said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether an increase in the value of certain lands (alleged to have been improved by drainage) was made at the last annual revision in Ireland for the first time since the completion of the present Irish Valuation; whether such increase of valuation was made without any notice to the parties concerned or to the Boards of Guardians; whether it is true that the Westport Board of Guardians, immediately on having ascertained that such an increase had been made, disputed its legality, and after a short correspondence the Commissioner of Valuation, in a letter dated December 15, promised to take the opinion of Counsel as to the legality of his proceeding; whether a case was then submitted by the Commissioner to the late Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Owen, Q.C.; whether, though more than four months have since then elapsed, those eminent Counsel have been unable to give an opinion in favour of the legality of the Commissioner's proceeding; whether the Commissioner, though requested to restore those lands to their original value pending the opinion above referred to, has in the present revision retained them at the increased value he placed on them last year; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to order or advise the Commissioner to leave those lands at the value at which they stood before the change (the legality of which is in question) was made?

, in reply to the first Question, said, that the increased value of the land was not made for the first time since the completion of the present Irish valuation. An increase had, from time to time, been made in the valuation of certain lands in different parts of Ireland; but in the particular case to which the noble Lord referred, the increased valuation was not rated until the revision which took place in the month of April 1866. As the revision was an ordinary occurrence, no special notice of the matter was given; none, indeed, was needed under the Act. With regard to the noble Lord's next Question, as to whether it were true that the Westport Board of Guardians, immediately on having ascertained that the increase alluded to had been made, disputed its legality, and after a short correspondence the Commissioner of Valuation, in a letter dated December 15, promised to take the opinion of Counsel as to the legality of his proceeding, he had to say that the statements contained in the Question were substantially correct, and that a case was submitted to the late Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Owen, Q.C. Their opinion was that, although it was the intention of the Legislature that such increased valuation should be made, there were legal difficulties in the way of giving effect to it. The Commissioner had, notwithstanding the opinion, kept the valuation at the increased rate, and he thought himself justified in so doing, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the law and in justice to other owners. The case was not one in which the Government should interfere with the action of the Commissioner.

said, he wished to ask whether he understood the noble Lord that, notwithstanding Counsel had said the Commissioner had acted illegally, the Commissioner persisted in his course?

said, he did not think the Counsel had given the opinion that the Commissioner had acted illegally; but that it was the intention of the Legislature that increased value should be assessed, and that it was uncertain whether later Acts had not to a certain extent altered the operation of the law providing for new assessments.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord for the Government's opinion upon the matter.

replied, that as the Counsel had found difficulty in giving an opinion, he thought the Government would find difficulty also.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What compensation the Government intend offering to the Indian Medical Retiring Funds for the losses now incurred by those institutions through the non-accession of fresh subscribers, resulting from orders passed by the Home Government in 1858; and to inquire what compensation is to be offered to the medical officers of the late Honourable East India Company's Service for the loss of the several valuable administrative medical appointments which have been recently transferred to medical officers of Her Majesty's British Army serving in India, as all the rights and privileges of the medical officers of the Indian Army were secured to them by a Parliamentary guarantee when their services were transferred to the Crown?

said, in reply, that the Government had offered, conditionally on the transfer of the medical retiring funds to them, that they would guarantee the present incumbents upon the funds the pensions and allowances to which they would be entitled according to the regulations now in force. But the officers and managers of the medical retiring funds had been informed that if they would not agree to this transfer to the Government they might retain the management of the funds in their own hands, and in that case it would be a question what compensation for loss sustained would be payable by the Government. The result was, that after the communication made in August last the managers of the Bengal medical fund agreed to the terms proposed by the Government, and they had transferred the funds in their hands at the time. With regard to Madras and Bombay, the managers had not chosen to avail themselves of the offer, but preferred to retain the management in their own hands. In regard to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, those administrative medical appointments referred to were in the nature of staff appointments. Those staff appointments had necessarily been reduced in numbers in consequence of the reduction of the force belonging to the Indian Government; but in this, ns well as other respects, the medical service had been liberally treated in all the arrangements made in the organization of the army. Both promotions and pensions had been increased, and everything was done in respect to the staff appointments to make the change acceptable.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the desperado who twice attempted to shoot the police in the streets of Dublin is the same Cody or Byrne who was arrested at a Fenian Council, after violent resistance, on the 13th April of last year, and was liberated late in the Autumn; and, if the noble Lord has any objection to grant a Return of the number of Fenian prisoners who have been re-arrested out of the 500 and odd whom he stated at the beginning of the Session he had set free?

