said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, By whose authority the Statue in St. Margaret's Square of the late Right Hon. George Canning has been removed from its pedestal, and in what situation it is proposed to re-erect it; and, whether a site has yet been granted for the erection of a Statue of the late Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, baronet, subscribed for in 1850 by his political friends and admirers, and long since executed by Baron Marochetti?

, in reply, said, he had already explained the circumstances connected with the temporary re-moral of the statue of Canning. A site, he was happy to say, had been allocated for the statue of the late Sir Robert Peel, in the immediate vicinity of the House. The only reason why it had not been erected was in consequence of the completion of works which were going on for the convenience of hon. Members. So long as these were proceeding it was perfectly impossible to erect the statue on the spot designed, but it would be placed there at the end of the Session.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the presentment of the Grand Jury in the case of Colonel Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, "That Martial Law should be more clearly defined by Legislative enactment;" and, whether the Government propose in any manner to act upon the recommendation of the Grand Jury?

We did not wait. Sir, for the presentment of the Grand Jury with respect to the important question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. My noble Friend the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon), very shortly after the meeting of Parliament, directed a Circular to Colonial Governors which may, and probably will, lead to very important results in this matter, and I think that at present the best course will be for me to lay that document upon the table.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What course the Government propose to take with respect to the Queen's University in Ireland, and whether they intend to bring in a Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of the acceptance by the Senate of the Supplemental Charter of last year, and to place the graduates to be admitted to degrees under that Charter upon an equal footing as members of the corporate body of the University with the other graduates?

Sir, in answer to my right hon. Friend I have to say that a case was tried in the Rolls' Court in Dublin some months ago, when the whole question of the right of the Crown to grant this Supplemental Charter was raised, and the further question was also raised as to whether the Senate of the Queen's University could accept the Charter without the consent of the whole corporate body of the University. On the 16th of April the Master of the Rolls decided that the parties who had instituted that suit were not the proper parties to institute it; they had no locus standi, and on that ground the Master of the Rolls dismissed the case. But he also stated that the Court had, in his opinion, jurisdiction to decide the question as to the construction of the Charter of 1864, provided that the question was raised in a proper and technical form. He further said, though he was not called on to decide the point judicially, that, in his opinion, the Charter of 1864 does not vest the power of accepting or rejecting the new Charter in the Senate exclusively. So the matter stands; but I have been informed that an information is now in the hands of the Attorney General which will probably give rise to a new suit in this matter, in which case the whole question will be raised again. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be wise for the House to interfere by legislation in a question of great doubt and difficulty. The question, I believe, can only be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary tribunals of the country.

Am I to understand that the Attorney General, on the part of the Government, has given his sanction to the renewed proceedings? I understand that they cannot be taken without his assent.

I speak with great diffidence on this matter, being a purely legal question; but I understand that the action of the Attorney General is purely Ministerial, and that if an application be made to him in the proper form, to become a party, he has no option in the matter.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce in the present Session a measure on the subject of the publication of Banns of Matrimony? He wished to add that a practice had sprung up of publishing Banns in a form other than that enjoined by the statute, and he apprehended that such marriages would be null and void.

, in reply, said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman had given an opinion in reference to marriages being null and void which could not be sustained. What he (Mr. Walpole) had to state in reference to the question put to him was this, that it was now in contemplation to issue a Royal Commission in conjunction with the Prelates of the Church, for the purpose of inquiring into certain Canons and Rubrics with regard to vestments and ornaments of the Church; and it was likewise in contemplation, but not yet decided, whether that Commission should not extend to other Rubrics, such as those relating to the publication of Banns of Matrimony, and until that point had been decided he must refrain from giving an opinion whether any Bill would be necessary or not.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, In reference to his answer on Friday last, when he said, in reference to a question on the subject of the Irish Reform Bill, "We shall take care of Ireland," what meaning is to be attached to such answer; whether such Bill is to be framed upon the principle of the Scotch Reform Bill as explained by him; and when it will be introduced?

The meaning, Sir, to be attached to my words, which I do not myself recollect, though I do not doubt the accuracy of the memory of the hon. Gentleman, was this — that I meant to say that I would take care that the engagement of the Government to bring in a Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in Ireland should be virtually fulfilled, and my expectation is that very shortly after the introduction of the Scotch Bill, which will take place on Thursday, or on Monday at the latest, the Irish Bill will be introduced. I may take the opportunity of reminding the hon. Gentleman that the conduct of the Irish Bill will be under the care of my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I have undertaken the care of the Scotch Bill, in consequence of the unfortunate absence of the Lord Advocate from this House. But, with regard to the Irish Bill, for the future the hon. Member will be good enough to direct his inquiries to my noble Friend (Lord Naas), who, I am sure, will satisfy him to the utmost of his power, and having had his mind for some time directed to the question will, I feel confident, make a statement that will be satisfactory to the House.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the precise terms of his Motion on the subject of Compound Householders will be placed in the hands of Members?

When we go into Committee I shall be able to make a statement upon the subject generally, with the permission of the House.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether there is any truth in the report that there has been an outbreak of Cattle Plague in London?

Yes, Sir, I am sorry to say that there is truth in the report to which the noble Lord has alluded. Our attention was first called to the matter by hearing that a number of cows were being quietly removed by night in Limehouse. We took measures to discover whether there was cattle plague, which is always very difficult, as the utmost secrecy is maintained. At last the inspector found a dairy in which the cows were dying of cattle plague, and thirty-nine, I believe, were killed. It has also broken out in New North Road, Islington; also in Shepperton Street, which is in the vicinity. I may also mention that a heifer died of cattle plague last night and another this morning at Ashby Parva, in Leicestershire.

said, he wished to know from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, Whether he intends to persevere with his Motion in respect to the Established Church in Ireland?

said, that having consulted some of his Friends around him, he found it was their unanimous opinion that his Motion was one which was calculated to effect a result that would conduce to the social harmony and well-being of the sister country. He should therefore proceed with it.

said, that a report had reached him that cabs, costermongers' carts, and other vehicles had been admitted freely that morning into Hyde Park. He wished to know, Whether orders had been given to that effect; and, if so, whether the continuance of such a practice would be allowed?

said, in reply, that the ordinary regulations with regard to Hyde Park remained exactly as they were. The police had positive instructions to prevent costermongers' carts or any similar vehicles from entering the Park.

I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and I hope the House will permit me to say a few words in explanation of that appeal. The question between us has assumed somewhat of a personal character, which I am sure the House will allow me to explain so far as my part in it is concerned. I should not have revived this subject at all, being perfectly contented to leave the matter as it stands at present, had it not been for the somewhat involved and obscure explanation of the hon. Member, reported in the Times newspaper on Monday last, and the equally obscure and involved position in which the compound-householder now stands. The hon. Member gave me notice in explicit terms that on Monday the 29th of April it was his intention to put to me a question as to where I obtained the copy of the memorandum from which I quoted. He moreover suggested the propriety that I should keep and produce the copy memorandum, to compare it with the original. I did not think it necessary to attend on Monday the 29th, being more agreeably employed, because the question which the hon. Gentleman was about to put to me had been answered in The Times of the 16th by our respected mutual Friend the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand). Therefore, the hon. Gentleman could be under no mistake as to where I obtained the information and the copy of the memorandum. I have adopted his suggestion. I have kept the copy memorandum, and I intend to produce it. I hope he will receive in an equally good spirit my suggestion that he preserve the original memorandum, and that he will give me the opportunity of comparing it with the copy. I can assure him if I have been wrong, and if I have been the unwitting means of misleading the House into the gigantic "mare's nest," which we were told it was in the other night, I shall feel bound not only to apologize to the hon. Gentleman and his band of twenty-one, but also to the House. I can only do this of course on the production of the original document. It has been thrown out in the heat of debate that this was a private communication; but I think the House will now see that it is not a private communication in any sense. It was a public document, drawn up in the lobby, for the purpose of influencing votes on a very material division. Moreover, it did influence votes, and the hon. Member has not denied in his place that this document was not of a private character. It has been shown to many people. The hon. Member for the Anglesea boroughs (Mr. Owen Stanley) is not the only Gentleman who communicated it to me. The copy, so far from being as affirmed by the hon. Member for Swansea, totally incorrect in form and substance, is in substance with one exception quite accurate. There is certainly a material exception relating to Lord Derby, whose name I believe has been taken in vain. If it is only in justice to Lord Derby, let the hon. Gentleman produce the original document. But I say this, and I am ready to maintain it, that the document is substantially correct, with that exception, both in form and substance. If there be any difference, being ready to produce the copy, I say to the hon. Gentleman that he has no alternative but to get up in his place and read the original. Again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Taylor), who so ably performs his part as a "whip," and who gives so much satisfaction to both sides of the House, has written a letter to The Times. I have nothing to say against him. I never found fault with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think he was acting in his vocation ably and well. He was not a "whip" on that occasion, he was a fisher of men, and he caught a miraculous draught of fishes. I take the opportunity of apologizing to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the mistake that happened in his not having had sufficient notice of my intention to bring this matter forward. I repeat to him what I said on a former occasion, that had I known he had been labouring under pain from the effects of an accident I would have dropped the matter altogether, because I value his good opinion and his feelings more than I do bringing this matter before the House. I was not aware of the cause of his absence, and I am glad that he has resumed his place. In justice to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. Member has no alternative but to produce the original memorandum; because in the letter which was written by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 13th, the day after this discussion, he gave an unqualified contradiction to the assertion that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had said they were favourably disposed to the granting of Mr. Hibbert's Amendment. Mr. Hibbert's Amendment and the adjournment of the House have been jumbled up together all through. Let the hon. Gentleman recollect that this paper was signed and promulgated long after the adjournment of the House was decided, and could only have referred to Mr. Hibbert's Amendment. But if I am in any error the hon. Gentleman can set me right immediately. He has nothing to do but to produce the original paper. I say produce the memorandum, the whole memorandum, and nothing but the memorandum. I have never for a moment impugned the motives or the honourable intentions of the hon. Member. I believe him to be a sturdy and independent Member of Parliament, and to be possessed of the best intentions. At the same time, I cannot disguise from myself that, in this case, he has rather acted the character of a decoy-duck, and has allured fifty feathered and confiding dupes to follow him. I have nothing more to say; but I am ready to apologize to hon. Members, and especially to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the name of Lord Derby has, as I believe, been introduced by mistake. If the matter is to be set right, there is but one thing for the hon. Member to do, and that is to rise in his place, and let us see this document which materially influenced the division of the 12th ultimo.

I thought the House had had nearly enough of this matter, but courtesy compels me to respond to the hon. Gentleman. The document was not promulgated, to my knowledge, after the Motion for Adjournment was decided on. My notice for the sitting of the 29th of April was given before the letter of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brand) had appeared. The simple facts as to the part I have taken in the matter are these. When I saw an inaccurate version of a memorandum described as a correct copy of it, I felt bound to state to the House that the memorandum was different from the published version, and I gave the hon. Member notice of my intention to bring the matter before the House. It is not always easy to distinguish between a private and a public document. It is evident that this memorandum was a private, though not strictly confidential document. It was shown first to my Friends, and there was no secresy in reference to it. It is evident that a private document may, under certain circumstances, if the public interests require it, be made public. Accordingly, I shall have no objection to produce it if the House wish. But I do not think I shall be wanting in courtesy if I decline to do so at the instance of the hon. Member. A certain amount of fair play as well as common caution is necessary upon occasions such as that to which the memorandum refers. What is imparted privately should not be unnecessarily blazed abroad. Still, if the House should think fit to make an inquiry into the conduct of myself and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Taylor) I shall be quite prepared to produce the memorandum. At the same time, I would remind the hon. Member that the proper time for him to assure himself as to the correctness of the document was to have come to me before he took action in the matter, and put to me the plain question, "Is this a true version of the memorandum?" The hon. Member did not do so. I have since compared the original document with the supposed copy of it, which appeared in The Times, and find the latter inaccurate. If he had come to me at the proper time I should have set him right upon the facts of the case. As it is, I respectfully decline to do so.

I am unwilling to occupy the time of the House with any matter personal to myself; my remarks will therefore be few. When the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne) first thought it necessary to bring forward this subject I was unfortunately absent, and I thought myself justified under the circumstances in sending an explanatory statement to the newspapers on the day after the adjournment. That statement was published, and I do not wish to alter or add to any part of it. I wish to say that I think now, as I have always thought, that the conversation I had with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) was of a private nature, and I am not surprised that he has declined to comply with the request of the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne). He has indeed done nothing but observe the rules which should be observed between two honourable men.

The House will allow me to point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) that if he has anything to complain of it is his own fault. When the document was read it was never supposed to be a copy of his document. It was written from my recollection of the contents of the document. If the hon. Member had to object that the document read was not correct, he should have taken that objection when the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne) read it. The hon. Member never said that the document was correct or incorrect. I told him immediately after the discussion, in the lobby, that I should be sorry if anything I had done should be taken amiss. On that occasion he did not say that the document was private.

As the discussion affects the Amendment of which I have given notice, I wish to state that, as far as I am concerned, I was entirely ignorant of the memorandum in question. This fact, therefore, tends to show the private nature of the document. I was not consulted about it, and I never heard anything about it until the following day, when it was communicated to me by the hon. Member (Mr. Owen Stanley). That hon. Member asked me if I had seen the document. I replied I had not, nor had I heard of it. The only part I took in respect to my Amendment was that I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept it or not. The answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me was that he would give it fair consideration. I therefore consider that it is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to take any course he may think proper in respect to my Amendment. I do not think that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the party with whom he acts are in any way committed by what has taken place on the subject. Whatever I have done in this matter I have done openly in the House.

