, and moreover I draw it from the opposite side—it is that of the hon. Member who entered this House some four or five years ago as the representative of Canterbury, a place with a population, I think, of from 20,000, to 30,000. Singular though it may be, and contrary to all anticipations, it does not appear that the larger constituencies are, in the present state of things, more indisposed to entertain the claims of young men who have no traditional or family influence, and who have not yet had an opportunity of making a political character for themselves, than are very small boroughs. They are, on the contrary, it would seem rather more favourably inclined to this important class of our Members. It is neither then, I think, upon the ground of any special utility, according to the working of our present system, that the general retention of small boroughs can be effectually defended: nor, on the other hand, is it on the ground of special corruption that their extinction can be recommended. I think we must be prepared to take our stand upon the following very clear and simple ground. There are large and important communities, many of them growing communities, both in counties and in towns, others of them stationary; but having the one feature in common that they are not represented within the walls of this House in any sort of proportion to what we may fairly call their just demands. If we are to search for the means of making the representation of those great communities more adequate, it is quite clear, I think, that we can most adequately obtain, and, in fact, can only obtain the means of meeting the fair demands of justice and of growing populations, by resorting to a curtailment of the still very abundant, and, indeed, superabundant system of representation of small boroughs, which still continues to prevail. Having said this, Sir, I may now proceed to state that it has been a great object with the Government to consider in what way they can most conveniently and most equitably apply this principle to the small boroughs of the country. At the time of the Reform Bill, there were a great many boroughs which could not be dealt with except by way of extinction, and, indeed, which had become in the public view intolerable, as little better than a mockery of the representative system. Among those boroughs were not only Gatton and Old Sarum, but many others, which were not only small and insignificant, but were so entirely close that the mass of the population even within those insignificant boroughs themselves possessed no interest in their representatives. It would have been quite absurd to have sought any means of retaining such boroughs upon the list of those returning representatives to Parliament, whether by joining them with others or in any other way. A great change was introduced into this state of things by the Reform Act; and every borough, however small or however ill-constituted it may be, has, at all events, this to say in its own favour—the Member who sits for it does in some way or other represent the views, as well as the interests, of a local community. We therefore approach the question of restraining the representation of the small boroughs under somewhat different circumstances from those which the framers of the Reform Act had to confront in their treatment of the same subject. These local communities are, as we find, in possession of great Parliamentary privileges; but they are not, as we believe, extensively tainted with gross corruption. Those of them which are, or are proved upon adequate evidence to be so tainted will, I hope, be effectually and decisively dealt with by the House; and I may diverge from my path for one moment to express the hope that, even in the case of those larger boroughs where this corruption is proved to exist, the House will adopt measures entirely different from those which we pursued some Sessions back, so feeble and inefficient in their character—measures in some degree commensurate with the gravity of the offence, and such it is to be hoped may have a tendency to check both there and elsewhere the prevalence of the evil. I think, however, that the class of small boroughs ought, as a class, to be regarded as free from this taint, and as being in possession of Parliamentary privileges which are brought into question through no voluntary fault of their own. Whatever abridgment, then, is to be imposed upon those privileges, that abridgment ought to be effected in the mildest manner possible; and departing, therefore, from the principle which guided many of those sitting in the present Cabinet when they framed the Bill of 1854, we have come to the conclusions that the equity of the case will be fully met by a course somewhat less disagreeable. We therefore propose that no borough shall be absolutely extinguished; and in lieu of extinction or enumeration of boroughs in what was called Schedule A, we purpose resorting to a method new or rather almost new to England, but one of which the principle has been already adopted in Scotland and Wales—that of what is called grouping boroughs together. And, Sir, there is another reason which has, I think, weighed with the Government in arriving at this conclusion. We have now had more than thirty years' ex- perience of the Reform Act, and the whole of that experience, we are of opinion, goes to show that if any one class of boroughs, within moderate limits of population, is entitled to be selected from among the rest for the praise of at least comparative purity, it is the grouped boroughs. I doubt very much whether there have been since 1832 more than two or three petitions presented against any election for those boroughs in the Kingdom of Scotland. [An hon. MEMBER: Only one!] I am told there have been two; but it really matters little whether there have been two or one, for in either case with equal justice we can say that the annals of these boroughs are almost free from taint, so far as taint can be measured by transactions connected with election petitions, and that, after all, is the main if not the only source from which we can derive our information upon this subject. The same thing may be said, I think, with regard to the Welsh boroughs generally. And there is no doubt, when we come to consider the morbid anatomy of corruption, and the actual machinery by which its measures are adjusted and applied at the last critical moment of a day of election, that a serious impediment to the indulgence in or the growth of those practices is offered by the fact that the business of the election has to be conducted at a plurality of places. We have therefore concluded that the grouping of these boroughs will constitute a real Reform, as far as this word expresses whatever tends to freedom from corruption. Within what limits these principles should be applied appears to be more a question of policy than of rigid or at least of determinative considerations of equity and justice. As I have stated, in the year 1854 many Members of the present Cabinet were parties to the introduction of a Bill by which it was proposed to disfranchise 19 boroughs altogether, and to take one Member from between 30 and 40 others. We proposed, I think, to obtain 64 seats, or some such number, by this operation in 1854. In 1860, on the contrary, we proposed to obtain a total of only 25 seats by the mild operation of taking one Member from a certain number of boroughs that were in possession of the privilege of double representation. I think it is plain that, bearing in mind the actual state of things, and the magnitude which this subject has assumed, especially under recent circumstances, in the consideration of the public, that the last number is not one which would by its adoption suffice for the settlement of this question in that reasonable and substantial sense of the word settlement which we desire. On the other hand, by going to the extent advocated by Lord Aberdeen's Government, and by disturbing so many seats, we should, I am afraid, equally court the risk of failure. Those who, like ourselves, have looked upon the settlement of the franchise as the question first in importance and interest, will probably be guided to a great extent in their treatment of the other branches of the subject by considerations affecting the probability of arriving at that settlement. The number of seats we propose to obtain for the purpose of re-distribution by the Bill I shall ask leave to lay upon the table of the House is 49, and these are to be obtained by a double operation. We purpose taking one Member from every borough which at present returns two representatives, and which has a population of under 8,000. The second part of our proposal is to group as many of these boroughs having a population of less than 8,000 as can be joined together with geographical convenience. It appears to us that geographical convenience forms one of the most important considerations in dealing with this subject, although the term must of course be understood with a certain latitude, and other considerations must also have a place. The consequence will be that in some cases the group will consist of two boroughs, in others of three, and in others of four. The populations of these groups will of course differ, and according to the difference in the population we propose assigning to the group one or two Members, as the case may be. When the population amounts to less than 15,000 we propose to assign one representative, and when it exceeds that number we propose to give it two. I may add that the smallest population in any of these groups slightly exceeds 10,000, and the highest is about 20,000 or 21,000. The Return for which I have moved, however, will give the particulars of the plan, together with other matters affecting this subject, and these, I hope, will to-morrow morning be placed conveniently under the view of Members. I have now, Sir, stated upon what principles these groups have been selected, and perhaps the House may desire next to learn their names. The first of the proposed groups comprises Woodstock, Walingford, and Abingdon, and we propose that these towns unitedly shall return two Members. Bodmin, Liskeard, and Launceston will return two; Totnes, Dartmouth, and Ashburton, 1; Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme Regis, 1; Dorchester and Wareham, 1; Maldon and Harwich, 1; Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham, 2; Andover and Lymington, 1; Ludlow and Leominster, 1; Eye and Thetford, 1; Horsham, Midhurst, Petersfield, and Arundel, 2; Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Calne, 2; Westbury and Wells, 1; Devizes and Marlborough, 1; Ripon, Knaresborough, and Thirsk, 2; and Richmond and Northallerton, 1. In the case of eight among the towns containing populations of less than 8,000 we have not found it possible, having regard to various local reasons and to geographical convenience, to form any groups. These towns are Bridgnorth, Buckingham, Cockermouth, Hertford, Huntingdon, Lichfield, Marlow, and Newport. We next, Sir, come to the question of enfranchisement; and here again I may say that we have already stated general rules which are sufficiently clear to leave us very little doubt as to the general course which should be pursued. A considerable portion of the seats liberated by disfranchisement have in all cases been assigned to divisions of counties, and there has been a tendency rather—and a just tendency, perhaps—to increase the number of seats so disposed of in proportion as the total number set free by disfranchisement has been large. But the claims of towns have also to be considered. And these may be divided under two heads. First, we have the claims of those large urban communities which have either reached such a point as to make it expedient to divide them, or at any rate to give them some addition to the number of their representatives; and secondly, we must consider the claims of those rising communities which, in a country like this, with a rapid and varied development of its industry and commerce, are continually coming into existence, and assuming great or appreciable shape and magnitude. Proceeding upon these principles, we propose to give twenty-six seats to counties in England. Dividing thus the southern division of the county of Lancaster, which has a population of 627,000 in the two districts, and which has three representatives at present, we proposed to give three representatives to each. That leaves us twenty-three seats of our twenty-six. We then take, with a single exception, every county, or division of a county, not already possessed of three Members, and having a population above 150,000, and give to each of them an additional Member. This 'arrangement exhausts the twenty-six seats, which we propose to divide among the counties. I should not forget, however, to tell the House that we have taken the Census of 1861 as our guide with respect to population in regard both to the questions of disfranchisement and to those of enfranchisement; and that, when I speak of the population of counties, I exclude the population of existing Parliamentary boroughs, and also the probable population of those towns we propose to enfranchise. I will now, Sir, read the divisions of counties to which we propose to give additional Members. The south-west division of Lancashire, comprising the hundred of West Derby, and the south-east division of Lancashire, comprising the hundred of Salford. To them we now propose to give three representatives each, and we also propose that the following should each have three Members:—The northern division of Chester, and the southern division of Chester; the western division of Cornwall; the northern division of Derby; the northern division of Devon, and the southern division of Devon; the northern division of Durham, and the southern division of Durham; the northern division of Essex, and the southern division of Essex; the western division of Kent, and the eastern division of Kent; the northern division of Lancaster; Lincolnshire; the western division of Norfolk; the eastern division of Somerset, and the western division of Somerset; the northern division of Stafford, and the southern division of Stafford; the eastern division of Surrey; the North Riding of York, the northern division of the West Riding of York, and the southern division of the West Riding of York. These among them take the twenty-six seats, and it will be observed that we have not included in this list the county of Middlesex. We have foreborne to include it, because we think the county of Middlesex ought, for the purposes we have now in view, to be regarded rather with respect to the metropolitan representation than to the representation of the rest of the country. And in dealing with the representation of the metropolis, although we propose to make an increase of it to some extent, yet we do not propose to increase it on the same scale as that on which we propose to increase the representation of more distant places, because it is obvious that the representation of the metropolis, owing to its proximity to the seat of Government, and the closer relations of unity subsisting generally between its Members, is more efficient and possesses greater weight than a similar numerical quota of representation in other portions of the country. We do not propose, therefore, to give to the metropolis the extraordinarily large number of Members which it would be entitled to claim if it were dealt with in respect to its population alone. Twenty-six seats, then, having been disposed of, we next propose to give a third Member to four boroughs having a population exceeding 200,000—namely, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. That proposal raises our twenty-six to thirty. We then propose to give a second Member to Salford, which has but one at present, although it has a population exceeding 100,000. It is the only town in the whole country which stands in that predicament. Thus we have disposed of thirty-one. We next propose to divide the borough of the Tower Hamlets, which has the largest population of any represented district in the country, exceeding even South Lancashire by about 20,000. The population of the Tower Hamlets, according to the last census, is 647,000, and it is proposed to separate it into two divisions, and to represent each division by two Members. That proposal is tantamount to creating an additional metropolitan borough, without altering the general standard for the representation of the metropolitan boroughs. We also propose to take Chelsea and Kensington, which had in 1861 a population of 133,000, out of the county of Middlesex, and to make them a borough returning two Members. It will be borne in mind that Chelsea and Kensington embrace a district of considerable extent, with a very rapidly growing population, so that their present population must be much beyond that which I have stated. We also propose to give one Member to each of six unrepresented municipal boroughs having respectively either within its municipal or intended Parliamentary boundary a population of 18,000 persons, and upwards. This arrangement will dispose of six more seats. Those boroughs are Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Dewsbury. All of these, except Hartlepool, would follow the existing municipal boundaries; and Hartlepool would, I believe, consist of the present municipal borough of Hartlepool with the parish of Staunton. Thus far I have turned to account forty-one seats out of the forty-nine; and the forty-second we propose to give to the constituency of the University of London, a learned body, at present very numerous, and one constantly and rapidly increasing. We have further, Sir, to consider the very important, and, indeed, irrefragable, claim of Scotland to an increase in the number of Members by whom it is represented in this House. Either the basis of population, or the basis of population combined with property as decided by taxation, will prove that it is impossible to refuse or to overlook the claim of Scotland to an augmentation of representation. We do not, indeed, propose to give to Scotland the precise number of seats which Scotland might, perhaps, have been entitled to require, had we been engaged in a complete reconstruction of our Parliamentary system; but a moderate demand on behalf of Scotland we are certainly not prepared to resist. We have, however, had to consider the question whether that demand should be satisfied by a transfer of seats from England or by an addition to the total number of the House. That question is, as far as I know, a matter purely of policy and convenience; and we have concluded upon the whole, after some consideration, that this House would be disinclined to add to the number of its Members, under the belief, whether well or ill-founded, that if the proposal to increase Were once assented to, it would be difficult to resist the continual intrusion and continual concession of new demands. We, therefore, Sir, propose, although with some reluctance, that England, out of its abundance, shall minister somewhat to the poverty of Scotland; and that the remaining seven seats, the difference between the forty-two and forty-nine, which are supposed to be gained by our process of disfranchisement, shall be given to Scotland. The grounds of that disposal will, perhaps, be best stated by my learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but I may state briefly the places concerned. We propose to give an additional Member to each of the counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Aberdeenshire the hon. Member to the borough of Glasgow, a third Member to the city of Edinburgh, a second Member to the town of Dundee, and one Member to the Scotch Universities. These eminent and learned bodies, as well as the University of London, are already possessed of a very large constituency, which, as I hope, will continue to increase from year to year. That, I think, disposes of all I need say with respect to the re-distribution of seats, unless, indeed, I add a word on the subject of Ireland, which appears to us to stand entirely on its own ground. If we compare the present population of Ireland with the share which it has of the entire representation, it was quite clear that Ireland, with its 105 representatives, is hardly in a position to make any new claim, while, on the other hand, there is clearly no necessity to make any claim against it. Neither do we think it necessary to make any proposition with respect to Wales. The general arrangement of the Welsh boroughs and the working of the arrangement are satisfactory, and the few marked inequalities that subsist there, have not appeared sufficient to warrant, or at least, to require any disturbance of the existing arrangements. I now come to the question of boundaries; and, first of all, I will advert, not in terms of censure, but simply for the purpose of discussion, to the plan which was proposed in 1859. The question of boundaries is manifestly one capable of being extended to a vast importance. In point of fact, under the terms adopted in the Bill of 1859, it might have assumed the whole of that vast importance; for, in the 57th clause of that Bill, it was stated that wherever the population properly belonging to a Parliamentary borough extended beyond the Parliamentary limits thereof the boundaries of that borough should be so enlarged as to comprise every part of the population "properly,"(I think I use the language of the Bill) or "substantially" forming part of such borough; and it was further enacted that the Inclosure Commissioners should appoint Assistant Commissioners and should visit every borough in England and Wales for the purpose of examining the boundaries, and who should report to the Secretary of State wherever any enlargement of boundaries was in their judgment necessary in order to include within the area thereof the population "properly" belonging to such boroughs respectively. Now, the difficulty which occurs to us, and which appears almost, if not wholly, insurmountable, is this: that a general enactment of that kind, creating an authority to visit every borough in England and Wales, would have no adequate guide supplied by such words as I have cited, to enable it to perceive the purpose of Parliament to interpret the commission under which it was to act. Again, there is another point which cannot be excluded from consideration. In England we have a great many boroughs, Parliamentary boroughs, which have already been extended far beyond their natural limits. It must never be forgotten, in considering the apparent disparity between the representation of boroughs and counties with reference to their population, that quite apart from the important circumstance that many small boroughs are in point of fact merely head-quarters of the rural districts to which they belong, a large number of small boroughs are under a great, even a dominant, influence from purely agricultural and farming districts, which have at previous periods, and mainly at the great epoch of the Reform Act, been attached to them. If, then, we are to adopt this as a principle, that the limits of the Parliamentary borough are in all cases to be the limits of the town, and if, accordingly, we are to have a general re-consideration of the boundaries of boroughs on the principle of including everything that substantially belongs to them, how are we to reply to the argument that we ought to re-consider these boundaries with a view to abridgment, where by an artificial arrangement they now include, as they do in many, perhaps in scores of cases, rural districts of the kind I have described. We are not willing to set in motion any such universal disturbance of the boundaries as they exist at this present time. For if we are to have by our proposed legislation a consideration of the question of the boundaries of towns founded upon principles as broad as those which were included in the Bill of 1859, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that in equity a double process would be rendered necessary—a process of curtailing as well as of extending—and that upon such a process it is by no means desirable to enter. But there is another great difficulty; how in the world would it be possible for any set of Commissioners to determine by their own wit what extent of area of population properly belongs, or substantially belongs, to these boroughs? If we look at the large towns of the country, we see them in a state of general and somewhat rapid extension; but that extension is varied in its forms. There is one kind of extension which is locally continuous, and which includes all the various descriptions of building usually composing a town—the extension of buildings for purposes of business; along with that, an extension of shops, and also an extension of dwellings for the labouring population. But there is yet another movement of enlargement, entirely distinct from such an enlargement as I have last mentioned, and such I may presume roughly to call a residential extension, effected by or for the wealthier inhabitants of the borough, who, availing themselves of the facilities of locomotion now commonly afforded, seek to enjoy the advantages of something like a semi-rural residence, and who are loosely scattering the suburbs of many boroughs far and wide through their vicinities. But, it would be, I think, very difficult indeed, and without much more precise direction, absolutely impossible, for any body of Commissioners to undertake to deal with extensions of that class. Where the extension is perfectly continuous I grant it might, perhaps, be done. Where, however, the extension is not continuous, I think, first of all, the task would be in itself immensely difficult; and in the second place I think it would probably be found to become impracticable, from the mixture of political motives and objects, which—though they might not bias the minds of the gentlemen Parliament might appoint for this purpose—would necessarily bias our minds, as the representatives of the counties and the towns, when we came to watch the re-adjustment of these boundaries and to scrutinize the local re-distribution of power in each of the portions of the country dealt with. Therefore, Sir, we have sought for some other method of proceeding less extensive, but, as we think, more natural and spontaneous, and unquestionably much more safe. I will state in detail the whole of what we propose to the House. In the first place, we propose two enactments—one of a positive and limited character, and another of a prospective character. With regard to provisions of a positive character, although it is not possible to settle any such boundaries by means of a Bill of this nature, inasmuch as a consideration of them, if it were to be generally undertaken, would require too much time—together with information we do not at present sufficiently possess—yet such of the points as we can satisfactorily settle and dispose of, we propose to dispose of by positive enactment. These enactments would, however, only extend to a particular class of places. There are certain places, although we do not know that they are numerous, where the municipal boundaries appear to include certain districts not included in the Parliamentary bounds. Wherever that happens, that we think is a sufficient warrant for our assuming that the natural limits of the towns include something that is not included within the Parliamentary boundary; and therefore we propose a general provision to the effect that wherever the municipal boundary includes any area that is not now within the Parliamentary boundary, the Parliamentary boundary is to be so far enlarged as to include that area. The other positive enactment is of a similar and obvious character. It is that the Commissioners of Inclosures shall consider and arrange—subject to the approval of Parliament—the boundaries of all the newly-enfranchised towns; and also the proper boundary to be fixed between the two proposed sections of the Tower Hamlets. In the meantime, provisional boundaries are named in the Bill; following, I think, in that respect, the precedent of the Reform Act. Now I come to the prospective and more comprehensive question; and the conclusion at which we have arrived is this. In order to avoid all feuds and differences from the mixture of considerations of practical convenience and considerations of political power, the best course will be to adopt a rule for the future which will tend to separate these conflicting motives. We propose that Parliamentary boundaries shall prospectively follow the local line— that is to say, the line which local considerations may cause, or devise, or recommend to be adopted. In the growth of our towns there is a progressive tendency to the enlargement of boundaries; and there is a law already by which in certain cases it is provided for. The question of municipal extensions has lately been before the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, in answer to an inquiry in this House a few nights ago, stated his intention to introduce a measure for the purpose of facilitating that process; and the principle of the measure I will state to the House. I ought first, however, to remind the House that at present our Parliamentary boroughs are under three descriptions of governments. Most of them are municipal boroughs, with a regular municipality; some are boroughs which have been incorporated under the Local Government Act; and others are boroughs which have been incorporated under some special local Act of their own for the improvement of towns. I, however, draw no essential distinction between them. In all three classes of cases there is a local community, and there is a local authority. And where towns continuously extend themselves, it is commonly the interest of the inhabitants of the outlying portion for the purposes of police, and other purposes of self-government, to seek to be included in the municipal borough, or town community, however defined. The principle of the Bill of my right hon. Friend will be this: wherever the inhabitants forming the local community shall address Her Majesty, or address the Secretary of State, proposing that certain districts shall be added to the town, and the inhabitants of those districts so to be added shall at the same time express their willingness to be joined to the town, there shall be a power vested in Her Majesty in Council to sanction the union, subject, however, to the approval of Parliament; and the provision which we shall introduce into this Bill is that, wherever any such enlargements shall take place, the Parliamentary borough shall follow the enlargement made for local purposes. In this way we think we shall avoid the mixture of political controversy with a question which is properly a local one. A local community, whatever it is, should be represented; and we think the best and safest definition of a local community will be obtained by giving facilities to the inhabitants for fixing its limits from time to time as considerations of their own practical convenience may dictate and require. That, Sir, briefly described is the plan which we propose to adopt with reference to boundaries, and which will be found to be provided for in clauses contained in the Bill. I now ask to lay on the table a Bill which I hope will by to-morrow be in the hands of Members. I next, and lastly, come to the question of procedure with reference to these Bills, on which I propose to say a very few words. I assume that leave will be given for the introduction of this Bill, and also of the two Bills—leave for the introduction of which will be asked this evening by my hon. and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We s hall then have, in fact, on the table of Parliament four Bills relating to the representation of the people; but the question of procedure, on which so much interest has been felt, is a question which mainly relates to the two which affect respectively the franchise and the re-distribution of seats, and what I have to say will be confined entirely to these two Bills. Now, looking back to the terms of the Amendment which we recently debated during a period so protracted, I find that those terms have been at this period literally complied with. The wish expressed in it was that the whole scheme of the Government, which was interpreted by common consent to signify the measures dealing with the re-distribution of seats and the boundaries of boroughs, together with the provisions relating to the franchise, should be laid before Parliament at the time when it was asked to proceed with the Franchise Bill. But although this was all which was asked by the Amendment, more, undoubtedly, was asked in the debate. And I cannot, perhaps, explain myself more correctly than by referring to the terms used by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord used the word "guarantee," and he said something like this—that he wanted some guarantee that the two subjects of the franchise and the re-distribution of seats should be in the hands of one and the same Parliament. That is the end which the House appears to have in view, and I may add that it has been an end invariably in our contemplation. We have never felt the same degree of jealousy or the same amount of apprehension of inconvenience with regard to the possible or casual separation of the two objects— even if that separation should in the extremest case chance to be attended with an intervening dissolution—which was expressed by the noble Lord and by others; but we have always thought and said that it was convenient, advantageous, and desirable that these two questions should be dealt with by the same Parliament. The modes of attaining that end have been variously suggested. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead suggested the addition of something in the nature of a suspending clause to the Fran- chise Bill; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wick suggested that these two Bills—the Franchise and the Seats Bills, should proceed pari passu, meaning, I presume, that the corresponding stages of each Bill should be taken in succession, one at a time. But then, if our minds are worked up to a certain high pitch of jealousy, even that arrangement does not meet the case, inasmuch as we cannot read two Bills a third time at one and the same moment. The Speaker must put the Question, on that as on every other stage, with regard to one of them before it is put for the other; and hence there is, at any rate, an abstract possibility of the separation of these two measures which it is desired to treat as Siamese twins. Another proposal—I do not remember that it was made in the late debate, but it has been suggested at various times—is the incorporation of the two Bills into one and the same measure. That, no doubt, would perfectly secure the simultaneous treatment of the two subjects, and there is but one point of view in which we must continue to feel difficulty or hesitation as to their combination. However, that point of view is under the actual circumstances one of much importance. When this measure was introduced, we did not feel ourselves in a condition to say to the House of Commons, "We now ask you to amend the representation of the people, and to make whatever sacrifices of time or personal convenience may be necessary for any extraordinary prolongation of the Session with a view to the complete treatment of the measure." But, at a subsequent stage of our discussion, I did state to the House that we had no objection whatever to go on contemporaneously or successively with these subjects, provided it was understood that they were not to be dropped on the score of mere want of time, but that we were to persevere and keep at the oar until they were disposed of. That was the correct meaning of the statement in which I adverted to an autumn sitting. An autumn sitting does not necessarily mean an autumn Session; because, as the House is aware, there is another method of proceeding which has on rare occasions been adopted, and which might be adopted again, so as to prevent the dropping for the year of a weighty measure under consideration—namely, a lengthened adjournment of the House in July or August, until the month of September or October, when the remainder of the work might be performed. [Laughter and cries of" Oh, oh!"] It is quite evident from the way that observation has been received that some hon. Gentlemen are not exceedingly anxious about the combination of the two Bills. What, however, I wish to do is to describe simply, frankly, and clearly to the House the position of the Government. What the Government object to is the loss of the year. We are not willing to be parties to the loss of the year by the postponement of the subject. We may have been right or we may have been wrong in thinking it wise to bring forward this subject in the present year. We believe that we were right. But I think it must be obvious that, having proposed it, we ought not to recede from it. Our intention is to persevere with what we have proposed. If it be the desire, the general desire, of the House to adopt any method—and other methods may be suggested besides those that I have named—of attaining the object which the noble Lord has in view—namely, guaranteeing that these questions shall not be separated, we are perfectly ready to consider of and adopt that method, subject only to the condition that we shall go forward, and not throw over the subject, not for consideration, not even for recommencement, but for the chance of recommencement, in another year. Looking to what had happened at the period of the Reform Act, and taking our measures of time from that period, I did state on a former night that we had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to dispose in a satisfactory manner of the subject of re-distribution of seats within the limits of the Session. But the House must be aware of the difficulties under which any computation of that kind is formed; and if there be a disposition to agree upon the re-distribution of seats, there is no intrinsic difficulty in the matter, for there is nothing in the question itself of a nature absolutely to require prolonged discussion. [Laughter.] I do not know what excites the humour of my hon. Friends. I think that a true and a very plain statement. On the other hand, if there is a disposition to treat the redistribution of seats as matter of controversy and to stickle upon every topic as it arises, the points that may be urged, the varieties of arrangements that may be suggested, are so numerous as might create a very large demand indeed upon the time of Parliament. And it was in the expec- tation that there probably would be such a large demand upon the time of Parliament that I said we had come to the conclusion that we should not be able to dispose of the whole subject during the Session. But on that matter we place ourselves in the hands of the House. We shall be very glad if it be the pleasure of the House to proceed with greater despatch than we are sanguine enough to anticipate; it would be in our opinion all the better for us and all the better for the country. Now let us consider what is required by the objectors and by us respectively. The point urged on us is that the subjects should not be separated, but that one should securely and certainly follow in the train of the other. The point we have to urge is that the year should not be lost. And therefore if it be proposed to combine the subjects, whether by consolidation of the two Bills into one, or by any other method less stringent but still satisfactory to the House, we shall give a willing consideration to the proposal, if only it be understood that we adhere to our original proposition, and that we have no intention to advise the prorogation of Parliament until the whole subject— meaning by the whole subject nothing lees than the question of the franchise and the question of the re-distribution of seats—shall have been disposed of by the judgment of the House. What I have said I think and hope will convey clearly the position generally which the Government desire it to be understood that they occupy. At the present moment I will add nothing specific with respect to any form of the procedure upon this Bill for the re-distribution of seats. Our impression is that Members of this House have been waiting until to-day to learn the character and substance of this Bill, and that on being apprised of its character and substance that they will naturally and reasonably proceed to form a final judgment as to the question of procedure. Our desire is not to quarrel with any portion of the House which is really agreed with us as to the end in view, about any question of mere procedure. If we have had debates involving matter of warmth and deep political interest, the whole of those debates I put out of view and memory for the present purpose; and I assume that we are met now with a view to the prosecution of this Bill, and of the subject, with all the despatch compatible with its due consideration. There is no element, as I hope the House will see, of reproach or controversy in the declaration that I now make. We are ready frankly to enter into such arrangements as will give the House the best security for retaining in its own hands the power of dealing with the whole subject; our only and I think legitimate desire being, that we may not lose the time and labour that have been already spent, and that we may not be forced to trust the matter to chance, to the unopened future, to the accidents of another Session, or of the interval before it arrives. I have only to add that in saying Her Majesty's Government would not advise a prorogation until the whole matter has been disposed of, if it be the desire of the House to combine the two Bills into one, of course I must be understood as reserving with respect to prorogation all causes of public policy or exigency arising aliunde for any exercise of any Royal Prerogative. I mean that in the absence of such causes in the usual course of business prorogation would not be advised, until this subject has been disposed of. In some manner or other, I cannot but entertain the hope that some method of proceeding with this question in a manner enabling us to arrive at a definite issue will be attained. I am sure it will be eminently satisfactory to the country that, having addressed ourselves to a settlement of a question of such vast importance, we should treat it with that earnestness of purpose which on every account it demands at our hands. Sir, I move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the Re-distribution of Seats.