said, that in answer to the first Question of his hon. Friend, he had to state that the information of the Government was not quite complete; but he thought there could be no doubt that Cody, the person arrested the other day, was the same person as that referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. That person would be tried at the Special Commission. In regard to the second Question of the hon. Member, he had to state that the Return had been already moved for, and would be laid on the table that night. But to remove any misapprehension on the point, he should state that out of the 961 persons arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant since February, 1866, when the Habeas Corpus Act was first suspended, only twenty-six persons had been re-arrested. The constabulary and police had always received instructions to see that the persons who had been liberated were showing no signs of returning to their former criminal courses. On the whole, the information received was very satisfactory.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House the Report made by Professor Simonds by order of the Privy Council upon a case of cattle plague alleged to have occurred upon the farm of Mr. Archer at Burnaston, in the county of Derby; and, if he is not prepared to do so, whether he will state to the House the substance of that Report?

, in reply, said, he was unable to lay the Report asked for by the hon. Member upon the table. Such Reports had always been refused, on the ground that they were confidentially made to the office. The local authority was provided with its own Inspector, whose certificate was final. By the 29 Vict. c. 2, s. 9, the disease was cattle plague if he certified it to be so. Any questioning of his decision would load to complications and litigation as regarded compensation. For where a beast had been slaughtered which had not cattle plague there would be no claim for compensation under the Act, and the remedy would lie in an action at law. It had been decided, accordingly, that whether the Report made by a separate officer for the information of the Government were confirmatory or not, it should not be made public.

said, the noble Lord had not answered the latter part of his Question.

said, he could not make the substance of the Report public without contravening the rule he had just mentioned.

, in putting the Question of which he had given notice to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, said, that on one day last week the whole of one sheet of The Times was filled with an advertisement of a catalogue of books, apparently published by authority, and as this only extended as far as the letters "Al," the publication, if continued, would evidently occupy some time. He would therefore beg to ask the noble Lord, Whether the publication by advertisement of an Universal Catalogue of Art Books, compiled by the Science and Art Department at South Kensington, the First Part of which appeared in The Times newspaper of the 8th instant, has been duly authorized; and, if so, what is the object of publishing the said Catalogue by means of newspaper advertisements; what is the estimated cost of publishing such Catalogue in this form; and, whether it is intended to publish it in any other form?

said, in reply, that the hon. Member had asked four Questions, which he would endeavour to answer fully. The publication of an Universal Catalogue of Art Books, compiled by the Science and Art Department at South Kensington, had been authorized by the late Government; on that subject he would read a portion of a Treasury Minute, dated October 12, 1865—

"With the object of providing against an imperfection of continual recurrence such as the foregoing"—i.e., omissions consequent on the daily increase of the library—"and for other considerations, my Lords have ordered the compilation of a catalogue on a basis altogether new. It is proposed that the new catalogue shall include not only the books in the library, but all books printed and published at the date of the issue of the catalogue that could be required to make the library perfect—that is, to compile an universal record of printed art books which are known to exist up to that period, wherever they may happen to be at the time."