It seems to me, Sir, that though we are not to have the document of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) produced, there is enough before this House to justify a single comment which I am anxious to make. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Taylor), in his letter in The Times, said that he told the hon. Member in the dialogue he had with him that his attention had been drawn by many hon. Members to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was favourable to it, and that the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, bring it before the Cabinet. I am not quoting the words, but that was the sense of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's letter. The division took place. If votes were influenced by that document the influence was over. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer then do? He gave a notice to the House, and in giving that notice took the opportunity of saying that that very clause of Sir William Clay's Act on which the Amendment of the hon. Member—to which he had been represented as favourable—is founded, was a bad clause, and that he intended to propose its repeal. I think that that is worthy of observation and of explanation, if any explanation is to be offered. The hon. and gallant Member, the authorized agent of communication between the Government and the House, represents to Members before a most important division that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is favourable to the Motion of the hon. Member for bringing compound-householders under £10 within the clause of Sir William Clay's Act, and that he will no doubt bring the question before the Cabinet. After the division, after these reports have had whatever effect they may have had, the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says that the clause is a bad one, and, instead of consenting to bring other people under its efficacy, gives notice of a Motion to repeal it altogether. That seems to me to require explanation.

Sir, I do not know whether there is any Question before the House. If there were, I should take the opportunity of making a few remarks upon this subject, and also upon the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster).

It is merely a matter of personal explanation.

Well, I will defer my observations until we go into Committee.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to certain expressions contained in a petition presented by an hon. Member (Mr. Bright) on Friday last. The words were these—

"That in the apparent hopelessness of a remedy for the evils which press on their country, honourable Irishmen, however mistaken, may feel justified in resorting to force; that, in a word, there are legitimate grounds for the chronic discontent of which Fenianism is the expression, and therefore some palliation for the errors of Fenianism."

Exception was taken to those expressions at the time, and he now contended that they amounted to nothing less than a justification of treason. It was hardly necessary to state that it devolved on any hon. Member who presented a petition to make himself acquainted with its terms, and see that it was temperate and respectful towards the Sovereign, the Government, and the Courts of Justice.

rose to order, objecting that this was not a question of privilege.

said, he was unable to decide the point until he had heard what the hon. Member had to say and to propose.

said, that an hon. Member was recently called to order for using certain expressions in the heat of debate. The Speaker on that occasion expressed a decided opinion as to the impropriety of applying the words "sympathizers with Fenianism" to certain Members of that House.

said, that this could not be a matter of privilege, since it referred to expressions to which an objection was taken at the time; but which were ruled by the Speaker to be perfectly admissible.

said, he wished to appeal to the amended consideration of the highest authority in that House. It could not be supposed that the right hon. Gentleman could be always ready to pronounce offhand a judgment upon the terms of a petition; and from the long period during which the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) had sat in the House, he might naturally have relied upon his not presenting a petition that was offensively worded. On the occasion to which he was referring an hon. Member (Sir Henry Edwards) having used certain expressions respecting Fenianism, the Speaker gave the following decision:—

"He had expressed a very decided opinion as to the impropriety of the original expression, and he now expressed as strong an opinion with respect to the words 'sympathizers with the Fenians,' because an Address of the House, in answer to the Speech from the Throne, stated that Fenianism was alike hostile to property and religion, and that it was discountenanced by all those who were engaged in the maintenance of order and religion."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 885.]

It would hardly be maintained that language might be used in petitions which would not be allowed in debate. In that case, petitions would be resorted to as a cloak for expressions of disloyalty, which would be out of order if uttered by a Member.

said, he understood the hon. Member to quote the petition from a newspaper report. The proper time to take an objection to a petition was either at the time of its presentation or after it had been printed by the Committee on Petitions. The hon. Member had been commenting on a petition which was not before them, and which he had not seen. Before the House could consider the question the petition should be sent for and read by the Clerk at the Table, or an authentic copy of it should be produced, due notice having been given, since there was nothing to take it out of the regular course.

I was unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member until he had an opportunity of stating what the precise matter was which he wished to bring before the House. But, having heard the hon. Gentleman so far, I have no doubt that his claim of privilege at this moment cannot be admitted. It is not as if this petition had been presented, but not observed upon at the time of presentation. It was commented upon by three hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member himself, I think, being one of them. I then stated that if any hon. Gentleman had any objection to raise to the acceptance of the petition, that was the proper opportunity. One hon. Gentleman moved that the petition be rejected; but, after some observations made upon the subject, he withdrew that Motion. When I put the Question that the petition do lie on the table, no objection was raised. The House received the petition. It is for the House, and not for myself, to decide on the acceptance or non-acceptance of a petition. If, on mature consideration, the hon. Member thinks there is anything in the petition which ought to induce him to bring it under the consideration of the House he can give notice, and make a Motion for having the order rescinded. It is not for me to prescribe the exact terms to be used by petitioners in making known their views to this House. This is temple of free speech and of free thought. The rules with regard to the form of petitions are well known. I have only to repeat that if the hon. Member wishes to take any further action on this petition he must do so by notice.

said, that he had supported the reception of the petition. If the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to bring this subject forward, he should have felt it his duty to examine the petition. He had been unable to obtain either the petition or a copy of it.

I wish to make a statement regarding this Bill, and especially regarding the 3rd clause, which may facilitate our arrival at a conclusion on some most important points. I believe I am strictly in order; but if I am not, perhaps the Committee will be so indulgent as to allow me to make my observations. First, as to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Forster), with respect to the new clause of which I gave notice. I regret the clause is not already in the hands of hon. Members; but the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties which arise in these matters. The clause has been prepared, but it was not in the form exactly I wished, so as to enable us to produce it. I expect that it will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. I will explain in a moment the exact character of the clause. I wish to refer to a subject which has given rise to a rather irregular conversation. I allude to the Amendment of which notice had been given by a Gentleman much respected (Mr. Hibbert). That hon. Member is perfectly accurate in the statement he has made to the House, that there was no communication between him and me. No communication, directly or indirectly, ever took place between us. When the hon. Member asked his Question, he told me that I need not answer it that day, but I said I should prefer to do so at once. I then assured the hon. Member that the subject should receive a candid consideration from the Government. Perhaps I may have added—I do not know that I did so, but, if I did, I only stated what I felt—that we should consider it in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution. I have fulfilled that promise. I brought the matter under the consideration of my Colleagues, and it received their very anxious consideration. I regret to say that it is not in our power to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member in the form in which it stands. It is not in our power to relieve the compound-householder in the manner suggested. I have placed on the table Amendments, the object of which is to give facilities to compound-householders to claim and possess the franchise, which Amendments I think every one will admit are a substantial means of facilitating that object. Every occupier of a house will be entitled to have his name inserted on the rate book, in which will be inserted the names of the occupiers and the amount of the rate. Any compound-householder whose name is not on it may on application obtain a form, which, when it is filled up, he may send through the Post Office, free of charge, to the proper official persons, and they are bound, on receipt of this claim, to insert the name of the claimant in the rate book, and to apprise him of the amount of the rate. As thus providing a means for the compound-householder to get on the rate book and obtain a vote, these facilities cannot be questioned. But what we propose further is that the compound-householder, having thus obtained the recognition of his claim and paid his rate, notice must be given to the owner. The occupier will be rated, and pay his full rates, and have the power of deducting from the rent the full amount of the rate paid by him. So far no fine can be levied on the occupier. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not in the new clause.] It is in the amended clause. The right hon. Gentleman will see in a moment the reasons why these details should be known. All these details refer to the borough franchise. I think therefore, so far as the compound-householder is concerned, that it cannot be for a moment maintained that he pays a fine, because when he pays his full rate he is empowered to deduct it from the rent. There has been a great misapprehension upon the nature of the rent paid by compound-householders under the existing system. I have the advantage of not speaking without accurate information on the subject, and I shall be expressing the opinion of persons of the highest authority in what I am about to say on this point. The elements which enter into the relations between the compound-householder and his landlord may be thus described. There are three—first, the rent charged; second, the amount of the composition; and third, the bonus allowed to the landlord in consideration of the trouble and risk he incurs in making himself responsible to the parish. Generally speaking, it will be found—I do not say that it is a rule without an exception, but the general conclusion amounts to a rule which should influence legislation—that if you add the second and third items together, the amount of the composition and the bonus, you will arrive at the full amount of the rate. Therefore, I may fairly conclude that, as a general rule—so general that, as I say, it amounts to a conclusion which should regulate legislation — the compounder does pay the full rate now. It would be disingenuous in me not to acknowledge that this point, at an earlier period of the Session, was placed before the House by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), and other hon. Members, with great powers of argument and illustration. I had entertained some doubts about it, but I am bound to say that subsequent researches and the more enlarged information we now possess justify the conclusion. Therefore, as I think it has been proved that the compound-householder pays the full amount of the rate, he has a right to deduct that amount from the rent he pays his landlord. It will be said that, though unquestionably the compound-householder no longer could be said to pay a fine, the landlord is fined, that the fine is only shifted from the tenant to the landlord. But we propose, the moment the compound-householder claims the right of exercising the franchise, and of paying the full rates and deducting the full rate from the amount of his rent, to exonerate the landlord from the guarantee which he has given. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the landlord will be fined. We thus make a proposal which will entirely divest the question of the invidious character which has been so much enlarged upon, and neither the tenant nor the landlord will thus incur the fine which has been mentioned. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), I can assure him again that it has been most carefully and anxiously considered. We cannot arrive at the conclusion that it is expedient, just, or politic, that we should create and establish among a considerable class of people invidious distinctions, which would produce heart-burnings among neighbours who, though living in the same town, leading the same life, and fulfilling the same duties, are not liable for the same amount of rates. It is of the utmost importance that the same amount of rates should be paid. The new clause I shall bring in, and place upon the table of the House to-night. The Amendment which I wish to make in Clause 34 will leave in it all the facilities which I originally proposed, as well as the new suggestions with regard to the compound-householder. With regard to the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14, s. 3, we propose to repeal that clause, of course saving all existing rights, and of course extending to compounders under the old Act the same privileges which compounders are to enjoy under the Bill. The compounders under the old Act could not claim to be recouped from the landlord for the rates which they paid, and now they have the power of claiming to be paid the full amount. [Mr. BRIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "existing rights?"] I mean that as to every person whose name is on the register now, the rights that he enjoys under existing laws will not be interfered with. That is what I call existing rights. These are the Amendments which I wish to bring before the consideration of the Committee. The practical course I wish to suggest as the best is this—when we have concluded the 3rd clause, to move that all the other clauses should be postponed in order that we may take the 34th clause, which includes all these arrangements about the compound-householder. Then we shall work at one subject, and not deviate from the important question of the borough franchise until it is settled. In the meantime, I place in the hands of the clerk the Amendment which I propose. I think I have explained to the House the general view we take with regard to the conduct of the Bill. Of course, the adoption of it depends entirely upon the feelings of the House and upon the assent of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and other Gentlemen who have taken a great interest in the matter.

There is one important point with respect to which I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will let us know the intentions of the Government. I do not know whether I am to gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the position of the old compounder and that of the new compounder will, under the new law, according to the proposals of the Government, be exactly alike in all particulars. Is it so? I will state to the right hon. Gentleman the point I have in view. As I understand the clause of which he has given notice, and which is in the Votes of to-day, headed "Regulations as to rating, clause to follow Clause 35," the new compounder, upon claiming to be registered, ceases to be a compounder, and becomes a direct rate-paying-householder. I do not see any words in the clause which would have the effect of extending the provision to the old compounder. I shall be glad to know whether these provisions are to be extended to the old compounder, or whether the old compounder, liable to pay the full rate, is still to be allowed to continue a compound-householder?

It is rather an abstruse point to enter into; but, as I am advised, it is not necessary to interfere with the 1st and 2nd clauses of the Act.

; I wish to suggest that as there are two important Amendments to be dealt with to-night — I allude to the Amendments of which the hon. and learned Member (Sir Roundell Palmer) and the hon. Member (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) have given notice—it would be convenient to the House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new clause were printed and the whole of the matter placed in proper shape before the House goes into Committee again upon the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is evidently making a little progress, and perhaps if we postpone the Bill for a day or two we shall come to some agreement upon the subject. I am anxious about this because the constituency which I represent — one of the largest in the country—is one of the most unfortunately treated by this Bill, and in all probability it will be so still even if the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are carried. I want to suggest that we should not go into these points to-night, for, after all, they are the great points of the Bill, and the Committee should go into them thoroughly comprehending the changes the Government now propose, so that we might, if possible, come to some, it might be even unanimous, vote. I do not despair at all. It is quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more disposed to take the House into his counsel than he was a few weeks ago, and it is clear, as his Friends perceive, that they might as well swim over the river as swim back again. One is at least as safe as the other if we are really coming to an agreement. I do not despair that we may get over this difficulty of the compound-householder altogether and treat him, as he is, as good as his neighbour. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Why should we have a man differently treated from his next door neighbour?" using the language of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and others uttered in this debate. I have a sort of feeling that if hon. Gentlemen opposite would be a little more bold—the least in the world—after what they have done they need make but one more effort—I will undertake to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I know nothing but what I have gathered from sitting opposite to him this Session, will be more pleased if you give him power to act freely—and he knows as well as I know what is right—than he will be by any effort you may make to keep him from making this Bill a great Bill, memorable for this Session, and for all time a great advantage to the Country.

said, he objected to delay. If they gave the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer more time, he might be more inclined to advance towards the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Bright), and he had gone a great deal too far in that direction already.

said, he wished to ask a further question with regard to the deduction which the occupier was to make as against the landlord. Was that deduction to be limited to the payment any occupier had to make in the first instance to get on the register, or would he from year to year continue to be entitled to deduct as against his landlord, who was a compounder, all which he might afterwards pay?