I mean to touch only on one of the three subjects that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought under our consideration; and when the right hon. Gentleman rose, I did not contemplate that it would be necessary for me to trouble the House upon any of those points. I shall, however, confine myself entirely to the matter of procedure. I must say I have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that topic with a feeling akin to astonishment. It is generally considered the duty of a private Member of the House, when he brings forward a Bill or proposes a measure for our consideration, that he should at least indicate the mode in which he intends to invite the opinion of the House, and the time at which he thinks it may be convenient to ask for that opinion. But, as I could collect from the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he has not supplied any means to the House by which we can arrive at a conclusion as to the course which the Government proposes that the House should adopt. Irrespective of being a Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman who brings forward this measure is also the leader of the House of Commons, and it is his duty to regulate the general course of business. Now, here is a measure which relates to the most important business now before the House—business which has already engaged its attention during a great portion of the Session, and which, as contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is likely to engage its time and attention during the rest of the year. But, as far as I am able to gather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer abandons the duties of his position. I am at this moment really at a loss to know on what day or in what manner the opinion of the House is to be elicited on this important subject, introduced by Her Majesty's Government. I must, therefore, put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to shrink from that which is one of his principal duties; and I hope that after some conference on the Treasury Bench, we may be informed on what day and in what manner the opinion of the House is to be taken on this important proposition.