That was the Minute authorizing the collection and publication of an Universal Art Catalogue. The next step taken was in February, 1866, when a Committee was appointed to advise the Privy Council as to the best means of carrying out the objects stated in the Minute. That Committee of Advice included the names of Sir John Acton, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Layard, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Mr. Henry Seymour, Sir John Simeon, Mr. Stirling, Mr. Tite, and a great many other noblemen and gentlemen. The hon. Member asked as to the object of publishing the catalogue in The Times. If it were published in the form of a book there would be many inaccuracies, a great number of editions would be required, and, after all, the number of persons reached by each of those editions would be exceedingly limited. Whereas by being published in The Times it at once gained a circulation of 65,000, it passed into the hands of persons all over the world, and learned men in every quarter of the globe would have their attention called to it in the most effectual manner; and, observing inaccuracies or deficiencies in the catalogue, would be led at once to forward notes of additions or corrections. That was the object of publishing it in The Times. The hon. Member also asked what would be the cost of the publication. That was determined by a Minute of February last, which he would read to the House—

"Read Mr. Mowbray Morris's letter offering to insert the Universal Art Catalogue, at the rate of £11 per column, in The Times newspaper, instead of £20, a usual charge. It is estimated that the cost of printing the whole catalogue will be about £5,000, to be spread over three years. This is a low charge, and insures the circulation over the world of 65,000 copies."

The estimate was made upon this basis:—30,000 entries, at eighty in a column, would make 375 columns, say 380 columns, at £11; that would be equal to £4,180. To this must be added £750 for corrections and proofs, which were not usually done in advertisements, making the total £4,930. But of this amount £2,400 would be returned to the public, because that would be the amount of newspaper stamps due to the additional advertisement sheets. The balance, therefore, of £2,530 would be the estimated cost, provided the whole were published; and would represent the payment to The Times for the composition, paper, printing, and benefit of its extensive circulation. As to the last question, whether it was intended to publish the catalogue in any other form, the decision on that point would remain with the Lord President at the time when the catalogue was completed, which might not take place till four or five years hence.

The noble Lord spoke of a sum of £2,400 charged as a stamp duty upon advertisements. Following out the calculation of the noble Lord, I would ask what is the present amount of stamp duty upon advertisements?

said he could not tell the right hon. Gentleman. He obtained his information at his Office before he came down to the House. [An hon. MEMBER: There is no stamp duty.]£2,530 was the sum which, it was estimated, would be repaid to the public in the shape of stamps upon advertising; as this would double the sheets.

said, his name had been mentioned as serving upon the Committee of Advice. The circumstances were totally unknown to him, and he believed the Members of that Committee had no idea this large expenditure was to take place. He wished to inquire whether the noble Lord would postpone for the present the further publication of these advertisements, until the House had an opportunity of thoroughly considering the case, or whether the agreement entered into forbade the possibility of doing so?

said, finding himself also implicated in this extraordinary publication, he wished to say a word in explanation. Committees were appointed and were not attended, and then Members found themselves shown up to the world in this ridiculous aspect.

said, that if the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) would give notice of his Motion he should be happy to answer it.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will place upon the table of the House all the Correspondence between the Board of Trade and Mr. H. D. Grey, Captain Robertson, or any other person or persons with reference to Mr. H. D. Grey's conduct as engineer surveyor at Liverpool, or his removal from that Port to Plymouth?

, in reply, said, the Correspondence to which the hon. Member referred related to an unfortunate misunderstanding which had taken place between two officers connected with the Board of Trade. The matter had now been settled, and he did not think the publication of the details would be for the advantage either of the parties concerned, or of the public service. As long as human nature remained what it was these disagreeable episodes would from time to time occur in the best regulated departments. The noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade and himself were most anxious to smooth down asperities, and make the Department work easily; but their difficulties would be enormously increased in such cases by the publication of documents, which must tend to keep open, and even widen, any breach which might have occurred.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has received any official communication with respect to the condition of the agricultural population in the western portions of Mayo; and, if so, will he communicate the purport of the same to the House and the nature of the precautionary steps, if any, which it is proposed to take in order to avert the distress which is said to be anticipated in that district?

said, in reply, that no information, official or unofficial, had reached the Government with regard to the existence of distress in the west part of Mayo.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If a letter was addressed by Mr. Kickham, one of the Fenian prisoners, to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Prisons, dated on or about the 31st January, complaining of the severity of the treatment he received, the cold he was exposed to during illness, and the insufficiency of the food supplied to him; and, if so, if he will lay a Copy of that letter upon the table of the House?