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered his question as to whether the deduction which it was proposed to allow the occupier who claimed to be rated to make against his landlord was a deduction only of the payment he must make in the first instance, or whether the same principle would be applied every year as long as he was rated under that claim.

Certainly every year.

said, he moved the omission in line 5, page 2, of the word "inhabitant." There was another Amendment which stood on the paper in his name, to the effect that in a subsequent part of the clause the word "dwelling-house" should be omitted, in order to insert the words "house, warehouse, counting - house, or shop," thus making the qualification accord with that of the Reform Act of 1832. By that Act all borough occupiers of £10 or upwards were entitled to be placed on the register by virtue of an occupation of a house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop, and need not be tenants of the tenements they occupied. It was provided, however, that they must reside in or within seven miles of the borough in which the property was situate. His present object was to introduce a similar provision in this Bill. As by the present measure a departure was made from all pecuniary standards of value he did not propose to add the words "or other building," which were to be found in the Act of 1832, as it would lead to the manufacture of faggot votes.

said, he thought it would be very unwise at the present time to omit the word "inhabitant." because if that word were taken out there would be no clause of residence whatever in the Bill. The proposed alteration would bring about the evil the hon. and learned Gentleman deprecated, that of creating faggot votes. The words referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman were not used in the Reform Act, but in the Municipal Corporations Act. It had been decided that under those words attorneys' offices, stables, factories, mills, and a variety of other very large buildings used for the purposes of trade did not form a qualification for a vote. Therefore, if there was to be an extension beyond the inhabited houses the words ought to be enlarged, as was done in the Reform Act, by the addition of the words "or other building." If, however, that course were adopted the result would be that persons might, by getting up a set of stables and calling them warehouses, create thirty or forty voters in a borough. It would, in his opinion, open the door to all sorts of faggot votes, and therefore he thought it would be much better to allow the clause to remain as it at present stood. The effect of the clause as it stood would be to enable all persons who wished to obtain the right of voting to be properly placed upon the register, while it would exclude itinerant persons, such, for example, as the men who went about the country attending large markets. If the proposed extension were made, a person who lived forty or fifty miles from a borough might rent a standing in the corn market, call it a shop, and so qualify himself to be place on the register, as he would say that he had a residence, because he slept in an hotel in the town once a week or once a month. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would agree with him that the word "inhabitant" ought to be retained in the clause.

said, the object of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend was to carry out the principle which had been affirmed by a large majority of the House in the late division—namely, that the voters below £10 should be placed substantially on the same footing in regard to residence as the voters above £10. If the Committee were satisfied with an occupation of one year, and a residence of six months in the case of the £10 householder, why not also in the case of those under that line? It was saying to the latter, in fact, "We consider you. primâ facie, less respectable than the voters above that line." He protested against this division of the constituencies into two classes of superior and inferior, more and less respectable voters. The Earl of Derby had said that the object was to get rid of the migratory classes. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) had put it more tersely, and more clearly—to get rid of the vagabonds—but why draw the hard and fast line between £9 and £10? The object of the Amendment was to place those below the £10 in the some position as the £10.

said, that he did not clearly understand the object of the Amendment, but he could not accept the interpretation of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. He disclaimed the interpretation which had been put upon the late division, and denied that the House meant to affirm all the propositions which had been attributed to the majority. The Committee had affirmed merely the question put before them, on its own merits. They would make more progress by dealing with the question on its own merits than by involving themselves in considerations foreign to the subject before them. Before deciding on the Amendment it was necessary to have some more clear idea on the subject than they had derived from the speeches that had been delivered. It meant that one enjoyed the suffrage because he was the inhabitant of a certain place. It meant nothing more. They might add an occupation suffrage, which was quite a different thing, as one occupied a house, shop, or warehouse, if he kept a portmanteau there and had command over the key. The suffrage they were dealing with was a household suffrage. He confessed that when he first saw the Bill he doubted whether this was sufficiently strongly expressed, but no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman when he used the word "inhabitant" and "dwelling-house," thought that was made sufficiently clear. If so, it was not for him to be hypercritical. He wanted, however, to know what was the precise view of this Amendment, and until he did he could not consistently vote for it. He desired to have it presented to his mind in such a clear way as would enable him to see whether or not they were departing from the essential basis of household suffrage that was necessary when they were not legislating on the basis of value. He was utterly opposed to all occupation suffrages beyond those allowed by the present law.

said, he understood that the Amendment proposed to give a vote to persons who were not inhabitants, but nevertheless were occupiers of warehouses, counting-houses, or shops. But if persons who were not inhabitants were to be enfranchised, what would be done respecting the expenses of conveying non-resident voters to the poll? In the borough which he represented (Newcastle-on-Tyne) there were 2,000 freemen who possessed votes when they lived within seven miles of the borough. He therefore knew the difficulties of conveying voters to the poll, and thought that until you made such expenses illegal at an election, the less you did in the direction of creating more out-voters the better.

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend who had just sat down would, when the proper time came, raise the important question to which he had referred, with respect to the conveyance of voters. This was one of the very sore and disagreeable chapters of our electoral system. He (Mr. Gladstone) desired to point out that they were at the present moment in danger of considering and deciding at once two Amendments that were totally distinct. The hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) had said he could not vote on the present Amendment without looking forward to the Amendment which was to follow. But why was it impossible to vote for any Amendment in Committee on a Bill without at the same time voting on an Amendment which was to follow? He should say if there was any impossibility in the case, the impossibility was to vote an the two at once, and not to vote on the first without voting on the second. He could understand any one saying that on a particular Amendment, because in doing so he might virtually be binding himself to vote for other Amendments that stood later, and of which he did not approve. If it were true that the questions raised by the present Amendment were the same as that raised by the subsequent Amendment the argument would be legitimate, and hon. Gentlemen would be justified in saying they refused to vote for the one because of that which was to follow. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Headlam), and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton), had referred to topics which he admitted to be of considerable importance and difficulty. Whether they were to have an occupation franchise other than a residential franchise for any persons living in houses below £10 he granted was a very important question, and one which would well deserve consideration when they came to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend on that subject. He conceived it would be open to any one to argue that if an occupation franchise was to be allowed a limit of value must be fixed for the purpose of regulating it. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer's) Amendment might be considered either in a broader or a narrower view. He accepted it in both views. In the broad view it was that which had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Robert Collier), when he said it was proposed to resist making distinctions between voters above and below £10. He (Mr. Gladstone) accepted the Amendment cordially in that sense. They intended at every stage of the Bill to take every opportunity of asserting the principle of equal treatment at the hands of Parliament towards those who were thought to be entitled to the suffrage. But that was the broader view. He did not ask hon. Gentlemen to accept the Amendment on that ground alone. He should vote for it on the principle that for the first time, and without any reason given, it fixed the period of residence to be the same as that of occupation. That was not the present law. The present law required an occupation of twelve months and a residence of six months. It had been said that if they struck out the word "inhabitant" they would have no provision for residence. He concurred in that, and was prepared to vote for words being inserted insisting on the term of residence being the same as was required by the present law. The House had reduced the term of occupation from two years, as proposed by the Government, to one year, the term required by the existing law. He thought he might say that the main and ruling consideration with many Members of the House in the vote they would give was an indisposition to create two rules, one for voters below £10, and another for those above that sum. The House would remember the sympathy elicited by the observation of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ayrton), in moving the Amendment reducing the term of occupation to twelve months, when he said if they created that distinction of a term of occupation of two years for voters below £10 and one year for those above £10, they would be re-introducing that hard and fast line they were so desirous of getting rid of. Well, here was the hard and fast line again. The House had settled it as to occupation, why not do so in the same way as to residence? They desired to get rid of these distinctions, on the best of all grounds—namely, that needless and invidious as they were, if left in the Bill they would have the effect of creating perpetual uneasiness and restlessness until they were by further alteration disposed of. Therefore he was anxious that they should not be understood as in any manner committing themselves to any question relating to shops, buildings, or warehouses, with respect to the qualifying tenement. He maintained that no case had been shown for not fixing the same term for residence and occupation. On that question he should give his vote. He could not help hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) would not add to it a comparatively narrow though important point.

said, he could not vote for an Amendment which proposed, as he conceived the present Amendment did, to undermine the security of residence. He entertained a strong feeling on the question of residence, and remembered when in America travelling round several States with a bevy of Irish platelayers, who voted during the election for President in State after State. He was sure that they could introduce no more dangerous element in this country than to create any uncertainty as to the residence of the voter, because the House had already abandoned every other test except the payment of rates. They desired to give the vote to the citizen who had a local interest, and it was necessary the voters should be resident in order that the opinions of their neighbours might act upon them. He should vote against the Amendment.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Robert Collier) had laid great stress on the propriety of doing away with any difference between the voters to be enfranchised under the Bill and those that already existed. He concurred in the desire of getting rid of every possible difference; but he could not think that every other consideration was to be overridden in pursuit of an equality which never could by any possibility exist. One difference must always remain — namely, the old voters would hold their privilege by one title and the new ones by another. The Reform Act laid it down that a £10 house was a good test of respectability and fitness for a vote. They were now about to establish a newer and better title—namely, that a man should be a householder and pay poor rates. Household suffrage was what they wished to arrive at, and they would arrive at it. In his view household suffrage presumed an inhabitant. A man was to have a vote because he had a house, because he had the responsibilities of a householder, and was in most cases the head of a family. For these reasons he should oppose the Amendment.

said, he could not understand what was meant by striking out the word "inhabitant," or what difference it could make, because a man could occupy a house only by being an inhabitant. ["No, no!"] That was the law. To occupy a house a man must have an opportunity of living and sleeping in it. He had always been an advocate for household suffrage, and he was content to take household suffrage to imply an "inhabitant." He would therefore vote against the Amendment.

said, he had listened with no little astonishment to the assertion of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, when he said that occupation and residence were the same thing. The word "inhabitant," as the clause stood, was overridden by the words "twelve months." All "inhabitant" meant the same thing as a "resident." He objected to making the borough franchise dependent, as far as regarded small houses, on a twelve months' residence, when for £10 houses a residence of six months was sufficient. It was unwise to introduce unnecessary distinctions. The present distinction was arbitrary, unwise, and unnecessary, and would lead to future agitation on the subject. He had given notice of an Amendment to strike out Clause 33, repealing so much of the 6 Vict. c. 18, as related to the residence of voters at the time of giving their votes. He objected to the striking out of that requirement, for it would throw upon the candidate a great deal of unnecessary expense in bringing up the most unsatisfactory of all voters, those who had ceased to reside in the borough. He would support any proposal requiring of the new voters the same six months' residence as that required by the Reform Act.

said, there had been a misunderstanding of what he had stated the other day. He then said he was in favour of six months' residence rather than a residence of twelve months, and for the reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone.) The Committee adopted the twelve months, and they were now in a difficulty. But this was no ground for altering the character of a household suffrage, giving the franchise to inhabitant, as distinguished from the nominal occupier.

said, it was not his wish to trouble the House with a division. He could not think of pressing his Amendment against the general sense of the House, especially against the opinions of so many hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side. If the noble Lord (Earl Grosvenor) had not anticipated him he should have proposed twelve months' occupation and six months' residence, adopting the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act—namely, a residence of six months within the borough or living within seven miles of it, which appeared to him to fulfil all the substantial idea of a householder. He thought it was hardly expedient to make the distinction established by the Government Bill between two classes of voters.

said, he rose to propose the introduction of words, which were intended to raise the question whether separate occupation for twelve months of a portion of a house of a certain value should confer the franchise. He did not think that any one could say that this was introducing a new principle. He hoped to be able to satisfy the House that the question had received the sanction implied by its having been embodied in previous efforts at legislation by different Governments, and to a certain extent by the principle having been recognised in Courts of Law. Finally, he thought he could show that there was already done partially that which he now proposed to sanction as a general proceeding. He claimed the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in the Reform Bill which he had introduced in 1859 there was a clause providing that every occupier of a portion of a house, whether furnished or unfurnished, of the value of £20 a year should have the franchise. He (Mr. Torrens) ventured to think himself justified in now proposing a franchise for lodgings which would let unfurnished for the sum of £10 yearly. He did not ask the House to go lower in amount than the Chancellor of the Exchequer went when he proposed a £20 furnished franchise, as, on an average, furnished lodgings were worth about twice as much as lodgings not furnished. He also claimed the support of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire who in his Bill of last year adopted a lodger franchise, and, discarding the element of furniture, proposed to give the franchise to every separate occupier of a portion of a dwelling-house who paid £10 a year. Were these innovations on the spirit of the Act of 1832, or were they only intended consistently to enlarge its operations? He held in his hand a dictum of one of the most eminent Judges of common law, Sir William Erle. In a well-considered judgment, he said—

"The borough franchise is not dependent, as some have supposed, upon the occupation. The qualification is not the occupation, but the thing occupied. A man has a right to claim to be a borough voter though he has not the whole of a house, though he has not the key of the outer door, though he has not the separate right of entry into the house, and though rights of entry had been reserved by the landlord."