The time for fixing the second reading of a Bill is after the Bill introduced has been read a first time. But though in appearance this may be a question of procedure, I think it is a very much deeper one in reality. It is a question of whether we shall go on with these measures or not. Sir, there are three parties, as far as I can make out, in this House. There is one party which, acting indirectly, is opposed to proceeding at all, either with the Franchise Bill or this Redistribution Bill—headed on this side of the House, perhaps, by my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Lowe), and on the other side by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). I think there is also a party in this House composed of those who are inclined to proceed with the Franchise Bill alone. Now, these parties, although influential in point of numbers, and influential in weight by the Members of which they are composed, do not, as I think, represent the feelings and opinions of this House, and do not, as I am con- vinced, represent the feelings and opinions of this country. The third party is, I believe, composed of a majority of this House, and consists of those who desire to deal with this matter in a substantial manner, and to endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory and conclusive arrangement. We cannot afford—especially in such times as seem to be approaching in Europe—to be continually lighting this question. I am satisfied we shall be acting in accordance with the feelings of the country if we take advantage of the choice now offered us by the Government of the mode of proceeding with these measures; while we should not be acting in unison with public opinion if we now sought to escape from proceeding at all. The question about the re-distribution of seats I believe to be the real pinch of the problem—it is the difficulty—the crux in the problem—and I, for one, have always been desirous, and I believe the majority at both sides of the House have always been desirous, that in dealing with the subject of Parliamentary Reform this question should be brought before the House in conjunction with the other one of the franchise, in order that honestly and faithfully we might endeavour to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the whole matter. There is no difficulty about a proposition to lower the franchise. Anyone can propose to substitute another figure for £10 in boroughs, and another figure for £50 in counties. No conjuror is required for such a proposition as that. The real difficulty lies in this re-distribution of seats; for within this is involved the problem how to enlarge the numbers of the constituency without affecting the influence of property; how to add to the poorer classes of the constituency without increasing the means of corruption; how to improve the general representation of the people by getting rid of small boroughs. This is the real pinch of the problem, and it calls for the statesmanship of the Government and the energy and wisdom of the House. We cannot settle this matter in a short time and in a perfunctory way; and if we mean to treat it with a view to a settlement, we must deal with the question of these small boroughs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very handsomely abandoned his argument in favour of small boroughs which he advanced with so much eloquence on a former occasion, when he upheld them as schools for sucking statesmen. On looking into this matter, we find that almost the whole of the boys sent into this House represent large and important constituencies; so that argument for the small boroughs is got rid of. We know that formerly there existed a great objection to these boroughs on the ground of their being nomination boroughs. Many of them used to be in the hands of great Peers or of other landed proprietors, and the owners sold them to persons ambitious of a seat in this House. That practice, with perhaps some very few exceptions, has disappeared. But what has been substituted for the system which prevailed at Gatton or at Old Sarum? Now, it is an attorney who in one of those small boroughs, by the power he possesses over the voters in those wretched places, is able to sell the borough. Therefore I, for one, am desirous to see as large a sweep made of those miserable places as can be made consistently with the prospect we have of being able to carry the Bill. By the opetion of the Reform Act some of those nomination boroughs were turned into a sort of electoral district. In old law books we find that boroughs are defined as ancient towns; but many of those boroughs are towns no longer—they are decrepit and decayed villages in the centre of an extended electoral district, and with respect to many of them the power of returning the Member is in the hands of one or two persons having large property in the district. Now, if we can deal with that state of things, I submit to the House we ought to do so. I, for one, quite approve the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. I think that grouping those boroughs is the only mode by which you can secure the absence of nomination and the comparative absence of corruption in future. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we have the system of grouping in Scotland, and it works satisfactorily and well. Mere local interest and local parties are neutralized by this grouping. Therefore, though I wish the Government proposal for grouping had gone still further, I think, as far as it goes, the attempt is one to carry out the system honestly and faithfully. I also approve generally the principle of giving the largest proportion of those seats to populous counties. Though some of them will go to Cornwall and Devon, it is in such counties as Lancashire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Durham the greater number of those new seats will be created, and those are the counties in which the centre of gravity of political power ought to be placed, as it is in them that the greatest wealth, industry, activity of mind and body, and intelligence are to be found. On these grounds, I think, as far as regards the substance of this proposal of the Government, it will be acceptable to the country, and acceptable to the large body of Members of this House who were inclined to suspend their judgment on the Franchise Bill till they knew what was proposed in the re-distribution of seats. Now, one word about the question of procedure as referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. It is quite true that we generally look to the Government, and especially to the leader of the Government, to indicate what course they are willing to propose to take with regard to any important measure before the House. But the House must recollect that in respect of this subject the Government did that, and that a very large and powerful minority—amounting almost to one-half of this House—agreed to a Resolution implying disapproval of the course which the Government proposed to take. Therefore, what more natural than that the Government should say, "We thought such a course right in the first instance; but, though supported by a majority of the House, we found a large and influential minority, including very many of our own supporters, express their disapprobation of that course, and, consequently, we are now anxious to consult the wishes of the House?" I have no doubt myself as to what the proper course ought to be, and I think it is a course which will be satisfactory to the great bulk of this House—that is, to those who are really desirous to see a measure pass which will substantially put the question at rest during the remainder of our lifetime. I think the Bills ought to be put together, and the second reading of this Bill taken before the Committee on the Franchise Bill. This Bill can then be submitted under a Standing Order of the House to the same Committee as the Franchise Bill, and that Committee, according to the ancient practice of the House, can be instructed to make them into one Bill. Then we shall have before us substantially the whole of this great measure—for it is now, I may tell the House, a very great measure. We shall then be able to discuss it as a whole in all its bearings, and we shall be able to amend it if we think it requires amendment, or to reject it as a whole if we think it ought to be rejected. We shall be able to pass it whether it be amended or not, and with a perfect guarantee that the matter shall be dealt with in its entirety. This was professed to be the great object of the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). I believe it was for this object that a great many Members of this House voted for the Amendment, being honestly desirous of seeing the scheme on this branch of the subject, and of having the two questions dealt with substantially as one. Therefore, if the course which I suggest be taken, the object they had in view, and which, I believe, all the House had in view, will be attained, and whether we pass or reject the measure we shall come to a clear deliverance on the question, and the House indoors and the country out of doors will be able to decide upon the opinion we may form.

The observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are no doubt extremely interesting, and I dare say they have produced the effect which was intended, and have given to Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of considering the answer which they presently will give to the very distinct question that was put to them. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the ordinary time for fixing the further progress of a measure which you have introduced is after the Bill has been read a first time. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that he had to address his observations to three different questions—the question of the re-distribution of seats, the question of the extension and rectification of the borough franchise, and thirdly, to another question which he said was, perhaps, the most interesting one of all—namely, the procedure with the measures which were before the House. And the astonishment which was felt by some, certainly, on this side of the House was caused by the right hon. Gentleman, after having spoken some time with reference to the procedure, sitting down without having given us the slightest intimation as to what the procedure was to be. Now, are we unreasonable in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government for some explanation upon this point? Let me remind the House for a moment of the various modes of procedure which we have been told at different times by the Government would be resorted to. We were told that the Government, although they were prepared to admit in the abstract that re-distribution of seats formed a portion of Parliamentary Reform, yet that was the utmost admission they would make; and not only that, but, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, considering it an unwise thing to make pledges as to future Sessions, would do no more than say this—that if at some future period it should be the duty of the Government to propose a measure for the re-distribution of seats, the Government thought perhaps this Parliament might consider that question. That was the first opinion of the Government as to procedure. What was the next? The next stage was when it was resolved by the Government to announce to the House that they would lay upon the table measures for the re-distribution of seats; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as reported in The Times—

"At the same time I cannot state too distinctly to the House, as we are desirous above all things not to be misunderstood, that our intention in laying the Bills on the table is confined at the present time to the object I have named—of giving information to the House, and that we propose to proceed with the Bill relating to the Franchise in England and Wales in the manner we announced, and with that Bill exclusively until its fate is determined."

Now, what is the explanation we have tonight? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must remember what happened. There was a great House and a great division, and the Government had a small and almost imperceptible majority, composed, I believe, of those Scotch Members to whose country seats are to be added. But as regards England and Ireland the majority was against the Government. By the division so arrived at the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the House had plainly intimated to the Government that they disapproved the form of procedure which the Government had up to that time adopted. That being so—the House having in substance told the Government that it disapproved the Government procedure up to that moment—it was very natural, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that the Government should come to the House and tell them that it was for them to tell the Government, and not for the Government to tell the House, what form of procedure should be adopted; that the Government having been reproved and condemned by a minority of the House, which would have been a majority but for Scotch Members and Cabinet Ministers, on account of their form of procedure, it was now for the Government to come to the House and say, "It is for the House to dictate to us what our procedure should be, and not for the Government to tell you what it is to be." That is a doctrine which may be the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), but we ought to know whether it is the doctrine of the Government. It is, I agree, very like what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to us; but if that is the doctrine which the Government is prepared to maintain, I think the House ought to know it, and to be made aware in language as to which there can be no doubt that the Government abdicates its functions, and that we are to resolve ourselves into a Committee to consider how the Government of the country should carry on its business.

I am not in the habit of making use of indirect means. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) tells us that there is one party in this House who wish to defeat this measure by indirect means, and he has coupled my name with them. Now, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my opposition to it will be direct and open. I am anxious to see this question settled; for I have no wish to see the Reform Bill buried and dug up again whenever it pleases the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do so. I am anxious, as I said before, to see the right of voting conferred on many people who do not now possess it; but I shall take the opportunity of opposing this Bill whenever an opportunity presents itself.

I cannot accept, on the part of the Government, any portion of the rebuke which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire administered to me; nor does it appear to me that we, who were so largely charged a fortnight ago with domineering over the House and with dictating to it, and who then thought we were quite innocent of the charge, are a bit more chargeable with the abdication of duty now imputed to us. Our course has been this. We originally stated to the House our ideas of the form of procedure best calculated to attain the object we had in view, that object being the settlement of the entire question; but I am not aware that the Government is precluded from accepting suggestions and amendments, even affecting the substance of its measure, if there be sufficient ground for doing so, and especially having some regard to the quarter from which they proceed. Much less is it to be precluded from paying that consideration which courtesy and deference, and principle as well as policy dictate as to its order of proceeding. We wished to ascertain the opinion of Gentlemen like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, whom we believe to be perfectly serious in his desire to attain the common object, and yet differ from our method of procedure, we not having kept back our own opinion on the subject. I have expressed a great willingness on the part of the Government—and I express it again—to learn the views of others with respect to the question of procedure, in order that we may have an opportunity of judging whether any modification which they may desire is a modification compatible with the attainment of the end which we propose to ourselves to reach. That appears to me to be a method of procedure which is practised every day in this House with regard to questions of all kinds, and I hope the time will never come when it will not be practised. What I gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) is this—that the real and principal question with regard to the order and manner of proceeding on these Bills will be determined between the second reading of the Bill and the Committee, and that that will be the time when we shall be in the best position to judge what course we may finally adopt with a view to the attainment of our general object: and I think, bearing that in mind, I can hardly go wrong in saying that I will tonight, after the first reading, propose to read the Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats a second time on Monday next. I will postpone the Committee on the Franchise Bill till that day. And I must say I shall have felt not only justified in the course I took, but that I even could not, with propriety or decency, have taken any other course, knowing as I did, and as all my colleagues did, that hon. Gentlemen were wishing to learn the nature of our proposals with regard to re-distribution, before forming their opinion as to the mode of proceeding. I could not possibly form my own judgment as to the course they desired us to pursue with regard to procedure, and I could not at the present time ask them to give a final indication of what they desired respecting that part of the question. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that because I intimated that desire of learning the wishes of hon. Gentlemen, and showed deference to the House in respect to this question, it may be inferred that the Government has altered its mind and abated something of its determination in regard to the main issues involved in the measure, I hope a very short time will be sufficient to undeceive him.

rose to express his great astonishment at the accusation the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had brought against the Scotch Members of Parliament, and said he would repel the accusation in the strongest language that would be Parliamentary. He gave the House his word, as a Scotch Member, that until he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had not the remotest idea how Scotland would be dealt with. He might even go further. They had heard extraordinary statements, and a very extraordinary one that night, about bribery at elections. As regarded Scotland, both the constituents and those whom they sent to Parliament were incapable of being bribed. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast had unadvisedly made the accusation he had, and he repelled it with scorn.