I will answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman when I move to postpone the Orders of the Day.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Return of Wrecks on the Irish Coast for the years 1864, 1865, and 1866, lately laid upon the table of the House, which shows that out of the nineteen casualties named, eleven happened between Carnsore Point and Wicklow Head, Whether any steps have been taken towards the better lighting of that coast; whether a Commission was not appointed to consider the dangerous state of that coast; and, if so, when their Report will be laid upon the table?

, in reply, said, that no Commission had been appointed, but that a joint Committee of the Board of Trade, the Trinity House, and the Dublin Ballast Board met at Liverpool last autumn to consider the subject of lighting the Irish coast from the point of Howth to the Tuscar, which included the portion mentioned in the hon. Member's Question. The result of their deliberations was a series of proposals which had since been formally accepted by the three Boards, and were now being carried out by the Ballast Board of Dublin. These works comprised a re-distribution of the three lightships already there, and the addition of two others, the improvement of the South Arklow Light, and Wicklow Head Light. There were also to be four buoys added to the thirteen already there, and the whole seventeen were to be made first-class buoys. Notices of these changes had already been published, and it was expected that the new buoys would be completed by the 15th of August, and the new lights by the 10th of October. There was no formal Report, but he proposed laying on the table papers explanatory of these arrangements.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken or intends to take any, and if so, what measures to obtain from the Government of the Republic of Venezuela the restitution of moneys arbitrarily abstracted by that Government from the agents of British subjects; and to urge on the Government of Venezuela the due performance of its contracts with British subjects for the appropriation of certain portions of Customs Duties towards the payment of its engagements made in 1862 and 1864?

Sir, since I have had anything to do with the Foreign Office, and I believe for a considerable time before that, correspondence has been going on between the Government of this country and that of Venezuela with reference to the claims of British subjects on account of Venezuelan bonds. I regret to say that up to this time that correspondence has been eminently unsatisfactory. Remonstrances have been addressed again and again to the Venezuelan authorities, and those remonstrances have been met either with silence, with evasive replies, or with vague and general promises, which promises have not been fulfilled. I cannot say, looking back to the past, that I have much hope of redress being obtained as a consequence of such representations. But whether any steps of a different character should be taken is a question of extreme gravity, and one in which I am not willing at present to pledge Her Majesty's Government. I will only say that such steps ought not to be taken, except after the fullest consideration, in the very last resort, and when all other means of obtaining justice have failed.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information to give the House on the subject of the Conference?

Sir, the Conference concluded its labours to-day. On Saturday evening a treaty was signed, which, when the ratifications are exchanged, will be laid on the table of the House.

said, he did not think he should be able to bring on the Irish Land Bills to-night.

said, he wished to know, Whether the noble Lord could fix a day for the further discussion of those Bills?

said, the Government could not fix a time for them at present; but when they saw their way with respect to other business a little more clearly, they would endeavour to do so.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state when the Report of the Ordnance Committee will be placed on the table?

said, it was his intention to lay the Report on the table in the course of the present week—probably on Thursday.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would state whether Ministers intended to proceed with the Parks Bill, or, if not, whether notice would be given of the intention to drop the Order?