He (Mr. Torrens) might be asked whether he proposed the lodger franchise as an extension of household suffrage, or as a distinct proposal to carry into effect the generous principle of an extension of the suffrage? He was not going to lay down any nice distinction. He asked the House to look at the necessities of the case. This Bill was a Bill for England. But if they left out one-seventh of the whole population of the country, which dwelt in London, and overlooked the condition of other large towns, such as Bath, Liverpool, and Brighton, where great numbers of the population lived all their lives in separate portions of houses, the Bill ought to be entitled one to amend the representation of the provinces, not of the kingdom at large. He asked Parliament, then, to adopt the principle of the lodger franchise and thus meet the exigency of circumstances. In the two cities of the metropolis and the five metropolitan boroughs by which they were surrounded there was a population of 2,657,000. On an average every house contained two families. The inhabitants of London could not be all householders, because there were not houses sufficient for their separate occupation. He asked the House to meet this case, and to extend the franchise to a loyal, intelligent, and independent class of the community. Some of the best educated, well-to-do, orderly, industrious persons in the community were in London and other great towns habitual lodgers. In London there were now 233,000 male occupiers qualified to claim the franchise. Of these only 154,245 were on the register, or, deducting for duplicate entries and deaths, a considerably smaller number. In other words, only three-fifths of those qualified to claim the franchise were on the register. The Bill, as it then stood, would only further render eligible in the metropolis 27,000 persons, and if they applied the rule of the two-fifths to them, and deducted that proportion, it would be seen that only 16,800 persons would be rendered eligible by this Bill. But in reality that number would be further reduced; and if the Bill passed in its present form, the addition to the franchise would not be greater than 13,000. This would not be a realization of the generous policy which the Government had professed in bringing in the measure. Then the Bill would operate most unequally, and in some places in an inverse ratio to wealth and intelligence. The City of London was perhaps the richest city in the world, and it might be expected that of the number of electors to be added under the Bill there would be a considerable addition to the City of London. But would the Committee believe that the addition for the City would be only 133? In Marylebone the total additional number eligible would be 550. In Westminster, 1,100. In Finsbury, 1,700. In the Tower Hamlets, the poorest part of the metropolis, there would be an addition of 15,000. If, then, the House wished to redress a great inequality in the measure as it stood, let it do so by the adoption of the lodger franchise. He was not himself prepared to state, and did not believe that any one could state, the exact number of lodgers who would be enfranchised in the metropolitan constituencies by the Amendment he proposed. Whatever the numbers, however—whether 20,000 or 30,000—he would ask the Committee to look this uncertainty in the face, and do what they considered right and equitable notwithstanding. He would go at once to the "principle" of the case. Many hon. Members had said to him—"We do not object to the principle of the lodger franchise; but how is the admission to take place? How will you prove identity? How will you guard against fraud?" His answer to this was very simple. He denied that it was the duty of those who advocated lodger enfranchisement to provide against what was called fraud, when a large and respectable class of the community were to be benefited. It was not the duty of the House to provide remedies against what might never occur. Lodgers were as little likely to come forward and perjure themselves for the sake of the franchise as hon. Gentlemen around him. It was not the duty of that House to treat any class, otherwise worthy of the franchise, as if required to be watched and baffled, and upon the presumption that they would practise fraud to obtain the franchise. Difficulties regarding the nature of proof could be dealt with in the registration court. When a householder under the Act of 1832 found his name omitted from the list of voters he had to send in a claim, and substantiate his right before the revising barrister. Every one who had attended the registration courts was aware that the claimant or one of his family generally attended and proved the qualification. And the same course might be adopted with regard to the lodger franchise. The lodger might be required to produce his receipts for rent. Lodgers of the humbler class usually kept a book in which these payments were acknowledged by the landlord. If it were not convenient for the lodger himself to come before the revising barrister, he saw no reason why this book should not be produced by his son, brother, or neighbour; and the production of that book ought to be sufficient evidence that the man had paid his rent for the twelve months preceding. He would not incumber the details of the Bill with any special provisions with regard to what ought to be sufficient evidence and proof in the case of the lodger claiming to be put upon the register. He thought it would be better to leave that to be settled first by the revising barrister, and then upon appeal by the Court of Common Pleas. If the Committee assented to the Amendment which he had now the honour to propose, he should be prepared to move the addition of words at the end of the clause, providing that the occupation of premises worth £10 a year should qualify a man living in unfurnished lodgings to be placed on the register. He knew not what course the Government intended to take in regard to his proposal. If it were said that his Amendment ought not to be introduced into the portion of the Bill where he proposed to introduce it, he would answer that that clause was the gist of the Bill, and upon that clause, as a whole, the fate of the measure would certainly turn. They had no means, by the clause as it now stood, of enfranchising the honest and intelligent working men of London, and surely London had a fair right to be considered in limine in their legislation on that great subject. The Members for the metropolis thought they ought to obtain an assurance, before proceeding further with the details of the measure, that London would not be wholly excluded from its benefits. It could not be expected that the metropolis would be content to be shut out from the advantages which the measure was intended to confer on the rest of the country. That question was a vital one with the metropolis, and he therefore begged to move the first of the Amendments which stood in his name.

said, that without a lodger franchise the Bill could not be made satisfactory to the metropolis. The population of London comprised an enormous number of lodgers, not consisting of working men alone, but of persons of every class and social condition, including men of education and wealth. Among them were a vast body of respectable men, employed as commercial men and as clerks in Government and in public and private establishments. These persons paid considerable sums for the hire of apartments, and they were every way fitted to exercise the constitutional privilege of the franchise. In the borough which he represented (Marylebone) the houses were generally let at high rents, and parts of them were occupied by lodgers in a position of life which entitled them to the favourable consideration of the Government and the House. He could not believe it was the deliberate intention of the Government to refuse to do justice to the metropolis, which ought to have the same advantage extended to it as would have been conferred by the Bill of the late Ministry. He was certain that if such a lodger franchise was conceded, it would, as far as the metropolis was concerned, be received with great satisfaction and gratitude, and would introduce a class of voters into the constituency second to none which that Bill would enfranchise.

said, he wished to second the appeal made by the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should carry out the principle which he avowed on that subject in 1859. The question of the lodger franchise became every day more important. In the borough of Southwark there were numbers of most intelligent and respectable working men, many of them earning from £3 to £5 and even much higher wages per week; and these persons lived in lodgings. It would be extremely inconvenient for them to rent houses, nor did they wish to do so, though the rent would not be more. Were they on that account alone to be denied the elective franchise? The introduction of a lodger franchise into the Bill was a subject in which his constituents took a very deep interest, inasmuch as if that were not done very little would be effected for the metropolis, in which there were but very few houses under the value of £10. There were no greater difficulties in the way of identifying a lodger than now existed in the case of the £10 occupier. Having lived in a particular house for the period of twelve months he would be known in the same way to his neighbours and companions, and might have the justice of his claim to the franchise ascertained through the medium of the evidence which would be required by the revising barrister to prove the different facts constituting the qualification, without the necessity of having any rule laid down by Parliament for the purpose, in the same way as the qualification of a £10 occupier is now proved before the revising barrister. His identification would be as easy as the identification of the £10 occupier, and would offer no greater facilities for the concoction of fraudulent claims. The proposed limit of rent was almost equivalent to the £20 limit contained in the Bill of 1859, which applied both to furnished and unfurnished lodgings, whereas the present limit had respect only to unfurnished apartments. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Torrens) in thinking that the establishment of the claimant's right to be placed on the register might be safely left to the revising barrister and the Court of Common Pleas.

said, he was not one of those Members who had been converted by the Reform League into an advocate of household suffrage pure and simple. Indeed, he disliked the Bill before the House very much—fully as much, he believed, as it appeared to be disliked by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone); nor had he any hope that it could be so amended in Committee as to be made a satisfactory measure. He thought it his duty to offer a few remarks on the proposal now under discussion to graft upon household suffrage a lodger franchise. The first time it was proposed to confer such a franchise was in the Bill of Lord Derby in 1859, and that proposal had never been discussed, for the Bill never went to a second reading. In the measure of last year again it was proposed that every adult male occupying lodgings for twelve months of the annual value of £10 should be entitled to a vote, and that proposal was as he understood, identical with that which had just been submitted to the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens), who contended that unless it were acceded to, the Bill would, so far as the metropolis was concerned, be a perfect nullity. The right hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone) last year treated the matter of lodgers as a mere trifle, and said that the proposal would enfranchise very few people indeed, that he did not offer it as a franchise to the working class or artizans; but that it was a franchise that might be taken advantage of by some respectable middleclass people. In all the other proposals the right hon. Gentleman calculated the number to be enfranchised by thousands and tens of thousands; but with respect to lodgers he did not compute the number, because it would be so infinitesimally small. He (Mr. Smollett) believed that statement to be perfectly correct. It seemed to be assumed that the people of the metropolis were claiming the franchise as an inestimable jewel which would elevate them and ennoble them. The very reverse was the fact. It had been stated that there were tens of thousands of men qualified to be registered in Shoreditch, Poplar, and the Tower Hamlets; but that they would not take the trouble of claiming to be rated. Why? Because they did not value the franchise a straw. There were now 32,000 voters in the Tower Hamlets, and if the £10 compound-householders would not take the trouble of claiming to be put on the register, how could the lodgers be expected to do so? An attempt had been made to account for the tens of thousands of qualified householders in the Tower Hamlets not claiming by stating that they were well satisfied with their present Members, and did not think it worth while to be on the register. Another reason stated was, that there were no contests in the Tower Hamlets. The reason assigned by The Telegraph, Star, and the other organs of the League, was mere twaddle. The same disinclination to be placed on the register was manifested in many large towns. A remarkable instance of this was to be found in Scotland. He held in his hand a pamphlet on the Extension of the Franchise—an address by a sincere Reformer, Mr. J. Moncreiff, M.P. for the city of Edinburgh, the late Lord Advocate. In addressing his constituents on the 10th December, 1866, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated some curious facts in connection with the supposed desire of the working classes to possess the franchise. He stated from the year 1832 up to 1856 it was necessary for every £10 householder in Scotland to appear before the revising barrister and claim the franchise, and that he had also to pay a small fee to the barrister's clerk. These fees were for the most part paid by the electioneering agent, as he (Mr. Smollett) knew to his cost. But what was the effect of Lord Grey's Reform Bill of 1832? The fact of the necessity of appearing before the revising barrister was to disfranchise or keep off the books one-third of the whole constituency. Scotchmen were supposed to be keen politicians. There had been many contests in the city of Edinburgh; but according to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, one-third of the £10 occupiers were kept off because they would not take the trouble of claiming the franchise. In the year 1856 the late Lord Advocate brought in a Bill called the Borough Registration Bill. Its effect was to place on the roll all qualified voters without the necessity of their appearing before the sheriff who acted as revising barrister, or paying the fee. Under that Bill between 2,000 and 3,000 persons—or a third of the constituency—were added to the list of electors for Edinburgh, and most of them belonged to what people called the working classes. In Edinburgh, as in other towns, there had been a great disinclination to claim the franchise, because it was of no value to them, and they would not take the trouble of obtaining the franchise. He did not believe that the lodgers in London would take the trouble to fight any battle in order to be put on the roll of electors. It would appear that the householders did not care very much, and he believed the lodgers in London as in Scotland, who were mostly clerks and persons in Government and legal or commercial offices, would not care a straw about the franchise. In point of fact, there was no difficulty now for lodgers in borough towns in Scotland to put themselves on the register, because the sheriffs and the Law Courts in that country had held that the occupation of a single unfurnished room, the rent of which was £10 per annum, entitled the occupant to a vote. When he was in Glasgow in the Easter recess he made some inquiries with reference to the effect on the electoral rolls of registering lodgers, and the sheriff told him that it worked remarkably well, and had added something like 300 voters to the constituency. That number had been added in the course of years in a city of 400,000 inhabitants, where there must be thousands of lodgers, men who it was plain would not take the trouble of claiming, simply because in order to do so they would have to go before the revising barrister. It was therefore plain that in Glasgow they did not consider a vote worth a rush. Was it, then, worth while talking all this rubbish about the lodger franchise as a means of enfranchising thousands of artisans in the metropolis? He believed that if the vote were given to lodgers it would not add more than a few thousand voters to the whole borough constituency of England.

said, he thought that the statements of the hon. Member who had just sat down were founded in fiction rather than in fact. The circumstance that there was a lodger franchise in Scotland and not in England was owing not to any special enactment but to the different view taken by the Courts of Law in the two countries. In Scotland, it was held that any separate room was a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Reform Act. In England it was held that no place should be regarded as a dwelling-house of which the occupier had not the key of the outside door. The Scotch Courts had held that a man occupying a portion of a house of the value of £10, in an unfurnished state, came within the Act. For example, if a house worth £50 contained ten rooms, a man occupying two of those rooms was a £10 householder. But the law required a continued occupancy of twelve months. In Edinburgh, there were many young men living in lodgings, holding appointments which admitted of a month or six weeks' holidays yearly, and, with a view to economy, during their absence these young men gave up their apartments, and then came the difficulty in proving a continued twelve months' residence. That was one reason, if not the chief, why so few lodgers—probably not more than one in ten—found their way on to the roll. In Edinburgh, with a population of 168,000, there were 10,500 electors. The hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe that the majority of these were placed on the roll by a particular Act.

said, he made the assertion, not upon his own authority, but on that of the late Lord Advocate.

said, that the late Lord Advocate must have been misunderstood, and he should never think otherwise till the passage from his speech was read.

said, he would read a passage from Mr. Moncreiff's address to the electors of Edinburgh—

"We (the late Government) passed, in 1856, a Bill for the purpose of enabling voters to get upon the roll without putting in a claim before the sheriff, and paying the sheriff-clerk 2s. 6d. of a fee, and that was the whole of the organic change which I effected. But the result was, I believe, to add one-third to the numbers of the effective voters in this country, and most of them belonged to the class which people are pleased to call the working class. I believe a great number of those who are upon the roll in this town found themselves upon the roll by the magic of that Burgh Registration Bill."

said, he believed it would be found on reading further that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of himself as belonging to the working class. The Return he had moved for last Session showed that in Edinburgh, with a population of only 168,000, there were 8,250 houses paying house duty at the rent of £20 or upwards, a number proportionally larger than was to be found in any other great city except London. It would be difficult to convince him that any large proportion of the persons living in such houses belonged to the working classes. If the numbers of voters to be admitted to the franchise as lodgers would be comparatively small, that was an excellent reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no difficulty in acceding to the proposal. He believed there was no class more intelligent than the young men employed in offices and commercial establishments, or better qualified to exercise the right of voting, and the only regret he had heard expressed was that the break in the continuity of their occupancy prevented large numbers of them from getting on the roll.