We lately heard a good deal about standing or falling by the Franchise Bill. When I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that statement it occurred to me whether it would be possible for him to strike out a third course and do neither one nor the other, and I must confess the right hon. Gentleman has accomplished that difficult task. The position the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present occupies reminds me of what we sometimes see when we return home late at night, and come across an unfortunate gentleman who has been "dining, not wisely, but too well," who is clinging convulsively to a lamp post, afraid to advance and unable to stand upright, but who is determined, if possible, not to fall:—so the Chancellor of the Exchequer now wants the House of Commons to bring him a stretcher to take him home.

rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, who was indistinctly heard in the confusion arising from Members leaving the House, said, that the Bill proposed to deal with three matters—namely, the franchise in Scotland, the additional seats that were to be given to constituencies in Scotland, and the registration of voters in Scotland. In moving for leave to bring in a Bill to effect these objects, he might be allowed for a moment to refer to the state of the representation of Scotland before and since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832. Prior to that date Scotland had not even the shadow of representation. A very limited constituency elected the county Members, and the Members for the boroughs were chosen by corporations who elected themselves. Undoubtedly this state of things did not savour much of democracy, and he was sorry to say that there was not then an entire absence of that corruption from which Scotland was now supposed to be free. With the passing of the Reform Act Scotland for the first time obtained a popular franchise, and the constituencies called into existence by that Act were through it introduced to duties which were entirely new to them, and to which they were utterly unaccustomed. It was not claiming much for the constituencies to say that the privilege then bestowed on them for the first time they had not abused. It could not be said, in language that had been used that night, that there were venality and corruption in the lower grades of the constituency, and neither could it be said that in the higher grades there had been found the disposition to hold out temptations to corruption. There had been but one petition presented against a Return for Scotland on the ground of bribery since the passing of the Reform Act. He did not mention this to extol the superior morality of Scotland; he mentioned it for the double purpose of showing, first, that there was no necessary connection between a popular constituency and electoral corruption—no necessary affinity between a £ 10 franchise and venality; and second, and perhaps of more importance, that probably the only cure for electoral corruption was to be found in a sound and healthy state of public opinion, not merely in the lower, but also in the higher ranks, and not in a higher or a lower franchise. Corruption was a crime which it required two to commit; if there was no one to offer bribes, there would be none to accept them. How was it, then, that the constituencies of Scotland had been comparatively free from the base motives that had influenced other constituencies? He believed it was mainly owing to the fact that they were new constituencies, and that the traditions of corruption did not descend to them. The past history of the franchise in Scotland, and the fact that there was nothing to regret in the way in which the extended franchise had been exercised, inspired considerable confidence now that it was proposed to make a further extension. Now, as regarded the burgh franchise in Scotland, the Government proposed to adopt precisely the same figure that they had chosen for England, and to reduce the burgh occupation franchise to £7. A very few observations would satisfy the House that it need not look with any great apprehension to this extension of the franchise. At present the constituency of the burghs was about 55,515, and of these, as appeared from the statistics presented to the House, 10,174 belonged to the working or artizan class. Their proportion to the whole varied in different places, being 20 per cent in Edinburgh, 12 per cent in Glasgow, and 50 per cent in the Elgin burghs. The reduction of the franchise to £7 would increase the whole constituency by 26,223 voters, which number, added to the existing constituency of 55,515, would give a total of 81,738. Of the 26,223 new voters 17,670 would belong to the working class, their proportion being nearly two-thirds of the new constituency; and adding the 10,174 of the working class now enfranchised to the 17,670 to be enfranchised, would give a total of 27,844 or about one-third of the whole constituency of Scotland, that would belong to the working classes. That was undoubtedly a substantial gain for the working classes. It was adding to their power and influence, undoubtedly; but it was a total misapprehension to suppose that it would have the effect of transferring political power in Scotland from one class to another. There was an entire fallacy in supposing that the Bill would have any such effect, as the working classes who would be enfranchised by the Bill belonged for the most part to the skilled and intelligent portion of them. Moreover, of the 17,000 working men to be added, the majority, as might be expected, were to be absorbed by the great centres of industry. Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Greenock would have 14,000; and the general result was, that while in six burghs the proportionate voting power of working men would be increased, in the fifteen burghs that remained out of the total of twenty-one the voting power of the working men would be diminished. The explanation was, that the majority of those to be admitted to the franchise by the reduction from £10 to £7 were not working men, but were either masters or shopkeepers. For instance, in Aberdeen 657 not working men would be added to the constituency, against 229 of that class. Ayr would have an addition of 288, but of these only fifty-six would be artizans. Falkirk would have 262 masters alone, as against 118 working men added to the constituency. In point of fact, the working men admitted under this franchise would be largely outnumbered by the other classes who would be admitted with them. They had heard a great deal about democracy; but, taking the Returns presented to the House as accurate, there was little reason to apprehend anything on that score. He did not see the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in his place, but he would find that the artizans added to the electoral list in the Haddington burghs would be only 38, as against 698; in the Inverness burghs, 33, as against 1,022; in Montrose, 26, as against, 1,806; in Wick, 57, as against 793; and in Wig-ton, 15, as against 518. Now, he neither rejoiced nor regretted at that result, which appeared on the whole satisfactory. It appeared to him to be very desirable that in the great centres of industry, where the artizan was best educated and most prosperous, he should have a considerable voice in the elections. On the other hand, nothing could more clearly exhibit than these Returns how utterly fallacious it was to take the total number of artizans that were to be enrolled and Bay that we were about to transfer political power to them. On the contrary, it was perfectly clear that while we were—he would not say giving a boon, but carrying out the principles of the Constitution by enfranchising these men—we were not in the slightest appreciable degree making a transfer of political power from any one class to any other. Political power did not consist in the mere voting for Members of Parliament, nor in the numbers of those who had votes. As the franchise stood, the occupiers between £25 and £10 probably outnumbered those above them by twenty to one; but was there a doubt that the political power of the country rested with the latter. The truth was, that the whole of this idea of transference of political power from one class to another proceeded upon the error of supposing that political power consisted merely in the possession of the franchise; whereas it consisted in far greater degree in the power of influencing public opinion. The franchise was merely the mechanism by which the power of influencing opinion was carried out. With regard to the burghs, therefore, he should not have the slightest fear in extending the franchise as proposed in this Bill. There was a property franchise qualification in the burghs of Scotland by which a person who lived within seven miles of the burgh, and was possessed of a house worth £10 without occupation, was entitled to the vote. With that privilege it was not intended to interfere. So much, then, with regard to the burgh franchise. With respect to the counties, it was proposed to deal with them in the same manner as in England—namely, to reduce the occupation franchise from £50 to £14. He was, he was sorry to say, not able to state with the same amount of accuracy as he had done with respect to the burghs what the result of that change would be; but he rather thought it would nearly double the electors. The number of voters under the present occupation franchise was 23,794; the £14 occupancy franchise would probably add 22,000, making a total of 45,794 electors. Then, as regards the property qualification, the House was aware that the 40s. freehold franchise existed only in England. It had been considered whether that qualification could not be extended to Scotland; but there were circumstances peculiar to Scotland which induced the Government to come to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to extend the 40s. freehold franchise to that country. They proposed, however, to reduce the £10 property franchise to £5, introducing the additional element of resi- dence where the property was under £10. This is what was proposed for the counties. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already told the House that it was proposed to give additional seats to Scotland; and he also informed the House how these additional seats were to be distributed. The seats at their disposal were few, and there might be some difference of opinion as to their distribution. But he thought that Glasgow, with its population of more than 400,000, was fairly entitled to one of these seats; he thought it would also be admitted that Edinburgh, as the metropolis of Scotland, ought to have one additional Member; and Dundee, with its population of 90,000, might fairly claim an additional Member. The other seats were distributed between the counties of Ayr, Aberdeen, and Lanark; and the four Universities of Scotland were to be represented by one Member. These formed the two main portions of the Bill. He would not trouble the House by going into the subject of registration further than to say that it was the intention of the Government to consolidate in one Act the provisions on the subject, and although the clauses which related to that matter would make the Bill more voluminous, there was in reality no novelty in them. With regard to the seats for the Universities, that, no doubt, was an experiment, but, like the other points relating to Scotland, he trusted it would turn out a success. He had now concluded all that it was necessary for him to say on the subject of the Bill. It was the third time that he had discharged a like duty, but he trusted that on this occasion the Bill would pass and would prove satisfactory. There was undoubtedly a strong feeling in the country that the proposal of the Government was reasonable; but, however that might be, he was perfectly satisfied that it was not creditable to the character of Parliament, and that it was disparaging to the character of public men, that this question should be bandied about and hustled and jostled from one party to another. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, notwithstanding the encouraging words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he feared the Scotch Reform Bill, at least, was likely to be some time under debate. He need not take up the time of the House by going into the proposed reduction of the franchise for Scotland, because, as they had been told that the Government would leave the House to fill up the blanks in the Reform Bill with any figures they might think proper, it was unnecessary to discuss the effect on the existing constituencies. For his own part, he did not view with any apprehension the admission of working men, who would be placed on the registry by the Bill. In his opinion the working classes in Scotland were as well prepared for the exercise of the franchise as in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. He would go further, and say, at the risk of being charged with unduly praising his own countrymen, that the working classes in Scotland, from the general prevalence of education and habits of thought among the people, were better fitted for the extension of the franchise than those in any other part of the country. But that was not the question. It was this, whether the representative system was to be so settled that the various classes and interests in the country were to be virtually represented, or whether the proposal of the Government would give too great a preponderance to a particular class—for, though the British Constitution took no heed of classes, it should be borne in mind that if the various classes were not represented the system of representation could not be right. The Lord Advocate had pointed to the satisfactory results of the Reform Bill in Scotland. Now, there could be no doubt that the Reform Act of 1832 had been very successful in Scotland, so far as the Whig party were concerned. A large majority of the representatives of Scotland were returned in that interest, and he believed the measure was so designed. The minds of English Members were at that time too much occupied otherwise to give their attention to the framing of a good Bill for Scotland, and great skill had been exercised in arranging the Scotch constituencies so that they should be true to the party that gave them political existence. He supposed the system thus created would be defended on the ground that it worked well, and that many excellent Members had been returned by Scotland to that House. The working classes were not enfranchised by the Reform Act to any great extent, nor did they exist in the constituency before, and if a considerable number of them were brought into the constituency by the present measure it would only be supplementing the Act of 1832. But a great anomaly and a great injustice existed in Scotland. It was notorious that in many counties the urban element predominated to so great an extent that the country interest was altogether swamped. In all the counties, for instance, on which Glasgow bordered the urban constituency exercised a predominating influence. He had no reason himself to complain of the result; but he did not think it satisfactory that the county representation should be decided not by the rural, but by the suburban, and virtually by urban influences. There was another peculiarity. A village in Scotland was not like a village in England. The villages there were like small towns in their characteristics; and the effect of the proposed franchise would be to give them a large influence in the counties; and he was confident that in a large number of the counties of Scotland the Members would be virtually returned by the urban influence. Unless the statistics, which were not yet in the hands of Members—he at least had not had the advantage of seeing them—included some calculation of the comparative number of voters that would be influenced by the low property and feuing qualification, they would be absolutely legislating in the dark. If some compensating element could not be found, the rural influence in counties would be altogether destroyed. The grouping system had been attended with great advantage in keeping pure the burgh constituencies. That system might with propriety be very much extended, only care should be taken that the districts so grouped were homogeneous in character, and if possible in the same county; instead of one town in Ayrshire being associated with those in Renfrew-shire, and another, only ten miles distant, with Argyllshire. He thought, in some instances, it would be well if the burghs now united were divorced and united to more congenial partners. A good deal had been said about a Scotch Bill being passed during the present Session. He hoped the measure would go on pari passu with the Bill for England, for unless it was advanced in company with the English Bill, they could not hope that it would obtain the fair measure of consideration which so important a measure demanded. If the measure for Scotland was one which did not remedy, but would increase, the anomalies existing in the country, it would not be an improvement on their representative system.

said, he would take the earliest opportunity of tendering his thanks to the Government on behalf of his constituents, to whom it was proposed to give an increased share in the representation; though he must suspend his judgment as to the mode by which the plan was to be carried out, until he saw the exact effect of the Government proposition. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate that the boundaries of the burghs were to be determined by the population of the surrounding districts. That he thought fair and just; but he thought that those who were to be severed from their former constituencies ought to have a voice in determining their new relation. He must also tender his thanks to the Government for the liberality they had shown to Scotland generally. The scheme of distribution would, he believed, approve itself to the people of Scotland. There was only one part on which he had any misgiving. It was proposed to give an additional Member to Edinburgh, as the capital of Scotland. He thought it would be better to give that Member to the University, rather than a third Member to the burgh constituency. In conclusion, he would express his satisfaction at the indication given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government were willing to re-consider their manner of procedure, and to give the House an opportunity of discussing the franchise and the re-distribution of seats as part of one comprehensive measure. It would be a great advantage to prevent a mere question of procedure from again dividing that side of the House, and he thought the Government might make the concession without any loss of dignity, and without being justly open to the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) would explain one part of his Bill, respecting which some misunderstanding existed, at least on that (the Opposition) side of the House—namely, whether he intended that residence was in all cases to be attached to a county qualification, or whether the qualification was to remain as at present. While trespassing on the indulgence of the House, he might venture to say that, although considerable satisfaction would be felt that the Government had not altogether overlooked the claims of the Scotch Universities, there would be some disappointment at only one Member being assigned them. When, a few years ago, on the occasion of additional seats being given to Lancashire and Yorkshire, the claims of those Universities were brought into competition with those of the London University, it was shown that the constituency of the Scotch Universities exceeded by nearly three to one that of the London University. He believed that the constituency created by this Bill would number considerably over 4,000, and he was not aware that the relative proportions of the London University had changed. He was justified, therefore, in saying that the allowance of one Member was too small; and, among the many Amendments which would no doubt be proposed, he should venture to move that another Member be given. The additional representative to Glasgow he regarded as quite unnecessary, for that city was gradually monopolizing the representation of the greater part of the West of Scotland, and it could not be better left than in the hands of the two hon. Members who now represented it.

said, he would not have risen but for the impression sought to be created by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Scotland was being unduly favoured. This he entirely denied, for whether they took population alone, or taxation alone, or the two combined, Scotland was clearly entitled to twenty more Members. Such was proved to be the case by the Return presented in 1859; and he had no doubt that when the continuation of that Return, for which he moved three weeks ago, was produced, the claim of Scotland would be found even larger. Looking, however, at the difficulties with which the Government were beset in doing Scotland full justice, he was grateful to them for the concessions they had made; but he maintained that the people of Scotland were justly entitled to much more. In some other respects he thought Scotland was rather unfairly dealt with. He could not understand, for example, why the 40s. freehold franchise should not be extended to it;—for though the Lord Advocate said there were legal difficulties in the way, he had never heard anybody but a lawyer say so, and he did not think they would get a hundred men in Scotland to entertain that opinion. He quite approved of means being taken to check the creation of fictitious votes, which had been extensively resorted to, and by which men who did not possess an inch of soil had obtained electoral influence. As to the burgh franchise, he thought the people of Scotland had some reason to complain that by the Bill the franchise was to be the same as in England, because it must be remembered that rents were much lower in Scotland than in England, and, consequently, a man with the same income lived in a lower rented house in the former country than in the latter. While, therefore, a £7 franchise might add considerably to the electoral body in England, the Returns just presented showed that in Scotland the addition would be only 26,223, and of these 22,740 would be added in six burghs, leaving only 3,483 for the remaining seventy burghs, or an average of about fifty each. He contended that regard should have been had to the different circumstances of the two countries, and that a £6 rental should have been adopted, because it would have given a greater influx of the working classes, or other classes, into the constituencies. With reference also to the remark that Scotland had been unduly favoured, he would ask why the rule laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that counties with 150,000 population should have three Members, should not be applied to Scotland, for Ayr and Lanark were in this position. Why should not these counties have three Members as the counties in England of the same population had? The Scotch burghs had been complimented on their freedom from bribery; but too much of the credit had, he thought, been given to the system of grouping; for thirty-nine Members were returned by counties and by burghs not grouped, and only fourteen from grouped burghs; and although it had been stated that but one petition had been presented from Scotland on the ground of bribery, it would be seen by reference to the Parliamentary Returns that four petitions were presented, two of them being from counties and two from grouped burghs. Again, it was laid down that a population of 15,000 in the English grouped boroughs was to have a second Member, and why should not this be applied to Leith, Montrose, Stirling, and other Scotch groups of burghs, and why should not the large towns in each group have a Member to themselves? He would only add that the population of Scotland had increased during the last fifty years from 1,800,000 to upwards of 3,000,000, and its wealth in a much greater ratio, and though it might have had its fair complement of Members at that time it was entitled to much more now, and it received but a scant measure of justice by this Bill.

agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that Scotland was entitled to more representatives, and thought there were many towns which might very fairly be grouped, thus relieving the rural constituencies of a preponderating urban element. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he had not dealt with Scotland in the same manner as he had dealt with England as regarded the small constituencies? Wherever he had found a small constituency in England, he had grouped it with other small constituencies. Why was not the same system pursued with regard to Scotland? The Reform Bill for Scotland of 1832 dealt in this manner with the small Scotch counties. All counties too small to return representatives were grouped together, Nairnshire being coupled with Elginshire, and Cromarty with Ross. The same course should have been taken with the county of Sutherland, which should have been joined with Caithnessshire. That such was not the case was the result of a cool Whig job, by which the county was saved for a Whig nobleman. If they were to have Reform, let them have justice to one side as well as to the other.

said, he had no desire to prolong the discussion; but he desired to call to the Lord Advocate's attention the fact that Aberdeen, the northern capital of Scotland, the seat of a University, containing 75,000 inhabitants, of whom 3,996 were electors, Was omitted from the list of burghs which were to receive additional representation. Some of the county constituencies required grouping: thus, the county of Bute, with a population of 16,831, had 510 electors while that of Caithnessshire, with a population of 33,636, had only 508 electors; and Sutherlandshire, with a population of 24,599, had 181 electors. This was ample proof of the necessity for grouping the county as well as the borough constituencies.

thanked the hon. Member opposite for Inverness -shire (Mr. Henry Baillie) for the particular interest he took in the county of Sutherland. The hon. Member had just been elected by 336 electors, and therefore it was but right that he should come forward as a great reforming authority, and should endeavour to put down the county of Sutherland. The hon. Gentleman had been voting against the enlargement of the franchise in England; perhaps he would do the same with regard to Scotland. He (Sir David Dundas) had voted for the enlargement of the English constituencies, and he would do the same with regard to the constituencies in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had said that the whole of the constituency of Sutherland was under the hand of the Duke of Sutherland. That was a most unhandsome observation, and the hon. Gentleman could know very little of the noble Duke or of himself (Sir David Dundas), or he would know that both of them were incapable of such low electoral failings. He believed that at this moment he (Sir David Dundas) was the most independent Member of the House of Commons, and if the hon. Gentleman said he was not he would quote the lines of the poet—

"And if they say I am not peer

To any man in England here;

Highland or lowland—far or near—"

He would leave the hon. Gentleman to finish the verse for himself.

said, that a Re-distribution Bill was much more necessary for Scotland than one for the reduction of the franchise, which would not materially affect the representation in that country. He looked upon the present measure as a very scant measure of justice, whether they looked to the point of population or property. Under the Bill Scotland would obtain seven additional Members, for which he heartily thanked Her Majesty's Government; but still he could only look upon it as an instalment. The Lord Advocate had said that he (Mr. Laing) might be startled from his propriety by the influx of fifteen working men into his borough, whereas, in point of fact, there would be a much greater number admitted under the Bill, as already the working men possessed 30 per cent of the constituency. So far from being afraid of the Bill going too far, he was only sorry that it was not more extensive in its operations, and he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether the franchise could not be still further reduced. The 40s. freeholders were found to act very well in England, and he should like to see them possessed of a vote in Scotland.

Sir, I have to make some explanation, which need not be very long, to the House concerning the Bill which I have now to introduce on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for the amendment of the representation of the people in Ireland. The House will not be surprised when I say that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the condition of the representation of the people in Ireland is such as not to call for any very large or very extensive change. The fact is, as is well known to hon. Members, that in the year 1850 a most important and extensive Bill for the amendment and extension of the franchise, totally unconnected with any measure for the re-distribution of seats, was introduced by Lord Russell and by my then predecessor, Sir William Somerville. That Bill effected a very great alteration in the Irish franchise; and, as is well known, it placed the county franchise upon the footing of a £12 rating occupation, and the borough franchise upon the footing of an £8 rating occupation, coupled with a most important provision which formed what I may call a self-acting system of registration. In very few words I will tell the House the circumstances and the effect of that measure. I will first take the counties into consideration. Just before the Reform Act of 1832 was passed, and in consequence of the abolition of the 40s. freehold franchise in Ireland, the Irish county constituency had been reduced to the number of 95,000 electors. The effect of the Reform Act creating a new constituency, consisting mainly of £10 householders, was that, in the next few years, the number of voters increased very considerably. Then, however, came a time of great suffering and calamity to Ireland—the years of the famine and the depression caused by those calamitous years. The consequence was that the absence of claims on the part of voters to have their names placed upon the register, combined with the expiration of leases, and the unwillingness of landlords to grant new ones, had so great an effect upon the franchise as to reduce the number of county electors in Ireland in the year 1849 to the small and preposterous number of 27,000 electors. Under those circumstances the Bill of 1860 was produced. The immediate effect of the measure was to raise the number of county electors from 27,000 to 135,000, and the number has gone on steadily increasing from that time to the present until it now exceeds 172,000. But the best way to give the House some idea of the extensive changes made by the Act of 1850, is to take the case of one or two counties. I find, for instance, that in the year 1850, immediately before the Act of Lord Russell, the population of the county of Kilkenny was 183,000, and the number of voters 481. At the present time the population has fallen to 124,000, while the number of voters has increased to upwards of 5,000. I find the same thing in the county of Waterford, where the population in 1850 was 172,000, and the number of voters 306; while the present population of the county is 134,000, and the number of voters 3,500. One more instance—I find in the Queen's county where the population in 1850 was 153,000, and there were 456 voters, at the present time, I grieve to say the population has fallen to 90,000, but the number of voters has risen to 3,438. Under these circumstances, considering that the Act of 1850 has been entirely successful, and that it has created so largely and so satisfactorily the county constituency in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government do not propose any addition to the measure so far as the counties are concerned. I now come to the boroughs, and here I must say that the calculations made at the time of passing the Act of 1850, and which were so fully realized in the case of the counties, has been by no means borne out in the case of the boroughs in Ireland. The fact is that the present borough constituencies of Ireland are smaller than they were before the Act of 1850, which is undoubtedly a remarkable circumstance. Before the Act was passed the borough constituencies of Ireland numbered about 33,000 electors, and the present number is only 30,758. Under these circumstances the Government propose to reduce the rating occupation franchise in boroughs from £8 to £6. The effect of that will not, after all, be very considerable. I find that the number of tenants living in houses rated above £6 and under £8 amounts to 7,741; but after making allowance for unoccupied tenements and for tenements occupied by women, for double entries and so on, there is no reason to believe that the addition to the borough constituencies by the alteration we propose will be much more than about 5,500 electors. There are some other clauses affecting the borough constituencies which will be found in the Bill I have the honour to introduce. These clauses follow the example of the English Bill, in creating a lodger franchise and a savings bank franchise for Ireland. The Bill will also follow the example of the Bill for this country with respect to the way in which it deals with the ratepaying conditions which now exist in Ireland; but I find upon inquiry that the alteration on this point will not produce the effect in Ireland which you will find, in all probability, produced in this country. On the contrary, the addition made to the Irish borough constituencies by the repeal of these conditions will be but small. It appears that last year the number of voters excluded from the register on account of non-payment of rates was, in the Irish counties, only 1,278, and in the Irish boroughs, only 1,053. This, no doubt, arises from the fact that the poor rates are collected in Ireland with very great care and completeness under the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. The only exception to this rule is found in the city of Dublin, where the collection is not under the control of the Poor Law Board, and consequently, out of the 1,053 voters excluded, 876 are excluded from Dublin alone. Following the example of the English Bill, however, we propose to make these ratepaying conditions no longer a part of the law in Ireland. I now come to the question as to what can be done towards removing or mitigating that which is undoubtedly a great fault in the Irish system of representation—namely, the small size and importance, both with respect to population and electors, of many of our boroughs. About that fact there is, of course, no doubt; but in one respect our borough system compares favourably with that of this country. We have no boroughs in Ireland with very small populations sending their two Members to this House. The two smallest towns in Ireland which possess a double representation are Waterford and Galway, each of which has a population of considerably over 25,000 inhabitants, and contains over 1,000 elec- tors—a very different state of things from the small English boroughs having two Members, as has been shown by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the small boroughs spoken of to-night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall have nothing to do; but, on the other hand, our very small boroughs are much more numerous in proportion to the whole number of boroughs than is the case in England; and the number of electors produced by the same amount of population is inferior to that which is to be found in England. Upon a contrast between the two countries, there appear to be very few places in Ireland which have such large and decided claims for increased representation to be taken into account to preserve the balance between urban and rural constituencies, as to justify Her Majesty's Government in proposing any extensive transfer of seats to other places; the transfer being only possible by the withdrawal of seats from boroughs already represented, which would make such a revolution in the Irish representation as Her Majesty's Government think would not be justified by the facts, and such as, they think, it would not be their duty to propose to Parliament. After careful consideration, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that there are only three cases in Ireland which require, and. which are so exceptional as to justify, a transfer of seats. Those cases are Dublin city, Cork county, and the Queen's University. The case of Dublin city is a very simple one, which commends itself at once to men's minds. The population of Dublin within the Parliamentary boundaries amounts to 263,000, and it has been thought reasonable to give them a third representative. Cork county, again, is facile princeps, in extent of population, among the counties of Ireland, and has, I think, a strong and indefeasible claim for increased representation. With respect to the Queen's University, the House knows from what has passed here in former debates, and from a document placed on the table by Her Majesty's Government, that we propose to throw open the University to all students applying there for degrees, irrespective of their place of education. By so doing we shall be fulfilling a pledge which we are bound to the utmost of our power to fulfil, and which was given by Her Majesty's Government last year to my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue); we shall be removing what is felt as a great grievance; and we shall, I apprehend, be incalculably increasing the usefulness and importance of the Queen's University in Ireland. For this propose it will be necessary to pass a supplemental charter which will go some way towards meeting the object; and also to propose legislation to this House to supply deficiencies which, under the present charter of the University, the Crown alone is not able to remedy. Her Majesty's Government intend, with the sanction of Parliament, and which they confidently hope and believe they shall obtain, to put the Queen's University in Ireland upon a similar footing to that of the London University, and they therefore propose to Parliament that a similar privilege to that which they propose to give to the London University should be conferred upon the Queen's University—namely, the privilege of returning a Member to this House. We propose to obtain these three seats in the following manner:—We propose, in the first instance, to combine together six of the small boroughs of Ireland, taking those which will admit most easily of combination from their situation and facility of communication. We propose to join Bandon and Kinsale, Portarlington and Athlone, and Dungannon and Enniskillen. Dungannon is one of the smallest boroughs in Ireland. After that operation is performed there will remain seven other boroughs below the line of 8,000 population, and those boroughs we propose to deal with as follows:—We propose to augment them, so as to produce a considerable population and good constituencies, following to a great extent the plan of the Bill of 1852, proposed by Lord Russell. These seven boroughs are:—New Boss, to which we propose to add Enniscorthy; Ennis, adding Kilrush and Ennistimon; Youghal, adding Queenstown; Coleraine, adding Ballymena; Cashel, adding Thurles and Tipperary; Mallow, adding Fermoy and Charleville; and Downpatrick, adding Newtownards. The effect of this arrangement will be to create a certain number of district boroughs similar to those which exist in Scotland and Wales, and producing in every respect important constituencies. It would be easy to carry that principle further; but we have limited ourselves to the population selected in the case of England. We believe that we shall thus succeed in removing the worst evils which could be laid to the charge of the Irish system, and in raising to a sufficient amount the number of voters in the smaller boroughs of Ireland. These are the proposals with respect to the Reform of the representation in Ireland which I have to lay before the House; and my belief is that if they be adopted by this House they will improve to a very considerable extent the representative system which has hitherto existed in that country.