I am glad to observe that we have nearly reached a point in the discussion at which we may have the satisfaction of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on the part of the Government that he is disposed to accept the moderate and judicious proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens). The hon. Member (Mr. Smollett) referred to a declaration of mine last year, with respect to which I will offer an observation. He is right in stating that at the time I proposed a lodger franchise I did not venture to estimate in figures the number of persons which the franchise would add to the constituency. Moreover, I did express an opinion that it would probably bring in a larger number of persons connected with the middle class than of the lower class. But I never spoke of the lodgers' principle as any but a matter of grave and serious importance. I consider the proposal of the hon. Member better than that which we proposed last year. The great flaw in our proposal was that we did not see our way to letting in the lodger by a single claim, and by a single registration come into permanent possession of the franchise—I mean permanent, like the householder, so long as he continues in occupation. Our proposal last year contemplated an annual claim. That was the great difficulty. The hon. Member gets rid of that difficulty, and it makes a very important difference with regard to the number of lodgers of the working class likely to come on the register. Although I do not think they are likely to come in overwhelming numbers, and although I think this is of grave importance to the middle class, yet I confess when I brought in the Bill of last year I was not in possession of the same amount of information with regard to the feeling of the working classes that I am now. I was not aware of the relative importance of the lodger franchise, nor of the immense anxiety of the working men in London to obtain it. There appear to be circumstances connected with the social condition of London which are not obvious at first sight to the casual observer, but which, when the matter is inquired into, become perfectly intelligible. I was rather startled when the assertion was made to me by persons connected with the working classes, that—not as an absolute but—as a general rule the most highly educated and skilled and efficient of the working classes in London are lodgers. There has been in this House at times a disposition to draw a distinction between the class of householders and the class of lodgers, to the disadvantage of the latter. The opinion prevails among the class of working men that if a distinction is to be drawn at all, it should assert that the lodger, rather than the householder, represents the intelligent and highly-educated workman. When we consider the circumstance of the metropolis that is very capable of explanation. In London the choice that offers itself to the working man is not between being a lodger and a householder simply, but between being a lodger and a lodging-housekeeper. The number of the kind of houses that a working man can afford to occupy is extremely small. Most of them must take houses at a rent which they cannot afford to pay alone, and must lighten the burden by letting a portion of their houses to lodgers. The matter of taking in lodgers is not an accident, but rather in the nature of a trade or business. It is intelligible, therefore, that many of the best workmen are slow to incumber themselves, even if they have the means, with the responsibilities and risks attaching to the trade or business of keeping lodgings. Permanence of residence also was not in this case a test of respectability, as it is absolutely necessary for the working man to be able to follow his work to whatever part of the metropolis it may call him. The principle of the Amendment has received, partly tacitly and partly by expression, almost universal assent. I am quite sure that the Government themselves must perceive that if their Bill were in other respects the best Bill possible, it would yet be most desirable to supply enlargements and developments in those particulars which are necessary to make it applicable to the metropolis. Nothing could be more preposterous in a Bill having reference to the condition of the working classes in this country and to their enfranchisement, than so to adjust the provisions of the Bill that they shall practically be almost null in their application to the metropolis. In the first place, it contains in itself almost one-third of the entire town constituencies of the country. So far as regards the working classes, it may be said to contain a large portion of the very flower of the working men. The London working men are not so much the growth of the metropolis alone as a select body of individuals who have found themselves in different parts of the country, capable of getting forward in their occupation, and therefore have come up to London as to the best market for their labour, and offering them the greatest opportunities of advancement. My hon. Friend has exercised a sound judgment in proposing to introduce this subject of the lodger franchise into the 3rd clause of the Bill. The lodger franchise is for London—perhaps, in some degree for other towns also; at any rate in future times, but it is already for London a vital, perhaps a most vital, part of the occupation franchise. Therefore it is that I think he was most reasonable in seeking to obtain a decision of the House at this stage upon the lodger franchise. If Her Majesty's Government were in a position to say that they did not object to the substance of the proposal of my hon. Friend, who desires to assert the principle of the lodger franchise, and to establish a money standard of £10 value, if they were in a condition to express their approval of that principle and of that basis for the lodger franchise, it may be that my hon. Friend might be willing to take counsel with them with regard to the form in which it should be introduced into the Bill. It is a vital portion of the question of the occupation franchise. We should not be fully discharging our duty—that most critical and important part of our duty, which has reference to the metropolis—were we not to endeavour to obtain, either by a vote of the Committee, or without a vote of the Committee, by the willing concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, a clear declaration of their intentions with regard to the lodger franchise. I do not think my hon. Friend ought to concur in any proposal for raising the standard of £10 which he has laid down. He has proposed that amount in a spirit of conciliation with a desire to avoid raising unnecessary difficulties. It must be remembered that this £10 is not to be paid on rating. It is £10 of clear yearly value, free of all tenant's rates and taxes, which must be taken into view, in order to make up the sum that a man must be prepared to pay in order to qualify for the lodger franchise. When one takes into view the profit to the lodging-house keeper, the addition to be made on account of rates and taxes, and the value of furniture, I apprehend that few men would possess the lodger franchise whose furnished rooms did not cost them something like from £16 to £18 a year. If that is so I think it is plain that the £10 value is quite as high as my hon. Friend ought to make himself responsible for proposing, or as would be calculated to give satisfaction to the just claims of this class. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be disposed to welcome, and even to hail the proposal of my hon. Friend as having been conceived in a spirit of earnest anxiety to narrow any possibly remaining differences of opinion upon the subject, and I am somewhat sanguine in the expectation that he will be able to assure us of his concurrence in the principle. If that agreement be clearly expressed I feel confident that there will be no unwilling disposition on the part of the hon. Gentleman, or on the part of this side of the House generally, to meet the right hon. Gentleman in the consideration of this question.

said, he looked upon the proposal as thoroughly Conservative. It would not alter the political character of the representatives returned for the larger towns and the metropolitan boroughs. They would still return advanced Liberal Members. But a change would necessarily take place in the smaller constituencies. In such small boroughs as Cambridge and Oxford a large middle-class Conservative clement would be added to the register by the lodger franchise. He could, therefore, understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not object for a moment to the proposal. If the House came to a division, which he hoped it would not do, he should support the Motion.

said, he could bear testimony to the necessity for the lodger franchise. He wished to call the attention of the Government to an important fact. There had been a great increase in the value of land in London and all large towns during the last few years. That increase had necessitated an alteration in the character of the buildings, in London particularly. Houses were now constructed in flats or lodgings. It must be the anxious desire of the Government to embrace in this Bill every opportunity of giving the franchise to a really respectable class of the inhabitants of large cities. There was another point in which an amendment of the law might be made with regard to the date at which rates were paid. In his connection with the North of London he had found that numbers of the more respectable portions of the inhabitants of the large boroughs were disqualified from the fact of their not having been called upon by the tax collector. In the district of Gray's Inn, out of 156 houses in one street not more than one had a vote from this cause. In Holborn, from the Inns of Court Hotel, to St. Andrew's Church, he found that there were only eleven possessing votes. On making inquiries of the tax collectors as to the cause of this he found that they did not trouble themselves to call on those persons who were sure to pay their rates. All the poorer classes in the smaller streets were universally enfranchised from the fact that the tax collector took especial care to collect the rates, while those that he was sure of he refrained from applying for until the last moment. It was unnecessary to put any Amendment on the Paper. He left the matter to be dealt with by the Government.

said, the metropolitan constituencies were seriously concerned in this question. The metropolis was an exceptional portion of the country, containing half as many people as the whole of Ireland, and as many people as the whole of Scotland. Houses in London necessarily became difficult to get, and dear. An immense number of people were obliged to go into lodgings, including first-class artizans, clerks, and even professional men. These were the men who would make exceedingly good electors. A large proportion of them were Conservatives, so that Her Majesty's Government need have no fear in admitting them to the franchise. Sometimes as many as twenty of these lodged in one house, and they would make better electors, and had far more knowledge and intelligence, than the real occupier of the house — the lodging-house keeper. It was said the lodger class were so indifferent to the franchise that they would not give themselves the trouble of making a claim in order to acquire it. But let the House give them the opportunity of being placed on the roll. If they did not choose to possess themselves of it that was their own concern. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fairly look at this subject, because he felt convinced if he did so, whatever might be its difficulties, he would know how to overcome them.

Sir, I have been somewhat surprised by the variety of inconsistent arguments which have been brought forward on this subject. An hon. Member (Sir Morton Peto) enlarged on the hardship of persons, very respectable no doubt, who live in flats, not being enfranchised and having the privilege of voting. I am under a misapprehension if, under the present law, every person who occupies a flat, with a separate outer door, has not a vote. My hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett) has addressed us in a speech characterized by that rich humour which is hereditary. He descended into the region of facts. But he has a right also to range in the region of fiction, and what he addresses to us appears always tinged by that rich and fertile humour peculiar to his ancestry. I can understand the argument and illustration of my hon. Friend. It may be this:—That the Government have brought forward a revolutionary measure—revolutionary from the large enfranchisement of the people proposed. But, in his opinion, it will not increase the constituencies. Under these circumstances, I think we shall not, whatever may be our decision, apprehend any great difficulty from my hon. Friend, who indeed, on all occasions, though he speaks sometimes against us, gives us in the moment of exigency a devoted and generous support. I cannot, however, exactly understand the argument offered by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lusk). He tells us that the great argument in favour of the lodger franchise is the want of houses in London, and the impossibility of qualifying in consequence of the scarcity of habitations. But in one distinguished by his knowledge of political economy, and in an assembly well acquainted with the principles of that science, I should have thought that the relation of demand and supply would have disposed of that argument. I cannot believe if there was such a demand for houses as he describes they would not be forthcoming. I should imagine there must be some deeper cause for claimants for the franchise arising among a class of people who do not choose to live in houses, but at the same time possess those claims which give weight to their appeal to the House for enfranchisement. I have long been of opinion, and those who act with me have been of the opinion, that the claim of lodgers to the franchise is a sound claim founded on reason. That it is a good claim, from a class of society who have developed themselves from the progress of civilization around us. But the franchise is at present mainly confined to those occupying buildings for residence or business. Therefore the class of lodgers, if we followed the general rules that regulate us in deciding who should exercise the franchise, would be deprived of a privilege which they might legitimately possess, and use to the advantage of their country. Therefore I have no prejudice on the subject of the lodger franchise; but I wish to consider it in a mode and spirit very different from that which I heard from some hon. Gentlemen, and from the worthy Alderman who has addressed us. They have endeavoured to show me in the most elaborate manner, that the lodgers admitted to the suffrage would be of Conservative opinions, and that I need not be afraid of enfranchising them. I suppose this is a tradition of the Reform Bill of 1832, when everything was considered with reference to party; but I have a most profound contempt for all these considerations. If we are to consider the interests of party I am perfectly convinced that however wise we may think ourselves in these conclusions we shall find the experience of a few years will baffle all the conclusions we may make. I shall confine myself, then, to the consideration whether we are extending the franchise to a body of men who will exercise it with a due sense of duty and for the honour of the country to which they belong. I believe a lodger franchise, if established on sound principles, is a very good franchise, and I at one time thought it would be a very important element in aid of the Constitutional system. But I was much depressed last year by the character of the lodger franchise given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). His opinion, to which I have always attached great importance, depressed me; but I am happy to find that he speaks of the lodger franchise now as something which meets with his fullest approbation. With respect to the proposal immediately before us I cannot say that I entirely approve the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced it to our notice. I wish the hon. Gentleman to consider, that so far as the Government are concerned they have no objection to the principle of a lodger franchise. They are perfectly willing to admit it. But the hon. Gentleman introduces it to our notice in a most inconvenient manner, and in a manner I cannot assent to. On a clause which, if anything, is a rating clause, he has foisted this provision which does not blend at all with the language of the clause or its provisions, and which, if introduced, would call on the House to agree to absolute contradictions in language. The provisions of the clause with reference to rating and the payment of rates, are not to be required in the case of the lodger franchise. We could not touch in any way this 3rd clause without reviving contests we had hoped were settled. We are not opposed — on the contrary, we are friendly to the principle of a lodger franchise, and if the hon. Gentleman will bring it forward in a definite and distinct shape, and in a convenient manner, without pledging ourselves, of course, to matters of detail, which are not before the House at the present moment, it shall receive a candid and friendly consideration, with an anxious desire to adopt the proposal. I hope he does not wish to precipitate a decision. I see no difficulty which can arise after having agreed to the principle of a lodger franchise. If he will bring forward his proposal in a distinct manner, I have no doubt we shall be able to put it in a part of the Bill where it may be legitimately engrafted. With a view to this I shall be happy to communicate with the hon. Gentleman in private; and shall be very glad, indeed, if the lodger franchise be added to the Bill, which on the whole satisfies both sides of the House.

said, that he thought his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in placing his Amendments upon the Paper in the first instance. But he could not deny that his proposal had been met in on extremely reasonable manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still, the assent given to the principle of the lodger franchise was scarcely sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain more fully in order that it might be seen whether what was meant in the one case—a lodger franchise based upon a £10 occupation for twelve months—was what was meant in the other. No doubt, if that were the case, his hon. Eriend would willingly leave the responsibility of amending the clause to the Government.

said, he had never been a sincere Reformer, but he believed that lodgers generally formed a very respectable class of persons, and he would extend to them the franchise if he could discover any practical mode of attaining that object. He did not see how the thing was to be done. There could be no self-registration. Every man would make a special claim, on the precise merits of which it would often be impossible to decide. Every claim would be sifted; every case argued before the; revising barrister as to occupation, value, and time. In fact, the matter would be left pretty much in the hands of electioneering agents. According to this proposal a man who took a bed-room at the Hen and Chickens in Birmingham would have a vote; and if he (Mr. Marsh) could vote there probably he would not vote for the hon. Member (Mr. Bright). Any proposal of that description would be found on examination to be involved in inextricable difficulty.

said, that it was not fair to the Government or to the Committee to give such a pledge as had been demanded by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), inasmuch as the proposal for a £10 lodger franchise was not before the Committee. It would be quite improper, indeed preposterous, for him to fix the amount under the present circumstances. It would be well if the hon. Gentleman would adopt the course which he had recommended, and would not seek to introduce clauses in a part of the Bill to which they did not belong. All he could at that moment state was that the Government were desirous of giving the question in due time their best consideration for the purpose of establishing a lodger franchise. But they had not then to determine whether or not a £10 occupancy should form the basis of that franchise, and it would be presumptuous upon his part to come at once to any arrangement upon that matter.

said, he thought it desirable that there should be no misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at the second reading of the Bill expressed himself in favour of a lodger franchise, and he did not think that his hon. Friend (Mr. Torrens), after the general approval which a proposal for that object had met with, ought to withdraw his Amendment, simply to find himself in the same position as at the second reading. No doubt, to a certain extent the question of adopting £10 as a basis was a matter of detail; but, at all events, he thought the House ought to be assured that the lodger franchise, of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite approved, was one calculated not to admit the middle to the exclusion of the lower class, but of such a character as to freely admit the artizan class. Such a matter as that was not one of detail, and if the right hon. Gentleman expressed his assent to that proposition clearly, no doubt his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Amendment.

The language of the right hon. Gentleman becomes his ardent genius, but not the Committee. What words will define what shall admit the "artizan class" as against the "middle?" It is too vague a description. I am not particularly anxious to admit the middle class in preference to the artizan class. I gave up the lodger franchise last year in consequence of the dreary description given of the lodger franchise by the right hon. Gentleman. His assertion that it would admit only a small number, and those only of the middle class, struck upon my spirit. We accept the proposition of the hon. Member that there should be a lodger franchise, but before the Committee we have not a £10 proposition, except in conversation.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal for £10 lodger franchise, to which the one now under discussion was only introductory, was to be found a little lower down on the Notice Paper. It was well known that furnished lodgings were on the average worth twice as much to the landlord as those which were unfurnished. It was most probably on that principle that the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill of 1859 had fixed the lodger franchise at £20, double the £10 standard of the Reform Bill. He did not see why the Government should not then undertake to accept what would substantially amount to such a settlement of the question.

Let us proceed regularly according to the strict rules of Committee. Since this proposition has been before us several Gentlemen have left the House, not unfavourable to a lodger franchise, but they take different views as to the amount from those of the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens). They left the House on the representation that the Government was favourable to a lodger franchise, but considering that it was open to them to express their opinions on the subject when the other Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was brought forward. One Gentleman said £10 would be dangerous, another said he thought if it were £12 the country would be safe—and another thought that £14 would be a just proposal. After the promise I have made that Gentlemen should not be called upon to decide upon the figure of the lodger franchise at this time, I cannot agree to what is required. At the same time I may suggest that, as there are two Amendments of my own upon the Paper, at some little distance from the one now under consideration, a settlement might at once be arrived at by hon. Gentlemen opposite giving their assent to my proposals in all candour and fairness.

said, after the express promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. At the same time, he trusted that his hon. Friend would either bring up a substantive clause or induce the right hon. Gentleman to do so. The principle was admitted. The only question was as to the figure, which could be discussed hereafter in detail.

said, that in the present Session the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) advocated a lodger franchise on the ground that it would enfranchise large numbers of the working classes, but what did the right hon. Gentleman state on the subject last year? These were his words as recorded in Hansard—

"Now, I can give no information, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give any in 1859, as to the number of persons who would, perhaps, be enfranchised under the title of lodgers; but this I may say, that, in the first place, my firm belief is that it will be a small one; and in the second place, my firm belief likewise is this, what I now speak of is a middle-class rather than a lower-class enfranchisement. The operation of claiming, and of claiming, too, year by year, is one that must be very burdensome to working men; whereas young men, such as clerks and men of business, familiar with the use of pen and ink, if educated and intelligent persons, and desirous of obtaining the franchise, will estimate the trouble far more lightly. We calculate, therefore, on a certain amount of middle-claps enfranchisement by the provision I have described; but I should be misleading the House were I to pretend to entertain the opinion that any large number of the working class, or any very large number even of the middle class, will come upon the register by virtue of that which we term a lodger franchise. A great number of persons now inhabit tenements, being almost all of them working men, and all of them theoretically entitled, out of whom scarcely any find their way to the register; and this is, in my opinion, a demonstration that no very large or considerable additions to the constituency are to be expected from this source. Consequently, I do not venture to add any figures under this head, but I take the 60,000 persons whom I have already named as the amount of additional enfranchisement granted by provisions of the Bill which I have the honour of asking leave to introduce."—[3 Hansard clxxxii. 47.]

The right hon. Gentleman now came forward and asked the House to agree to some lodger franchise, on the ground that it would give votes to a large number of the lower classes — the working classes. Why had the right hon. Gentleman changed his tune since last year? The circumstance that he had done so was a remarkable one. A deputation from the Reform League had gone to No. 11, Carlton House Terrace, and the right hon. Gentleman now announced to the House that the lodger franchise, which, last year, he stated would only enfranchise a small number of the middle classes, would place on the electoral roll a vast number of our own flesh and blood.

I appeal to those who heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is possible clearly to infer from it what we are to expect if I withdraw my Amendment, and leave to the chapter of chances the bringing up a clause at the end of the Bill. I must either bring up an addendum at the end of this clause, or wait until we come to the end of the Bill to bring up a separate clause. If I bring up an addendum to this clause, the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be repeated, because he says it is inconsistent with the general scope of the 3rd clause. If he will look to the second Amendment, he will see that pains have been taken to distinguish between the two classes that would be enfranchised under this Amendment. Therefore there can be no confusion. Suppose this Amendment withdrawn, and that we have discussed the other proposals in the Bill; what assurance can he give us that at the end of the month of June we shall not be exactly where we are now? Looking to the amount of rateable property in the metropolis, to its population, and to the number of persons representing it in this House, is it fair that we should not know our position until this Bill is disposed of in other particulars? Cannot he tell us what we have to expect? Why should there be an adjournment of this question sine die?

said, he would make a few observations in order to appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. His hon. Friend would do well to consider, as a practical Member of the House of Commons, whether he would advance the cause which he had at heart—and in the advocacy of which he (Mr. Powell) was a Colleague—by pressing his Amendment. It appeared to him that that Amendment contained a mere abstract principle, and that it was in effect but another of that series of Resolutions which the House had already rejected in an emphatic manner as an undesirable mode of procedure in striving to effect a settlement of the Reform question. He asked his hon. Friend to consider how the matter stood. The words he proposed to insert in the Bill contained a proposition which was very complex. The opinion of the House might be tested in respect to the lodger franchise when the full clause came on for discussion. Should that clause embody a safe lodger franchise the House would agree to enact it, in which case the words of the hon. Member's Amendment would be unnecessary. The words entirely hung by the lodger clause. If the clause were accepted by the House the words now proposed would be unnecessary. If the clause were rejected the Amendment also must be rejected at a subsequent stage, when the measure, as amended, came under the consideration of the House to be considered as reported. He had no wish to enter into the merits of the question. He was in favour of the principle. It was said that Cambridge would be affected by such a measure. He did not care to inquire whether the Conservative or Liberal interest would be promoted by the adoption of a lodger franchise. If they invited to exercise that franchise sound, safe, honest, and true men, who were competent to exercise it, he cared not to which party they belonged. He looked for good results from the future constituency. He was certain that the introduction to the franchise of men such as he had described would strengthen the constituencies, and give greater vigour to the representative institutions of England.

said, he did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be any difficulty in point of form in inserting the words of the Amendment. He (Sir Robert Collier) thought it would be a great improvement and advantage if they were added to the clause. It would then contain the whole borough franchise. This would be very convenient. The words of the second Amendment might be appended at the end of the section of the clause.

said, he believed that the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) did not intend to express any distrust of the Government, although the opinions he entertained naturally led him to ask the Government what they proposed to do with respect to this matter before going into the details of the Bill. He (the Attorney General) agreed that it would be convenient to embody the lodger franchise in the same clause as the borough franchise. The object might be gained by introducing the second Amendment of the hon. Member in the form of a fifth sub-section to Clause 3. The franchise for lodgers stood upon an entirely different footing to that of the householder, and recognising the advantage of dealing with the whole borough franchise in one clause, he thought this question would best be dealt with by a sub-section.

I think the learned Attorney General has simplified the question a good deal, and that there can be no difficulty in inserting the provision with reference to the lodger franchise after the fourth sub-section of the 3rd clause. Still I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to be a little more explicit on this point. On the whole question he has been very doubtful, even before this Bill was introduced. He was in favour of it many years ago. When this Bill was introduced it did not contain it. Afterwards he said that he did not omit it because he did not like it—that, in fact, he was the father of it. Afterwards, again, when he was told that he had conceded it, he sprang to his feet and said he had not conceded it. Tonight he does not object to it, but he doubts whether it is important. In fact, he seems to know no more about it than did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves the hon. Member and the House in doubt as to what he is going to do. Yet it seems a pity to spend another evening in the discussion. The lodger franchise must be somewhere about £10. Something as high as £12 or as low as £8 may be proposed. But every one of us is perfectly conscious that £10 is a very fair arrangement. That sum has already been proposed to the House. It is generally accepted out of doors, and it is the sum which persons in favour of lodger franchise generally expect will be put in the Bill. I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rather an unworthy conceit in this matter. He does not like to take anything in the Bill of last year before, or to appear to follow in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). That is not a very worthy feeling if he entertains it. Perhaps, if he does, he is scarcely conscious of it. There is scarcely a Gentleman opposite who has a word to say against a lodger franchise, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is surely not about to tell us that he has to go back to the Cabinet—to consult the President of the Poor Law Board on the subject. That is rather too much. I would hardly believe it if any one else said it, and I would have great doubts on the matter if it were hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman say that he accepts the principle of the lodger franchise, and that he has little doubt that £10 will be the figure adopted? I think that I am speaking the sense of the House when I say that the matter ought to be decided to-night, and that we ought not to be compelled to renew the debate some other evening.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had confessed that he was the father of the lodger franchise, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was bound in duty to see that his lively offspring did not make him the grandfather of manhood suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly entitled to say to the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) that he should more perfectly appreciate the responsibilities of his paternal position.

said, he hoped the Government would settle the question now. It was a reflection upon the wisdom of the Committee that they should have taken four or five hours in discussing whether the amount of the lodger franchise should be £10 or £12.

said, that the suggestion of the Attorney General had been made by himself about two hours ago. The Committee was not now in a position to decide on the amount of the franchise. On the part of the Government he had said that they accepted the principle of a lodger franchise. He had not said, as the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) had suggested with the rich humour with which he sometimes varied his invective, that he should have to consult anybody about the amount at which it should be fixed. What he had said was that a great many Members had left the House on the assurance that they would not be called upon to decide that question to-night. The hon. Gentleman had obtained an admission of his principle frankly and fairly from the Government. A position had also been offered to him; and he could have it decided at the next meeting of the Committee. Who could expect, under the ordinary circumstances of Parliamentary life, to find himself in a more fortunate position than the hon. Gentleman? The Committee could not now formally decide upon the matter. They could only express their opinion upon it, after having allowed a considerable number of Gentlemen to leave the Committee on an assurance that the amount of the lodger franchise would not be determined to-night.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that the Government had given him a pledge as to the principle of his proposal, and that he would have a future opportunity of testing the opinion of the Committee as to the amount to be filled in.