said, he wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with respect to the question of boundaries in Ireland?

said, he was not aware that the boundary question arose in Ireland to any considerable extent. In all those cases in which it was proposed that additions should be made to boroughs—with the single exception of Kilrush—the boundaries were already settled for municipal purposes.

said, he did not think it advisable to enter at that moment into a discussion upon this extraordinary measure; but he would observe that the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that the Parliamentary boundaries of Belfast did not include more than half of the municipal boundaries.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, by his surprising eloquence, involved this question in a state of confusion which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) has not succeeded in dispelling. The proposals of the Government, as far as I understand them, present themselves in this remarkable light—that England loses, Scotland gains, and Ireland gets nothing. The Scottish Members have declared that the grievances of their country are intolerable, and the Lord Advocate complained that by the present change they had only seven seats at their disposal. But I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that they have not yet those seven seats at their disposal; although he has, like a gallant Scot, taken it for granted that they have already passed into the possession of his countrymen. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) says that Scotland ought to have twenty more Members; and he (Mr. Whiteside) had little doubt that the representatives of his country had only to follow up the policy which they had hitherto so perseveringly adopted of always supporting the Ministry to have a good chance of obtaining those twenty additional Members. But we shall have another very serious question to consider—namely, what are the relations between England and Scotland and between England and Ireland under their respective Acts of Union. May I be allowed further to ask the right hon. Gentleman who are the persons connected with Ireland that asked for such a Bill as this? That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman would, I believe, find it very difficult to answer. I should be greatly astonished to learn that there was a single Irishman possessed of reason who wishes for such a measure; and I believe I may confidently state that no petition in its favour has been presented from Ireland. The people of Ireland, indeed, are now occupied with other matters than the reform of their representation, and I can only set down the Bill as the invention of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It seems as if Scotland was desirous of inflicting on England and Ireland its own system of grouping. Some years ago Sir John Young proposed a scheme for carrying out this principle of grouping boroughs; but that proposal met with little favour from the House, and it was very soon abandoned. What is the meaning of the proposal? It is that you should add one melancholy little place to another melancholy little place, and then their union is still more melancholy than the existence of either of them separately. I quite understand a man saying, as O'Connell said, that the seven largest Irish counties ought to get seven additional representatives; and I assume that he meant those seven seats should be taken from the smaller boroughs. We have had Parliamentary representation in Ireland, in one way or another, for about 500 years; and I believe the people of that country never asked for a change of this description. I find that among the towns to be thus grouped is one called Ennistimon. I have travelled in the county of Clare in which this place is supposed to be situated, but I never heard of it. But might not Newtownards, in the North of Ireland, which has 10,000 inhabitants, be allowed to have a representative of its own? Perhaps hon. Members could guess "the reason why." Then I will remind the right hon. Gentleman that Portadown and Lurgan are larger places than Ballymena. I must observe, too, that I think Cashel might have been finally disposed of. It has lived its time, and it has done its work, and produced many eminent men no doubt; but I believe that unless something has been done to it since I last saw it, there is great danger of its speedily tumbling down altogether. The Irish representatives will, of course, have to consider whether they would wish to have this grouping system. I very much doubt whether an extension of the number of districts can tend to decrease the number of agents to be employed, or the amount of expenses to be incurred, and whether it will contribute to cheek corruption. I am not going to complain of the small boroughs in Ireland, because the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are returned by small boroughs. On the contrary, I think that in those cases we have an example of the service which small boroughs occasionally render Parliament; but I could not help remarking that some of the representatives of those small boroughs are prepared to vote for their own political extinction, and are ready, like Curtius, to leap into the gulph. I read a speech addressed to the electors of Portarlington by the Attorney General for Ireland, in which he told them that if they did not elect him they would certainly be disfranchised; and I should be glad to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposes to do for his constituents. I understand we are to have an additional Member for Dublin, and one for the West Riding of the county of Cork. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: An additional Member for the whole county of Cork.] I think there ought to be one for the West Biding of Cork. You have divided that great county which is nearly 100 miles long and contains 500,000 inhabitants for fiscal and judicial purposes; and I do not see why you should not also divide it for Parliamentary purposes as you have divided Yorkshire in England. I think, too, that something might be done for the county of Down and the county of Antrim, and for that great and busy population, amounting to not less than 160,000 persons, around Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of £6 voters in the Irish boroughs, and I wish to ask him whether any figures will be presented to the House on the subject? [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, That Returns upon the subject will be produced.]"We have, of late, had Special Commissions for the trial of offenders in Ireland; the gaols are now full, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, and I understand that many more arrests are at present being effected. Under these circumstances it may be desirable that we should have a Bill introduced for the amendment of the representation of the people; but the first condition of such a measure is that it should be intelligible.

said, he must apologize for an accidental omission from his statement. There was a clause in the Bill which would make the Parliamentary boroughs in Ireland coterminous with municipal boroughs; and that provision would meet the case of Belfast, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) had alluded.

suggested that the Government, if they had not finally settled the details of their plan, should so far alter it as to give a Member to the Queen's University in Ireland by grouping it with the University of Dublin.

expressed his surprise that the thriving province of Ulster—which at present returned twenty-nine Members, twenty-seven of whom sat on the Opposition side of the House—had not its claims to increased representation more fairly dealt with in the Bill.

was of opinion that in the transfer of seats Scotland had been much better treated than Ireland, especially when they considered the growth of taxation in Ireland. The measure before the House was ill-advised and badly considered—in fact, it was a mere dodge with a view to secure to the Government as much political influence as possible. He did not at all see why the county of Cork should not be divided, and Members given to each as in similar cases in England. Whether the boroughs of Ireland which had Members could be grouped would be a question in reference to the Act of Union to be considered. He thought there was a great injustice in giving additional Members to Scotland, while none were given to Ireland—this would work injustice to the latter country, for in his opinion the radicals of Scotland were more opposed to Ireland than the radicals of any other country.

regretted that in this moderate measure of Reform for Ireland there had not been introduced a clause for the disfranchisement of the freemen of that country. No measure could be complete that did not do that. In Dublin the freemen were exceedingly corrupt and quite neutralized the popular votes. He would also suggest that instead of giving to Dublin three Members the Government should erect Rathmines and Kingstown into a borough with one Member, and it would comprise a constituency which for intelligence and respectability would be second to none in Ireland. The present county franchise in Ireland worked well, and should not be reduced, if it were made lower it might introduce persons who would be subservient to the landlords.

said, he had heard no good reason assigned for the proposal to disfranchise the borough which he represented by adding it to Enntskillen. He could only suppose that the boroughs in the group were to be disfranchised because they returned Conservative Members. It was a fact that nearly the whole grouped boroughs were represented by Conservatives. They proposed to disfranchise the town which he represented, though the county of Sutherland, which had about the same number of electors, was to be let alone. The county of Tyrone, of which Dungannon was the chief town, had a population of 302,000. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that in counties in England there ought to be a representative to every 150,000 inhabitants. Ireland, therefore, had not had justice done to her, though Scotland had been fairly treated. He should give his strenuous opposition to these Bills, and should enrol himself under the banner of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel).

was pleased to find that the Government did not intend I to lower the county franchise in Ireland. He must add that while he was not at that moment prepared to enter fully into the merits of the Bill, some of its provisions in reference to the re-distribution of seats seemed to him rather strange. He thought, for instance, that Athlone and Portarlington, even when united, would form but an extremely small constituency, and that it would be well if some of the neighbouring towns were grouped with them in order to bring them up to the proper electoral strength. As to Dungannon, with its 185 electors and its population of 3,800, he saw no good reason why it should not be added to the town of Enniskillen; and he would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Major Stuart Knox) that its case was entirely different from that of Sutherlandshire, which was a county, and which contained 25,000 inhabitants.

contended that the Government had acted with respect to Dungannon on a different principle from that they had laid down for England. In England the boroughs were to be grouped geographically; but they paid no regard to this principle in Ireland, for they proposed to take from the county Tyrone the representative it now had. The county of Tyrone had a population of 300,000, and the barony of Dungannon had upwards of 80,000 inhabitants. The Government having proceeded with respect to Ireland on a totally different principle from that which they had adopted for England, he was entitled to protest against a measure so exceptional and capricious in character. Scotland had been highly favoured, but he might be allowed to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a vast number of the people of Ulster were of Scotch origin. If they did not obtain additional Members they ought not to be deprived of those they had.

said, that so long as the elections were not by ballot no change in the constituencies would be of any avail. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) the question of the freemen required to be dealt, with, and that the conduct of the freemen of Dublin would bring disgrace on any constituency. In fact, the representation of that city was in a most unsatisfactory state. In Ireland a £6 rating was equivalent to a £9 rental, and if that were established there would be no equality with England when the £7 rental was established. If they wished to reform the borough franchise in Ireland they ought to reduce the franchise to a £6 or £5 rating, but no system of election would work well till vote by ballot was established.

inquired of the Secretary for Ireland whether he intended to make any alteration as regarded the boundaries of boroughs? He approved the suggestion of grouping small boroughs or districts in Ireland, and asked whether it would not be well to join Rathmines and Kingstown together and make them into a new borough?

thought it unjust that Tyrone, which in population, wealth, and size, was entitled to have three Members, should lose half a Member owing to the union of Portadown and Enniskillen. Those boroughs were not in the same county. It was not fair that Ulster, which was prospering in wealth, and steady in its loyalty, should lose a Member for the gratification of Cork county, Dublin city, or even the Queen's University. He felt confident that the House would not entertain the proposal to deprive the province of Ulster of a Member.

said, he understood his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dungannon (Major Stuart Knox) to infer that the Conservative boroughs of Ireland were to be deprived of their Members for party purposes. [Major STUART KNOX: That is what I meant.] He would then remind his hon. Friend that Portarlington was represented by a right hon. Gentleman who was certainly not a Conservative; Kinsale, too, could assuredly not be called a Conservative borough; it had always returned a Whig, and was now represented by a most consistent Whig. That made two cases. Bandon was to be grouped with Kinsale. A third Whig borough—Mallow, was to be grouped. That could not be called going out of the way to disfranchise Conservative boroughs. Again, instead of disfranchising Dungannon by the arrangement that was proposed, there would merely be the putting of two Conservative boroughs together. He did not quarrel with hon. Members for standing up for their boroughs; but when they came fairly to argue the matter it was totally impossible to defend the existing representation of Dungannon, Portarlington, or Kinsale on principle. Whether they were Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, people in Ireland would say that it was impossible to touch the question of Reform at all without changing the position of those places. Under ordinary circumstances those boroughs would have been disfranchised; but a new principle had been started, and there was no desire to deprive any constituency, however small, of a share in the representation. If the principle of grouping had worked well in Scotland and in Wales, Ireland could not stand out against its adoption. With regard to the freemen, they could not deal with them on a different principle in Ireland from that on which they had been dealt with in England. They had not disfranchised the freemen in England. The freemen in Ireland were dying out by degrees; and, therefore, without holding them up as model electors, he would say, "Let time continue to do its work upon them, as it was now doing it." He was exceedingly grateful to the Government for not touching the Irish county franchise, which was quite low enough, A reduction of the borough franchise was a necessity, and he thought the proposal on that subject would work very well. A £6 householder in Ireland was about equal to the £9 or £10 occupier in England. The Government had, therefore, not gone too low, but had taken a judicious step, and it would be received with gratitude by the people of Ireland.

agreed with the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) in thinking it signified little what representation was given to the people if the electors had not the power of exercising their privileges in a free and constitutional manner. The law relating to bribery and intimidation was the same for England and Ireland, but the position of the electors in the two countries was quite different. The elector in England was a free man; but in Ireland he was a serf, liable to be turned out at six months' notice after voting for the man of his choice, and liable to be distrained, as often happened, within a few weeks after he had recorded his vote. Protection to the county voter in the exercise of his franchise was the primary requisite, and no Reform Bill which omitted to grant it could be regarded as a substantial measure in Ireland.

said, he should certainly oppose the grouping together of Athlone and Portarlington, towns which were at least twenty miles apart; and he maintained that no extension of the franchise in Ireland would be satisfactory unless it were accompanied by the protection of the ballot.

said, he regarded the present representation of the city of Dublin as a perfect farce, because the owners and occupiers of property were overridden by the freemen, the "ruck" of whom were about the most disreputable of any class of voters. It was really a serious question whether, if the freemen were to remain in their present position, it would not be very improper to give another Member, as now proposed, to the city of Dublin. He would also suggest whether it might not be expedient to require some qualification even for freemen. A £4 franchise would, he believed, exclude one-half of the present freemen. These men came out in a body just towards the close of an election like a swarm of flies in summer, and carried all before them, and great corruption and abuse existed among them. It had been said that all the rising towns of Ireland were in Ulster. He was glad to hear that, for it would give some justification to the present proportion which the representation of Ulster bore to that of the rest of Ireland. While all Ireland had only 105 Members, including two for the University, Ulster alone had twenty-nine, whereas the proper share due to that province was only 26 1·5.

would only say that Ulster contained about one-third of the entire population of Ireland, and one-half of its wealth. If, therefore, wealth and population constituted a claim to representation, Ulster had as much reason to complain of the with drawment of a Member as any other division of the country. His chief object in rising was to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the amount of the lodger franchise, which he understood was to be introduced in the Bill?