said, that after what had fallen from the Attorney General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved to insert in page 2, line 8, after the word "rated," the words "as an ordinary occupier."

said, he had understood that the Government did not intend to proceed with any of their Amendments on the clause that evening. The words "ordinary occupier" could not be agreed to without a great deal of discussion, and unless all the Amendments were taken together they could not know what they meant.

said, that he also understood that it was the intention of the Government to report Progress after the discussion on the Amendment had concluded. If that was not the intention, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he should wish to propose before the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment. He moved at page 2, line 6, after "dwelling-house," to insert "or part of a dwelling-house." He hoped this Amendment would receive a fair and candid consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, as it was called for by the social-economic arrangements of the borough which he represented, and by many other boroughs in the North of England, where many houses were built for the use of two tenants, one tenant occupying the under storey, and the other the upper storey. These houses had a common street door, the key of which the tenants used in common; and, if he was rightly advised, these persons would not be householders within the meaning of the words of the 3rd clause. According to the present state of the law, the persons who rented these dwellings were neither occupiers nor lodgers; and, although qualified in every other respect, would not be enfranchised by this Bill, although they belonged to the very class that Government intended to enfranchise. They paid higher rents for these parts of houses than were paid by the lowest class of householders in the same towns. It had been decided by Lord Chief Justice Erle in "Cooke v. Humber," five years ago, that part of a house was not a house in law, because there was no actual severance of the two occupations, and that, while a staircase without a street door, or with one left open, was regarded as a street, one that was closed by a locked door, of which each tenant had a key, did not constitute the same severance. In Sunderland there was a larger proportion of these tenancies between £10 and £7. There were also many below £7, although the proportion of these divided tenancies below that figure was not so great as above it. No question of principle was involved, and there was no executive difficulty in enfranchising occupiers of parts of houses. Much had been said about the importance of the lodger franchise in London; and what he now proposed was really a lodger franchise in another form for many boroughs. These persons were only disqualified by the technical definition of the word "house," and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to introduce such a disqualification. All the securities for good citizenship contained in this clause were complied with by these occupants of parts of houses; they must have been rated for twelve months and have paid the rates.

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had made out a case for his Amendment. If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he maintained that these persons, though they had separate rates, yet because they did not live ill separate houses, were not entitled to a vote. If the decisions of the Courts had settled that the occupancy of part of a house not severed from the rest was not an occupancy which gave a title to a vote, he apprehended that such an occupier would still be a lodger. He would surely be included in one of the three classes, lodger, joint occupier, or householder. If he were entitled to vote in one of these categories the Amendment would not be needed.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not apprehended the point of his hon. Friend (Mr. Candlish's) illustration. The houses in his part of the country were in many cases so constructed as to accommodate two tenants, of which the one occupied the upper and the other the lower part of the tenement. But they paid separate rents and separate rates. They were not at all in the position of lodgers, and yet while the one had a vote the other had not.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) had argued a general principle for the purpose of a local object. His Amendment would apply to the merest hovel as well as to the class of houses he referred to, and would admit a very undesirable class of voters. It might be that in some parts of the country two tenants might in that sense be joint occupants of one house. But there were other parts where single rooms were let out to lodgers. Under this Amendment they would be admitted to the franchise. The proper way to remedy the evil complained of would be to introduce a new clause. To adopt the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be fatal to the main objects of the Bill.

said, he thought there was a good deal of force in the objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldney), but the case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) required to be provided for. He would suggest to the Government that the best way to provide for this class of cases was to introduce an interpretation into the Bill of the word "dwelling-house," which should meet that class of cases. There were similar cases near that House. In Victoria Street, for instance, the houses were divided into flats, having a common outer door, and yet, according to the decision quoted, each would be held to be only one house. These people were not lodgers certainly, but were frequently freeholders of particular flats, or, at all events, leaseholders. The chambers in the Inns of Court having a common staircase only differed from these flats by not having a common outer door. Yet the occupants had votes. The objection ought to be removed. He would suggest the interpretation clause as the best mode of remedying the evil.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) had correctly stated the law. As to Victoria Street the inhabitants of the flats were in much the same position for they had no votes, though the occupants of chambers in the Inns of Court were admitted to the franchise.

said, his impression was that the inhabitants of Victoria Street had votes. If there was anywhere a class of houses with two occupants, both of whom paid the rates while only one or neither enjoyed the vote, undoubtedly that was a case to be provided for. But he could not admit that the remedy was to be found in this Amendment, which admitted the owner of every part of a house to a vote. He would be happy to see the hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) and discuss with him the best way to provide a remedy for the evil.

said, on this assurance he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved the Amendment he had before proposed, to insert the words "as an ordinary occupier." He said that as this raised the question which had so often been discussed, he did not propose to go farther that night, and having proposed it, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

said, that the Bill involved a most important principle, and it would have been more satisfactory had some explanation been given on the subject. The main provision of the measure was that inquiries into corrupt practices at elections should be conducted upon the spot. That was a provision which he was entirely in favour of. It would make the inquiries more efficient and would tend to diminish expense. But that provision was coupled with others which would go far to neutralize it. If they were to have a local tribunal, the decision of that tribunal ought to be final. But, instead of that, any Member of the House might call attention to the Report of the Committee, ask the House to refer that Report to another Committee, and bring the whole of the evidence under review. The effect of such a course would be that almost every election petition would become the subject of discussion in that House. The decision of the Committee would be complained of, and they would revert very much to the state of things which existed before the passing of Grenville's Act. They would have a second inquiry entirely upon written evidence, and a tribunal which had only written evidence before it, perhaps reversing the decision of one which had acted upon vivâ voce evidence. Everyone understood the advantage which evidence given vivâ voce had over merely written evidence. It might be said, however, that in the second inquiry the evidence might be also vivâ voce. Such a proceeding would be attended with very bad results, as protracted litigation would be encouraged, and the man with the long purse would have an undue advantage. The Bill contained other provisions of an objectionable nature, but upon these he would not dwell at present. He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he regretted to find that the Bill contained no provision for giving the seat to a petitioning candidate who had carried on the contest on purity principles. He regarded this as the only way of repressing bribery. He hoped that if the measure went to a Select Committee a clause to that effect, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally intended to propose, would be inserted. He had made the same proposal in 1860, and again in 1863. At present a candidate who petitioned was further off his object than ever, for if a fresh election took place the corrupt electors would naturally vote against him, even without being bribed.

said, he should support the Motion for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. He hoped that the House would never agree to the principle of placing the power to determine the legality of elections in the hands of barristers of seven years' standing. It was true that it was proposed that there should be a sort of appeal to the House, but that would be available only in the case of rich candidates. Both sides of the House were sincere in the wish to put down bribery. But to do this he would suggest a course entirely different to that named in the Bill, Election petitions should continue to be tried by the House, and whenever bribery was proved, even although agency was not proved, a Commission should be sent down to the borough, at the expense of the borough. The consequence of this would be that the candidate who had been guilty of the bribery would never be able again to show his face in the borough, and if the inhabitants could only be convinced that it was against their interest that there should be bribery, no candidate likely to cause bribery would be brought forward.

said, he agreed in the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee, He was surprised that no explanation of the principles of the measure had been afforded by the Government. Unless the Bill were changed in almost every particular, it would not accomplish its object. The radical defect was that it combined two things that should be totally separate and distinct, and which were almost incompatible. These were — an inquiry as a matter of litigation between two candidates as to the right to the seat or the validity of a return, and a general inquiry into corruption at an election. The efficiency of the general inquiry would, under the provisions of the Bill, be sacrificed to the special inquiry. The Bill repealed an Act that had been most effectual in the suppression of bribery, the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57. Under this Act a Commission could only issue on a Report of an Election Committee that there was reason to believe that extensive bribery had prevailed, and no petition alleging bribery was hereafter to be tried by an Election Committee. The principle of the Bill was that the whole inquiry, general as well as personal, was to depend upon the petition presented against the return. Many petitioners would not expose their borough to disfranchisement if they could frame the petition so as to exclude an inquiry which might lead to such a result. Again, the petitioners were to be empowered at any stage to withdraw the petition upon payment of costs, and the whole proceedings would thereupon full to the ground. He believed that the Bill would deprive the House of the means which they at present possessed of detecting and exposing bribery. The apparent intention of the Bill was that there should be a local inquiry, conducted upon the spot; but it was not even provided that the inquiry should take place within the borough or the county in which the election had taken place, and the place of meeting was left entirely in the discretion of the returning officer. If there were to be such power, it should be vested in some more important person than the returning officer. The Bill proposed to transfer the jurisdiction now exercised by Committees of the House in matters of controverted election to three barristers of seven years' standing, to be selected by the Speaker. That, he thought, a most objectionable proposal. If the jurisdiction exercised in these cases by Committees of the House was to be transferred to some other authority, let it be transferred to the Judges of the land, whose decisions would carry such authority with them that they could be accepted as final. With regard to the duties to be placed upon the Speaker, he thought that a very unfair and invidious task would be imposed on him. He was to be intrusted not only with the sole power of nominating the persons to try election petitions, but also of selecting the persons who were to try each petition, and that without any of the checks imposed by the present law. He could also enlarge the time for doing any act under the Bill, and for this purpose he would have to sit as a court, not only during the Session of Parliament, but during the recess. The most important principle, however, was the transfer of the jurisdiction of the House to another tribunal. Without giving any opinion upon the question whether this transfer should take place, the mode proposed was the most objectionable way in which it could be done. It was also very objectionable that it should be open to any Member to raise the whole question again before the House by way of appeal. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee he thought that the Government should desire the gentlemen who drew the Bill to attend the Committee and explain its provisions, many of which were not very intelligible, in order that, if possible, it might be put into a shape in which it would be more deserving the attention of the House.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had complained that no explanation of the Bill had been given by the Government. It was in the recollection — he would not say of the House—but of the hon. Member (Sir Francis Goldsmid) that an explanation of the measure was given some time ago by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the hon. Member had referred to the terms of that explanation. His right hon. Friend gave a general description of the nature of the Bill he was about to introduce. Owing to the pressure of business, and the importance of carrying it forward as rapidly as possible, it had been brought to the present stage without being made the subject of a discussion. It was now proposed that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee. The Government had no objection to that course. They thought it was the desirable course to be pursued. In a matter of that sort the great and cardinal question was how far they could carry the House of Commons with them in any provisions which might be made for the repression of bribery and corruption. Nothing was so easy as to make speeches and declarations, and to get cheers in that House upon abstract Resolutions as to the repression of bribery. But what they wanted to do was to devise some means by which a stop should as far as possible be put to it. They could not put a stop to an offence of that kind unless in what they did they carried public sympathy, and, above all, the sympathy of the House of Commons, with them. There were two methods of dealing with bribery. Suggestions had been made that they should impose severe penalties upon persons guilty of bribery, and that they ought to require Members on taking their seats in the House to make solemn declarations that they had not committed the offence. Those provisions might seem to be effective. But the question was whether, when they had enacted them—well as they might look on paper—they would really attain their end. The Government, on looking the matter over, thought it would be better not to rely either upon severe penalties, or upon solemn declarations, which might, perhaps, harass tender consciences, and be only laughed at by guilty persons. They thought it desirable to institute a more searching inquiry in order to discover, punish, and put down on offence which was one of the greatest blots in our electoral system. They considered of course the machinery now in force, and they found that there were many difficulties in the way of the present system of proceedings before Election Committees. Among those difficulties was a very obvious one, perfectly well-known, no doubt, to hon. Members—namely, that after an election had taken place in which corrupt practices had prevailed, there was the greatest possible uncertainty whether they would ever be brought under the notice of an Election Committee at all. There was, in the first instance, the question whether some arrangement might not be made in the place where the election occurred to stifle the proceedings, get rid of witnesses, and in other ways prevent investigation. Then there was the further danger which undoubtedly had at different times been incurred — that election petitions might be treated as mere matters of party. That the one party might make proposals to the other that if they withdrew their petition in one case they would withdraw theirs in another. In that wav, no doubt, under the present system there was great difficulty in bringing a case to be fairly tried before a Committee of the House. Moreover, the knowledge that several months would elapse, during which there was no knowing what might happen, encouraged these practices by giving the perpetrators a chance of escape, and thus rendering them more careless than they otherwise might be. The object of the Government was to bring these matters as quickly as possible under the knowledge of the persons whose duty it would be to inquire upon the spot, who had no interest in the election, and who could act before—as the phrase went—matters could be "squared." They hoped that this would operate as a check on objectionable practices. It appeared to the Government that it would be best to put their proposal in the form of a Bill, and submit it to the House of Commons in such a shape that it could be worked. They felt, however, that it was of no use to force it upon the House, and that all depended upon the House being satisfied with the measure. The Government thought that if the House should determine to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where the details could be considered, then the measure might go out to the country not so much the measure of the Government as that of the House itself. With regard to the proposal that the Report of the Commission should not be final and should be subject to appeal to the House itself, that was done by the Government in order to save the privileges of the House. If the House should be prepared to abandon that appeal to itself—and he wag himself far from saying that it would not be desirable to do so—the Government would be prepared to omit that clause. It would not have been desirable for the Government to bring forward a measure which should run the risk of being rejected by the House because it was too strong. The measure which seemed desirable was not so much that which might look best on paper, but that which the Government could hope to carry. The Government for these reasons would be prepared to accept the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, which would call before it the gentlemen who drew the Bill, who would explain its provisions. If the Government were able to carry this Session a measure which should effectually repress bribery at future Parliamentary elections it would be the proudest chaplet in the history of any Administration.

said, that the Bill was little better than a sham, and totally inadequate to prevent corruption, at elections. It was not a Bill to prevent corrupt practices at elections, but one to punish them after they had not been prevented, and sometimes not even that, with its provision enabling the prosecutor at his pleasure to drop the prosecution. It was a proposal to shut the stable door after the steed was stolen. He confessed to a liking—recollecting the allusion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, to the country in which his ancestors had for several generations sojourned—to that good old-fashioned Batavian honesty for which the Dutch were so conspicuous in their commercial transactions, and by which they had created their national greatness. He did not see this honesty in the purpose of the present Bill, and he could not therefore accept it as it stood. The House was on its trial. The real way to put an end to corrupt practices was to go to the root of the matters, and to alter the whole machinery of elections. That which broke down candidates and perpetuated the crying evil was not the direct corruption to which he hoped very few persons in their desire to get into Parliament would purposely and in cold blood lend themselves; but that category of doubtful and slippery expenses, which in moderation might be legal and necessary, but which, if used in excess, became in fact, though not in name, mere bribery. It was against these expenses of committee-rooms, treating, canvassing, and so forth—expenses which he might describe as certainly not the heaven of electioneering, nor yet quite another place—but undoubtedly its purgatory that he would desire to see the House legislating. He wished to see the line drawn clearly and unmistakably between expenses which were really right, legal, and necessary, and those which were absolutely corrupt, so that the man who meant to come in by his money should have to follow Luther's prescription, pecca fortiter, and take the consequences. Above all things the prohibition against holding any committee-rooms in houses of public entertainment must be absolute and without exception. He might here say that of all the Amendments on the Reform Bill, the one which he observed with the greatest pleasure was that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cardiganshire (Sir Thomas Lloyd) proposing to declare that practice illegal. He trusted that the hon. Member would persevere in it as the truest Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices at elections. He would also put an end to all banners and such fooleries which made a contested election like Hyde Park under Tory Government. The better education and moral feeling of this century had abolished duelling and had extinguished bull-baiting and cock-fighting, and other barbarous old English amusements; and really he thought that all the rioting and revelling at elections was but the last bad relic of the same barbarism which they could not too soon dismiss to join the other extinct abuses. The suggestion which he should make would be that whenever an election was imminent some competent authority, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas for instance, should appoint a person of legal standing—the County Court Judge when available—or some other lawyer of equivalent position to act as arbiter of all the election expenses. This person, who would be more powerful than any election agent or auditor, and whom he would call the election Judge, should open his court in the borough or county, and all expenses to be legal should be previously sanctioned by him. The system would be self-working. The election Judge would approve on either side only as many committee rooms—none of them in any place of public entertainment—agents, canvassers, and other machinery as he thought necessary. His order book would be the test of the legality of each item of the expenditure, and any expense contracted without his order would be ipso facto illegal, and liable to void the election. If such a machinery were introduced into the Bill it might be made that which it was not at present, a measure really calculated to put down that plague of our constitutional system—corruption at elections.

said, that if there was a necessity for a Reform Bill, there was infinitely more for a Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill. If the franchise was extended without being accompanied by a very stringent measure for that object, both intimidation and bribery would be extended. In this Bill there was nothing to prevent intimidation, and very little to prevent bribery. They must, if they were in earnest, come to the ballot. Without that the reference of this or any other Bill to a Select Committee was a mere mockery. If the Select Committee succeeded in making it a good Bill, he for one should be very much astonished.

said, it was very pleasing to hear those little ebullitions of indignation in which most of the Members of that House indulged whenever the subject of bribery came on for discussion. There were, be believed, some new Members who really persuaded themselves, and wished to persuade the public, that the House of Commons was thoroughly in earnest in its endeavour to put down corrupt practices at elections. He (Mr. Osborne) did not believe it. At the risk of offending many hon. Gentlemen, he must say that he thought their proceedings on those occasions were very much on the commercial principle. There were not thirty Members in that House who had obtained their seats by what he termed fair means. ["Oh!"] He had no doubt that those who cried "Oh!" were pure and honest men. The hon. Member (Mr. Whalley), who appeared to be so indignant at the statement which he had just made, had secured his seat, not by appealing to the pockets of his constituents, but to their passions and prejudices, which, to his mind, was as much bribery as anything else. The Government had, he was prepared to admit, gone as far as they dared, and had taken a great step in dealing with the matter. The President of the India Board (Sir Stafford Northcote) corroborated his statement, for he said, "This is not a good Bill, but it is the best which the House of Commons is capable of passing." The Government, at all events, had taken a step in the right direction, for they had had the courage to initiate the idea of taking away the power from the House of being judge and jury in its own case. Without doing this there could not be even an approximation to giving satisfaction out of doors or inspiring confidence in decisions. He was, under those circumstances, disposed to give the Government great credit for the proposal they had made. If such a proposal had been brought forward some years ago, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wilson Patten), who was so great on the subject of the privileges of the House, would be sure to have arisen in his place and pronounced an anathema upon the Government for taking away its powers. He was reminded by what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) of two lines which described, not his great ancestors, but an illustrious countryman of theirs. A poet of the time of Queen Anne said—

"Batavian William knows the British tribes,

He scorns all merit and appeals to bribes."

He did not concur with the hon. Gentleman as to the honesty of those Batavians. It was a Batavian Parliament which initiated the bribery which now so extensively prevailed. It was as well to speak plainly in the matter. Was it not a fact that two-thirds of the Members of the upper House had obtained their peerages because they had freely spent their money in contested elections? Who was looked upon as a worthy Member of a party? A man who had contested a county and spent some thousands in the undertaking. Why were Baronets made? He would not say hon. Members might learn the reason from anybody. It was a very low form of promotion, and was sometimes given for contesting boroughs. It was very easy to get up in that House and make fine speeches. He did not believe that half of those whom he addressed—not even excepting the hon. Member (Mr. Whalley) who cried "Oh!" so loudly—were sincere in their endeavours to put down bribery. The fact was that one-half of the House would never have entered it at all had they not happened to have long purses and had they not been prepared to spend the contents of those purses. Although the provision of the Bill which took away the power from the House would operate most usefully, bribery would continue to exist until it came to be looked upon as infamous, and what was termed ungentlemanly. At present it was the fashion, and no man seemed to think the worse of another because he happened to have bribed. He begged to thank the Government for having dared as much as they had done. It was, at the same time, clear to him that as long as the House was content with periodical disquisitions on the subject—whether the Parliament was a Batavian or an English one—so long must hon. Members make up their minds to go through a solemn farce every year. Bribery would continue. Loyal adherents would be made Peers, and obsequious followers Baronets.

said, one of the best means to effect the abolition of bribery and corruption at elections would be the multiplication of the number of the electors. The purses of those who now obtained their returns by bribery would not then be long enough to corrupt the constituents. The ballot might be opportunely adopted now when the franchise was about to be given to people who were peculiarly exposed to the influence of the wealthy classes.

moved its re-committal pro formâ He said that it was for the purpose of inserting an Amendment which he had not had the opportunity of moving at au earlier stage. The Bill proposed to substitute a Parliamentary Secretary for a Vice President. The latter had to resign his seat on appointment, the former would not. The words he proposed to introduce would have the effect of appointing an officer who would vacate his seat on appointment.

said, he acceded to the Motion. He regretted having pressed forward an earlier stage of the Bill, not knowing that so fair and courteous an antagonist as his hon. Friend desired to raise any question upon it. The Vice President of the Board of Trade was appointed by the Queen, whereas the future Under Secretary would be appointed by the head of the Department. By analogy therefore to other Government offices, he need not vacate his seat, as he did not hold an office of profit under the Crown.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Childers) should have been disappointed on a former occasion. The mistake was probably owing to an impression that a Return which had been granted had satisfied the opponents of the Bill.

said, he had to move a Resolution authorizing the Treasury to compound the harbour debt of £29,000 for £10,000, which was to be converted into a terminable annuity. The course proposed to be taken was similar to that assented to by the late Government in the case of Limerick Harbour. In 1831 a sum of money was advanced for the improvement of Galway Harbour, and the interest of 5 per cent was regularly paid up to 1842; but in consequence of the failure of the Harbour Board to meet its engagements, the Board of Works in Ireland had been for some time acting as mortgagees in possession. If the House agreed to the Resolution a Bill would be brought in which would disclose the arrangement in greater detail.

said, he supported the proposal. He, however, hoped these cases would act as a warning to Governments how they sanctioned the application in future of Government money to purposes of local improvement, which were found, after the money had been spent, to be unremunerative in their character. He hoped the Bill would be referred to a Committee upstairs.

said, he must remind his hon. Friend, who had spoken as if these cases were peculiar to Ireland, that in other parts of the United Kingdom, and conspicuously at Leith, similar arrangements had been made.

said, he trusted the Government would insure that, in the exercise of any liberality to Ireland, favours should be so dispensed that they do not increase present grievances and create new ones.

said, he found from the Journals of the House that liberality had been exercised towards England and Scotland far in excess of anything which had been done for Ireland. He should speak upon the subject of Galway on a future stage of the Bill.

said, that the object of the Bill was to enable the laying down in Ireland, under the direction of the Board of Trade, of local lines of railways.

said, that he could not oppose the second reading of a Bill which was brought in with such authority, and which had already passed the House in its present shape after revision by a Select Committee. At the same time, the House should know, especially as there was no discussion on the subject last year, that the provisions of the Bill were far in advance of existing legislation. By the Railway Construction Facilities Act of 1864, the Board of Trade was authorized to grant a certificate for the making of a railway, provided all parties whose land was to be taken consented, and no railway company whose interest might be affected objected. The present Bill allowed lands to be taken compulsorily, by order of the Grand Jury, and enjoined the Board of Trade—which he was sorry to say had been substituted for the Irish Board of Works, and which he thought the less appropriate tribunal of the two—to decide not only on the general merits of the scheme, but also to inquire whether it would injuriously compete with existing or authorized railways. A similar provision was contained in a Bill for England now before the House, proposing to substitute the Board of Trade for Parliamentary tribunals, and give an executive department legislative functions which it neither could nor ought to exercise. There was, as far as he could see, no appeal from such decisions; whereas in the Act of 1864 the certificate was for six weeks liable to be annulled by Parliament. There had been apprehensions expressed as to the danger of running locomotives on these lines, along public roads, which, however, seemed to be thought little of by the Irish authorities, who ought to be the best judges. He trusted the Bill would be well considered in Committee.

said, that the Bill in this respect merely proposed that the machinery for superintending the making of a railroad should be the same as that which now kept an eye on the making of roads.

said, that as he understood that there would be no objection to his Motion, he should only detain the House for a few minutes. He had to move for a Select Committee on the systems of retirement in the Artillery, Engineers, and Marines. He had already moved for Papers on the subject, by a perusal of which no one could fail to be satisfied that these systems were altogether unsatisfactory. In the Artillery and Engineers the system consisted of the establishment of a fund of £48,000 a year, two-thirds of which was applicable to the former corps; and as any balance arose on this fund retirements of £600 a year were offered to the major-generals and colonels, and in certain cases smaller amounts to officers of lower rank. Before accepting these retirements the officers had to calculate whether they had a better chance of higher emoluments by remaining on the establishment; and the system worked so badly that at the present time the senior colonels of Engineers were ten years older than the senior colonels of Artillery, and that instead of retiring the older officers, the last sums of £600 a year were refused down to colonels between the twentieth and twenty-fifth on the list, ten years younger than those at the top. Such a system was a mere irrational lottery, and no wonder that its failure was used as an argument in favour of the purchase system. As to the Marines, he hardly knew whether there were any rules as to their retirement, but they appeared to have a very undue number of retired officers, and at a higher rate than the other two corps. He hoped that the result of the Committee's inquiry would be to put the system on a fair footing as to the three corps, and to remove much dissatisfaction which now existed. With this view, he moved for the Committee.

said, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that it was most desirable that some inquiry should take place on the subject, in order that some improved system of retirement might be settled for these seniority corps. Already there had been three departmental Committees on the subject, and they were unanimous as to the necessity of an increased allowance for retirement. He thought the subject well worthy of investigation if it were only on account of the great stagnation of promotion which had up to a recent period existed. The result of the most recent inquiry was that the officers of the Engineers and Artillery would reach an age before promotion that would seriously interfere with the interests of the service. He should have preferred a Royal Commission, but he would not oppose the proposal for a Committee.

said, he approved of the appointment of a Committee, believing it a better mode of proceeding than the appointment of a Royal Commission. Something should be done to stimulate promotion in the Engineers and Artillery.

said, he supported the Motion, but he hoped that the military element would not be too predominant on the Committee. He trusted that the inquiries of the Committee would not be confined to the subjects mentioned in the Notice given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers). He thought it desirable that a comparison should be instituted between the system of retirement in the corps mentioned in the Notice and other corps.