I thought I stated that it was proposed that the lodger franchise should be the same as that to be provided for England,

said, that in order to meet the views of the Government and not to delay the passing of the Resolutions, which were of importance to the business of the country, he had agreed to postpone the Resolution of which he had given notice with respect to Fire and Marine Insurances. But having done, so he wished to say a few words on the first Resolution that was to be submitted to the House. The financial scheme of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer consisted of three distinct parts. The first section related to what might be called domestic arrangements, the second had regard to politics and finance, and the third was a prospective view of the future state of the country and the possible collapse of her greatness and prosperity. He (Mr. Hubbard) wished to make a few remarks upon the first portion of the scheme. He might remark, in the first place, that there was not one of the remissions which the right hon. Gentleman proposed that would not he received with hearty good-will. The proposal with regard to wine was a necessary consequence of the Austrian Treaty, and the change would tend to simplify and equalize the levying of the duties. The changes in the duties on locomotion were due to those who provided the humbler classes with those means of locomotion which the rich could provide for themselves; and he could only expresss his hope that the change would not stop with leaving the farthing duty upon those vehicles—he trusted they would be abolished altogether. As to pepper, he had drawn the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the duties on spice, and he rejoiced, therefore, that his right hon. Friend had taken this step in removing them. He hoped the day was not far distant when the poor man would not only have his Irish stew with untaxed pepper, but also his dumplings with untaxed currants and plums. The duties on timber, which produced £300,000 a year, were very properly taken off, for nothing was of more importance to the dwellings of the poor, about which, at present, so much interest was taken, than a cheap and plentiful supply of timber; but he alluded to it now, because at a future stage of the discussion he intended to refer to the magnitude of the tax that was levied on this article in another shape. He might state here that in the Resolution he intended to propose, he did not intend to ask the House entirely to abrogate the duties on fire insurances, but to reduce the duty on marine insurances to 3d. per £100, and to levy a tax of 1d. on all other insurances as a registration fee, which would indicate the growth in the value of fixed property. As he had withdrawn the Motion of which he had given notice, he must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would introduce his Bill so as to allow him an opportunity of fairly discussing the remissions he proposed.

said, that every facility ought to be given to enable the Government to proceed at once with the Resolutions to be submitted to the Committee. The Resolution respecting the reduction of the National Debt involved principles of very great novelty and importance. It was, in fact, a question of committing Parliament to a prospective scheme of finance for many years to come, He did not know that it would become him to express an opinion upon the subject at present, as the scheme for the reduction of the Debt was only introduced into the House on Thursday last, and it could not be disposed of without a great deal of consideration on the part of hon. Members, and consultation with financial authorities out of doors. He was sure that nothing would be further from the wish of his right hon. Friend than to press the Committee to a premature decision; and, in the ordinary course of things, that Resolution should stand over. If, however, inconvenience would result from not passing the Resolution that evening, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance that hon. Members would not be precluded from moving any Amendments further consideration might suggest in reference to its principle, he would at the present stage offer no opposition.

said, he concurred with every word that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard). He understood that his hon. Friend did not intend to stand in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to his financial arrangements respecting the taxation of the country. But it was very different in regard to the Resolutions on the National Debt, and he fully joined in all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) on that subject. It really was the most important subject—scarcely less so than the successive schemes of Reform they had so lately been discussing—that would be brought under the consideration of Parliament. He would venture to suggest that if it would interfere with the convenience of Government in its other measures, to postpone this Resolution, then it would be better to let the Resolution pass, reserving to themselves the right at a future period to consider the principle of being committed for a period of twenty or possibly of forty years to pay a largo sum of money whatever the condition of the country might he, and after all paying off a comparatively small portion of the debt. Before sitting down he must add that he agreed in the proposals of his right hon. Friend with regard to the duties on timber and on wine in bottle, which he thought an excellent measure independently of the treaty with Austria; and with respect to that treaty he would say that he hoped events would not occur in Europe to in- terfere with its operation. But with regard to the remainder of the surplus—exceeding £500,000—he must say it appeared to him a most extraordinary-period to apply it to the extinction of the Debt. It was known that this was the smallest surplus at the command of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for several years past; and when money was at the rate of 7 or 8 per cent in the market it did not appear to him that this was exactly the proper period for the right hon. Gentleman to make his first experiment towards paying off the £800,000,000 of the National Debt. However, he would reserve all that for a future period. But he hoped his right hon. Friend would give some information on one or two points in order to render his scheme intelligible to the House. First, with regard to the sum of £1,005,000 that was to be paid in discharge of the annuities; he wished to know whether it was to be paid yearly, half-yearly, or quarterly. Second, if it was to be paid half-yearly, when would the first payment be made, and when would the last payment be made—in 1885, and again in 1905—because the moment they obtained that information they would know exactly what was the aggregate sum they would have to pay in this series of years, except as varied by the current prices of stock. He also wished to understand whether this annual payment of £1,005,000 would be increased or diminished by the increase or diminution in the payments that might be made from year to year by the trustees of the savings banks.

said, it was obvious that the adoption of Resolutions merely of preliminary character could not bind hon. Members to any details, and that the most convenient time to discuss the provisions of the Bill founded upon them was when that Bill was in their hands. The Resolutions were necessarily couched in vague and general terms, because their scope must he sufficient to cover everything in the Bill. Ample time should be afforded for the discussion of the important subjects which they embraced, and in fixing the time for the second reading he hoped to consult the convenience of hon. Members. In answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly) as to the period at which payments of the annuity would be made, those periods would be fixed to meet the convenience both of the Commissioners of National Debt and the public. It was not desirable that the Commissioners should receive the whole income on quarter days, and the first payment would accordingly be made on the 21st of November next. £1,005,000 was the maximum which could by possibility be applied to the purpose in view; but what proportion of that amount would be applicable depended on the calls of the trustees of the savings banks, who had the first claim upon the fund. Any further information that might be desired he should be happy to give, and, if it was thought desirable, in the shape of Returns.

expressed his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not considered the whole subject of carriage duties and placed them upon a different footing from that which they now occupied. The mileage duty was excessive, no doubt, and one proper to be considered; but advantage might have been taken of the occasion when it was dealt with to relieve horses and carriages now subject to the payment of Excise duty from that impost, levying whatever taxes were deemed equitable in the uniform shape of assessed taxes. It had been said that this tax was necessary, because where omnibuses ran in competition with railways it would not be right that the latter should be taxed and the former not. But he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) was sure that the railway interest would be glad to see the mileage duty taken off altogether, because the public carriages were the best feeders of the railways. The omnibuses of the London district were now liable to a mileage duty of 1d. per mile, and on an average each omnibus paid £66 duty per annum. That sum would now be reduced to one farthing a mile, or about £16 10s. The cabs paid 1s. a day duty, and cabs which plied six days a week would still have to pay £15 13s. each cab for duty. So that while the omnibuses, which employed on an average nine horses, would only be charged £16 5s. —a cab, which employed only two horses, would pay £15 13s. If all these carriages were put upon one footing—if every vehicle on four wheels paid a uniform charge of £3 10s., for example—and if every horse paid £1 1s. duty—it would be a great relief to the interests concerned and a great advantage to the country. He saw no reason why the cabs of London should not be placed on the same footing as those of Liverpool, Birmingham, Cheltenham, and other large towns. It was sometimes argued that the metropolis had peculiar advantages in regard to the expenditure of public money upon its parks, &c, and that it ought therefore to pay a larger share of taxation; but why the cabs should pay this burden more than other carriages he could not understand—especially as cabs were not allowed to enter some of the parks. What was the consequence? It appeared from the Report upon the table of the House, that the Chief Commissioner of Police (Sir Richard Mayne) described the public vehicles of the metropolis as very bad, while Sir John Thwaites declared that the public carriages and cabs of London were the worst in Europe. The reason was that the fares were so low and the taxation so high that no public companies would undertake this traffic as they undertook the omnibus traffic. The result was that the cab proprietors let out their cabs to men of a low class, who could scarcely earn a living, and the cabowners were sometimes obliged to give them credit for a day or two, when, if they could not make up the sum they had agreed to pay for the hire, they were summoned before a police magistrate, who committed them to prison for non-payment. The number of cabmen confined in White Cross Street Prison from this cause varied from five to twenty. The result was that the cabmen, having the fear of a prison before their eyes, extorted money from the public, and the master, in consequence of the low fares and heavy taxation, was unable to employ a proper class of drivers. The only remedy was by putting cabs upon the same footing as other carriages, and allowing the public to have the option of employing a superior kind of carriage—by paying an additional fare. The subject was not in the hands of the local authorities, but in those of the Government, and upon them the responsibility rested. The whole subject of horses and public carriages ought to be placed under better regulations, and in regard to the mileage duty it would be better if the whole duty were removed.

said, that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down showed clearly that the whole subject of the taxes on locomotion required to be reviewed. Much greater changes ought to be proposed than those he had suggested, and the Resolution before the House was brought forward not as in any degree a settlement, but as a remedy for one salient point of grievance and inconvenience—namely, the state of the omnibus traffic which pressed unjustly upon the middle and working classes residing in the environs of the metropolis, &c, and affected the supply of carriages to the railway stations. He had, however, already explained that he had not the means of dealing with the whole subject on the present occasion. Upon the general question he would not hesitate to express the opinion that so far as popular locomotion was concerned, it could not be too free. The question was, however, one embracing many details. The hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) said, with great truth, that even if the State ought to receive some consideration in return for the expenditure upon the metropolis it was by no means clear why it should be paid by a charge on cabs. He agreed with the hon. Member that this tax would deserve re-consideration; but his hon. Friend would no doubt agree with him that in regard to this matter of metropolitan expenditure it would not be wise to legislate until the House had got some better devised substitute in the place of this tax. Such a substitute might be found, but they had not found it now. The more convenient time to enter upon this question would be when the whole subject was opened out, as he trusted it would be, by the Report of the Railway Commissioners. Meanwhile, he trusted that the House would not object to adopt a partial remedy for a grievance specific in its character, and which pressed upon the public more heavily than any other part of the duties on locomotion.

must say that this subject was in a very unsatisfactory state. There were very few towns in England where cabs were allowed, as in London, to charge only 6d. per mile. It was most unfair to make the cabs pay more taxes in London, where the fares were lower than in almost any other town. In the country towns the municipal authorities regulated the public carriages; but in London the public fell between two stools. The Government professed to do this in London, but did not do it, and the local authorities were not allowed to interfere. In Paris the public could get any description of vehicle according to what they were prepared to pay for it, while in London the cabs were so dirty and kept in such bad condition that they were seldom fit for a lady to get into them. The Government, if they undertook to regulate the cabs, ought to see that they were really worthy of this great metropolis. The public really had a right to something better.

said, if his hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) knew how difficult it was to obtain justice in that House when no powerful interest demanded it, he would be satisfied with the instalment of justice now obtained. For six years he had struggled to obtain a recognition of the exorbitant overcharge of taxation upon locomotion. He objected to the theory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the metropolis owed something to the Government for money laid out upon it, which ought to be repaid by some specific tax. He, for one, was not aware that any such claim existed. He believed that when the House came to balance accounts, not only would it be found that there was a great overcharge in the matter of cabs, but also a still greater overcharge in other branches of revenue. In London several families living in one house had to contribute to the house tax, while in the country families living in separate houses had no such tax to pay. There were many matters in respect of which the metropolis laboured under serious disadvantages. He attributed this to the fact that it had so small an amount of representation in that House. It could not make itself felt. He hoped, however, there was a chance of improvement in that respect. It was remarkable that if a number of small boroughs—which in the aggregate had not, perhaps, a population equal to half that of one of the metropolitan boroughs—felt themselves aggrieved by any particular state of circumstances, they were able to bring such a pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he was unable to withstand, while the metropolis could not get its just complaints attended to. He never could understand why the public carriages in London should have a different rate of taxation imposed upon them from that which applied to similar vehicles in other parts of the country. The result was that gentlemen found themselves obliged to travel in very indifferent cabs, though it was true they had the satisfaction that here they rode cheaper than they could in any other city of Europe. The House were very fond of free trade when they wanted to buy; but the moment they came to make a law for those who sold they insisted that the article should be disposed of at the lowest rate. The licence required to be taken out by those who let horses out on hire was attended with inconvenience and hardship. Could anything be more absurd than that a man could not lend his horse or carriage without subjecting himself to very heavy penalties if he received any remuneration for the loan. If you found yourself in the country, and asked a farmer to let you ride his horse, you could not offer him remuneration—if you were to make such a request to a man he would look at you with suspicion. He had found this to be the case with a Scotch farmer to whom he applied for the use of a horse; but when he assured the man that he had the greatest contempt for the Excise laws, and that he was not aware they existed in that part of the country, he consented to let him have the horse, If a man driving a conveyance along the road allowed a traveller to get up, and accepted remuneration, a penalty might be enforced if he had not a licence. A turnpike-keeper had once threatened a man for giving him a lift. If a man keeping a horse and cart for the purposes of his business met his wife and gave her a lift home, the tax collector might pounce upon him and make him pay carriage duty, and a tax on the boy who groomed the horse. He hoped the time would shortly come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to totally abolish all taxes on carriages and horses to the extent that such interfered with industry and necessary locomotion.

desired to express his satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken up this question, and had announced his intention of carrying the reductions still further. In some small towns these carriage duties made all the difference between commercial progress and the stagnation of trade. The question whether it was worth the while of a commercial traveller to visit a small town sometimes depended on whether there was omnibus communication between that town and the nearest railway station. In the town of Wigan, which he once had the honour of representing, omnibus communication had been discontinued in consequence of the mileage duty. This was an illustration of the evil effects which the duty sometimes brought about.

said, he would like to know whether those duties could not be consolidated into a smaller number of items. He was also desirous of learning what the expense would be of collecting the farthing duty—because he thought it would bear an undue proportion to the total amount of the impost. He did not think that justice to the railway interest would allow of the duty on stage carriages being entirely removed as long as railways were taxed so heavily; because, though omnibuses could not compete with steam in point of speed, in many cases they possessed an advantage over suburban railways, inasmuch as they took up and set down passengers at their own doors.

said, the question was whether the House was to sacrifice certain portions of the mileage duty on the means of locomotion, and at the same time refuse even an inquiry into the turnpike system, which hampered locomotion to a very much greater degree. In his opinion, the question of turnpikes was fairly entitled to the consideration of the House.

regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had during the last few years allowed 3d. of the duty, which would have provided for the repeal of two-thirds of the malt tax, or two-thirds of the sugar duty, or for the repeal of the duties upon every article except six—namely, wine, spirits, malt, tea, sugar, and tobacco, to slip through his fingers. Nothing would do so much to stop the mouths of demagogues as to show, by the maintenance of the income tax, that that House was determined to adhere to the policy of abolishing duties which were levied upon articles consumed by the working classes.

said, he must protest against the re-enactment of the Income Tax Act without an attempt having been made on the part of Her Majesty's Government to remove any of its gross inequalities. If those inequalities had been removed, the tax would have been more readily endured. He wished also to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the imperfect and clumsy machinery by which the tax was collected. The amount of confusion which it caused was something marvellous. This confusion partly arose from the inaccurate forms under which persons were required to make their assessment. No man could take the forms for assessment under Schedule D and make a just return taken from his own ledger without its being in a state of conflict with the requirements of the Act. In the receipts, too, which were given for income tax a statement was made that a certain sum had been received according to the information and particulars in the margin, but no particulars and no information were given in the margin. He submitted that that was a difficulty which might easily be remedied, and he urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of making the tax collectors give a proper form of receipt, showing the amount on which, and the rate at which, the tax was levied. There was another point to which he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Under Schedule D every individual was bound to make his own return, but there was no penalty if he failed to do so. The consequence was that a man with a tolerable good business would often refuse to make any return at all. Thereupon the income tax Commissioners made their own assessment, and assessed him, say, at £300 a year. He would pay it, and again refuse to send in a return; whereupon the Commissioners would, perhaps, assess him at £500 which he would pay. This process went on step by step so long as the trader was assessed by the Commissioners at a lower sum than he was really liable to pay. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of introducing a clause with the object of compelling people to make returns under Schedule D.

said, the income tax pressed most severely upon persons possessing incomes of £200 or £300 a year, and in his opinion £150 ought to be written off every income up to at least £600 a year. The tax at present pressed too heavily upon persons engaged in professions, such as surgeons, artists, schoolmasters, and clergymen.

said, there was an essential difference between property and income tax, which were now grouped together. The reduction in the tea and sugar duties, and imposts of that kind, were insignificant in their importance as compared with the income tax, which taxed the bone and muscle of the industry of the country. The property tax was a reasonable and legitimate tax to meet the requirements of the country—it was the ancient and proper means of raising revenue; and although vestries had power to impose a tax analogous to the income tax, common sense told them that the proper way was to raise the tax from property, and this was done throughout the length and breadth of the country. The property tax was direct and economical; the income tax was indirect and expensive; and yet the two were mixed together as though there was some analogy between them.

meant no disrespect to hon. Members by declining to discuss questions which had been raised, and which went deep into our fiscal and social systems, because they could not be adequately discussed on a Resolution for the renewal of a tax. They were fair and proper subjects to be discussed thoroughly, and when they were raised as separate questions the House had shown no disinclination to attend to them; but, on the voting of a portion of the Supplies of the year, the House could not enter upon the deeper and larger question of the structure of the taxes.

, on rising to move a Resolution said, that as it would be very difficult to discuss the question satisfactorily without details, and as the House could have the details only when the Bill was before it, he would simply move the Resolution which stood on the paper, in conformity with the understanding come to in the House that the discussion should be taken at a convenient time, such as on the question of the second reading. He begged, therefore, to move—

"That it is expedient to grant powers for cancelling the charge on the Consolidated Fund for Savings Banks of £24,000,000, and also for cancelling, from time to time. Capital Stocks of Annuities held for Savings Banks by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and for creating, until the fifth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, equivalent Terminable Annuities for Savings Banks in lieu thereof, and to provide for payment of such Terminable Annuities out of the Consolidated Fund.

said, he had listened to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, and had read the Reports in the papers, and he confessed, after all, that he did not understand the plan of the Government, nor had he met any one who did. But, as far as he did understand it, it was this:—There were to be two operations, A and B. The first was to wipe out £24,000,000 of cash, not stock. He wished to know how these £24,000,000 of cash were represented by an interest of £720,000, that being nearly 3 per cent. There was another point which he would wish to have cleared up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there were £3,000,000 due to the trustees of the savings banks over and above the £24,000,000."Was he right in stating that? If he understood the scheme rightly, it was that £1,725,000 was to be annually paid for the purpose of extinguishing the £24,000,000, and at the end of eighteen and a half years we were to enter into an engagement for another term of eighteen and a half years, or a longer period. The right hon. Gentleman would extinguish, in the course of about eighteen years, £12,000,000. There would then remain about £12,000,000 more in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt for the purpose of satisfying the demands made by the depositors. So that in 1885 we should be in this position:—We should have wiped off £24,000,000 of money, but of that sum £12,000,000 would be in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt, applicable to the payment of depositors. That was proposal A, as far as he understood it. Then came proposal B, which was to apply £12,000,000 of assets to carry out something like the same process, and to purchase annuities which were to expire either in 1885 or 1905. Now, he wanted to know how these £12,000,000, which represented something like £13,500,000 stock, were to be converted into annuities. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to purchase annuities from time to time as he had £500,000 in his hands, or was he to purchase stock in the first instance, and convert that stock into annuities—was that to be done every year, and what was to be the term of years for which the annuities were to be granted? Were the annuities to be granted next year, and then for a period terminating in 1905, or every year for a period of twenty years, so that gradually they would be reduced from year to year, and terminate in a small sum in 1905?

said, he rose not to continue the discussion, but rather to ask whether it was in order to go into it at all. On the Paper which hon. Members received on Saturday morning the second Order of the day was the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and that was the state of the Orders when the House rose on Friday evening. But when he came down to the House to-day he found that the Orders had been altered; this National Debt question had been intercalated between the first and second Orders as they had appeared on the Paper on Saturday morning. Now, it was not right that hon. Members should be placed in that position. This was a subject of the greatest importance. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), for instance, wished to raise a discussion on the National Debt Bill, and if, relying on the Paper which he received on Saturday morning, he had gone to his country seat (believing, from the position in which the question had stood on the Orders this morning, that it could not possibly come on for discussion to-night), he would have lost the opportunity which he desired, and the House would have lost his knowledge and experience. He therefore wished to ask, as a matter of order, whether they could go into the question of the National Debt Acts now?

said, the Question of the noble Lord was a Question for the House, and not for the Committee. The House had referred the consideration of the National Debt Acts to the Committee, and the Committee could not, therefore, inquire into the question raised by the noble Lord.

asked, whether he was to understand that he should refer the point to the Speaker before the Report was presented? He had not had an opportunity of doing so before the Speaker left the Chair.

said, the noble Lord would have no difficulty in finding opportunities of raising the Question. When the Report was brought up there would be no difficulty in doing so.

said, he should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been conscious of this curious manipulation. Were they to attribute this alteration, which might have misled many persons anxious to discuss this question, to the officers of the House, or to any Member of Her Majesty's Government? Those financial questions were matters upon which the House ought to insist upon having ample notice, and for this reason—that the decision of them rested with that House alone; and if by any accident full consideration was not given to them, the error was irreparable, as no action could be taken upon them in another place. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take notice of the irregularity which had occurred. On the Notice paper of Saturday this measure was put down as No. 22; it was afterwards removed to the second place—a matter about which they had no notice, and after the Papers were sent round on Saturday.

said, the intention of the Government certainly was, that this measure should be brought forward this evening, and that intention was made the subject of conversation more than once during the last week. He thought it was fully understood that it was the intention of the Government, so far as depended upon them, with the approval of the House, to move the Resolution this evening. With respect to the question put to him by the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne), his knowledge was very limited. He had seen the Order in the middle of the list, but when he came down to the House he found it promoted to the second place. He apprehended whatever mistake was made must have been made in the Notice paper of Saturday, and that the Order was only restored to its original place. With respect to the questions which had been asked by his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Edward Buller), there were some of them that could hardly be discussed until the Bill was in the hands of Members; but with regard to others he was able to give an answer. With regard to the first question, why, when £24,000,000 was to be converted, the interest was only £720,000, the explanation was to be found in the history of the transaction by which the book debt was created. That book debt of £24,000,000 represented what was previously £24,000,000 of stock, and when by the vote of the House that stock was converted into a book debt the interest was not changed—it remained at 3 per cent as before. At the time of the conversion the annuities must be created with reference to the existing state of the funds. Hence had arisen a considerable deficit on savings banks stock. They were liable to this state of things with regard to the savings banks money. They received deposits when there was great abundance of money, and when the funds were high; consequently, investments were made at high prices; but when the funds fell, perhaps 10 per cent, a portion of the deposits was called for, and sales were made at low prices. The operation now proposed would repair this deficit, but at the cost of an actual payment of cash. With reference to the £3,000,000, it was included in the £24,000,000. The engagement connected with what was called the operation A was limited to eighteen and a half years. The first payment would be made at the end of this year, and the last payment in 1885. It was quite impossible to anticipate how much of the deposits of savings banks would be withdrawn in any future year; the only data they had on that point was the extent to which they had been withdrawn to the present time; but the sum which would be ready for that purpose was so very large—so much beyond any draughts hitherto made, that the presumption was that about £500,000 a year would remain. Then as to the £12,000,000, which would be in the hands of the Commissioners in 1885, it would be the business of the Commissioners to make investments from time to time, and he did not think a large sum would be allowed to accumulate. He now answered these questions dryly and without entering into the scheme, which would be best understood when the Resolutions were in the hands of Members.

expressed his great satisfaction that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at last been given to the subject of the National Debt with a view to place it on a more satisfactory footing. In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's able speech when he introduced his Budget he had told them that there were two ways, and only two, in which they could deal with this question. The first he said was to apply the whole or a portion of the surplus to pay off a portion of the debt outright, and the second was to apply the same amount to pay the difference in value between terminable annuities and Three per Cent Consols. He also told them that he had received many suggestions by letter with various schemes for reducing the National Debt by creating terminable annuities. He (Sir Francis Crossley) could not claim to have been one of his correspondents on that subject; but ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had not failed on every suitable occasion to bring forward the question of creating terminable annuities in lieu of the permanent debt. But the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the great obstacle to his taking the advice given was that no one wanted to buy terminable annuities on the Stock Exchange; but he (Sir Francis Crossley) thought it was going rather too far to find fault with there being no buyers of terminable annuities on the Stock Exchange when the fact was they had not been offered—before there were buyers there must be sellers, and he had too much faith in the prudence of the dealers on the Stock Exchange to imagine that they would not buy the stock that was cheaper than the Three per Cent Consols. Whilst he did not object to the short terminable annuities now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was in favour of much longer terminable annuities being offered as well; and he had on several occasions stated in that House that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would year by year lay by £500,000 out of his surplus for the purpose of paying the difference between terminable annuities at 100 years hence and Three per Cent Consols, that amount would pay the difference in value between upwards of £10,000,000 of terminable annuities at 100 years hence and Three per Cent Consols. But, supposing the right hon. Gentleman were correct in saying that terminable annuities would not be a favourite stock, still the only result would be that the £500,000 instead of converting 10⅓ millions, as the exact value would do, might convert rather under £10,000,000 thus giving those who purchased terminable annuities the advantage in value to that extent. The amount of our debt was so colossal that merely to pay it off outright with a portion of the surplus made no impression upon it; for instance, if £2,000,000 were paid off directly we should merely be paying 5s. in the £100 or bankers commission upon it, whereas by the terminable annuities a half million would transpose £10,000,000 interminable annuities to be terminable 100 years hence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked that it would have been unwise to have attempted to deal with the National Debt until our commercial legislation had been placed on a satisfactory footing, but looking at the prosperity we had had for many years back, he win unable to endorse that opinion. He quite admitted that the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was the more important of the two, but he thought it would have been much wiser to allow the two to proceed hand-in-hand in the mode which he had described. The right hon Gentleman had drawn their attention to the important subject of the decrease of our coal supply in this country. He should be sorry to be able to think that it would be completely exhausted in so short a time as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had led them to suppose; still he was perfectly correct in this, that there was no country in the world where coals could be brought to the surface so cheaply as in this, and being an island the coals were near to the sea-board when so brought to the surface, consequently there was very great danger of rapid exhaustion taking place. He (Sir Francis Crossley) believed also that his statement was correct as to the quantity of coal in this country, being but the one thirty-seventy part of the quantity in America; but in that country the wages were high, it was a continent, and not an island, and consequently it would be very difficult to get the coal to the seaboard. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done good service in bringing this important subject under their consideration, and had shown that it was wise and prudent that no time should be lost in placing our National Debt on a more satisfactory footing, and he (Sir Francis Crossley) hoped that, whoever might be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future years, the system of terminable annuities would be more extensively adopted, for the reduction of the debt in time of peace was the best preparation we could make for war.

said, the great point to be considered was whether the country would bear the extra charge proposed for the purpose of paying off the debt by instalments — which was the real operation of terminable annuities. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was a fund which might very fairly be applied to this object. The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had lent altogether about £10,000,000, which appeared every year under the head "Repayment of Advances" in the Revenue Accounts. It appeared to him that the receipts from this source might be applied to the creation or payment of these annuities; which would be attended with this advantage, that in times of difficulty, when it might be requisite for the Government to raise money, these loans could be suspended.

protested against its going forth to the world that our national pre-eminence depended upon our coal-fields, for it was really dependent on our energy and enterprize—qualities which would enable us to bring coal from America or any other part of the world, if our own deposits were exhausted. He protested against the doctrine that if our supply of coal were to fail we should at all descend from our position as a nation.

said, that irrespective of the details of this measure, a very important principle had been mooted in eloquent speeches recently delivered on the question. It would be a great convenience if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state whether the discussion upon it would be taken before or after that on the Reform Bill, or whether it would be taken before the Whitsuntide recess.

was afraid that, having regard to other subjects still more important, he could only repeat his promise of giving ample notice. He should be glad if the second reading could be fixed for Thursday week, but until he knew what course was likely to be pursued in regard to the Bill he had introduced that evening he could make no definite arrangement.

(Mr. Speaker being in the Chair) said, he would now call attention to the point of Order he had previously mentioned. He wished to observe that the Paper containing the Orders of the Day which had been laid upon the table that evening differed from the Paper which had been supplied to Members on Saturday morning. The National Debt Bill stood second on the one paper and appeared as the twenty-second Order on the other. That alteration might have led to serious inconvenience. He wished to know whether such an alteration could legitimately be made.

said, the House was aware that on Friday evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed the Committee on the National Debt Acts as one of the Orders for this evening, and that the Government had the power of arranging those Orders in the way which appeared to them most convenient for the despatch of public Business. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the National Debt Acts were intended to stand next each other, but they were accidentally separated and printed apart. On Saturday, knowing what the intention of the Government was and what was proposed, for the convenience of public business, the Clerk directed that the change should be made.