In moving that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People in Scotland, I beg the House will permit me to make a communication which does not strictly refer to that Motion, but which it may be convenient to the House to make. I have to inform the House that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), who introduced the Bill referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Neate), and who would also, if present, have answered the question put by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, has, I regret to say, thought it his duty to resign the seals of the office which he holds. Her Majesty having been graciously pleased to accept that resignation, my right hon. Friend holds those seals only till his successor shall have been appointed. The reason—the sole reason for the resignation of his office by my right hon. Friend is the state of his health, brought about by pressure of public business on a nature which every Member of this House must know is only too sensitive, though I am sure no one appreciates my right hon. Friend the less on account of such a quality. Two months ago my right hon. Friend communicated to me the necessity for this step on his part. He told me the labour of his office was so great, and the efforts he had to make in endeavouring to accomplish it so trying, that it was impossible for him to remain in the post he occupied. My right hon. Friend was deterred from then taking the step which he had determined upon, because he thought his doing so at that critical moment might have been attributed to a want of sympathy on his part with Lord Derby and his Colleagues in the management of the measure they had introduced for the Amendment of the Representation of the People. I may take this opportunity of saying that we had not only sympathy, but the most valuable, the most suggestive, and the most unflinching assistance from my right hon. Friend. Sir, I find it difficult on this occasion to express my own feelings at the loss of so valued a Colleague. Very few who ever sat in this House exceeded my right hon. Friend in general Parliamentary capacity and political knowledge. But the peculiar charm of my right hon. Friend was that he brought to the transaction of public business a kindliness of heart united to a singleness of purpose which mitigated the great difficulties of successfully dealing with important public questions. I am happy to say that the services to the State of my right hon. Friend will not be wholly lost. He will sit on these Benches, and, though not a Minister of the Crown, he will be one of Her Majesty's responsible advisers. When the arrangements consequent on the appointment of my right hon. Friend's successor are completed, hon. Gentlemen who have asked questions on the subject of the Bill for the Public Parks, and with respect to other business in the Department of the Home Secretary, shall receive the information they require. I move the postponement of the Orders of the Day.

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had not given any reply on the subject of the Fenian prisoner.

The new Secretary of State will take the earliest opportunity of giving a reply on a subject of which I am necessarily ignorant.

Mr. Speaker—I rise to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People in Scotland. In dealing with this subject I have to address myself to two main divisions of the subject—one regarding the franchise, the other the distribution of seats. In the general construction of the Scotch Bill we have followed as closely as possible the model of the Bill before the House with respect to England, which for so long a period has occupied its attention. As regards the borough franchise, with some exceptions which the difference between the law of the two countries rendered necessary, and which, I think, may fairly be described as technical, the franchise we propose for the Scotch boroughs is the same as we propose for those of England. We find in the case of Scotland, as in that of England, that it is impossible to establish any franchise for boroughs of a satisfactory nature—of a nature which would give any promise of being permanent—upon the principle of value. We have therefore adopted in Scotland the same principle we have proposed for England—namely, that the performance of public duties should be the foundation for acquiring and enjoying public privileges. We are of opinion that we cannot in the case of Scotland, any more than in the case of England, have a more complete test—one more general and universal in its application, than the payment of rates. The payment of rates necessarily involves the fulfilment of duties. It induces a man to take an interest in the prudent and economical management of the funds of the community of which he is a member. He has also to perform a function which necessarily demands some thought and entails some sense of responsibility on every man who may exercise it—the function of election. He has to elect public officers. He has to elect vestrymen and guardians of the poor. He may, indeed, himself become a vestryman or a guardian of the poor. He necessarily attends and transacts business in public meetings. He thus under goes a discipline in the performance of public functions, and is, to a certain extent, prepared for the position of exercising that still more important function, the power of selecting a representative for himself in the House of Commons. I do not, of course, mean to say that every man who pays rates is a reputable person, for in all classes of life painful exceptions to what I hope is the general character of humanity will occur. But I think I have a right to say with confidence that, on the whole, the payment of rates is a very fair test of propriety of conduct on the part of the person who exercises that function, more especially if, though adopted as a first element of the qualification for the franchise, it be accompanied by a condition of an adequate period of residence. These are the two qualifications upon which we attempted to found the borough franchise in England, and there is no reason whatever, as far as we can form an opinion, why they should not be the foundation of the borough franchise in Scotland. It is very true that in Scotland there are no compound-householders, and the fact of our proposing that the franchise in Scotland should be the same as in England, although there are no compound-householders in the former country, is, I think, a tolerably satisfactory answer to the unfounded insinuation that in fixing the franchise as we have done in England our only object was to restrict its enjoyment and exercise. Our only object in taking the step we did with regard to England was to restrict the enjoyment of the franchise to those whom we deemed qualified to exercise it; and had there been no compound-householders in England the same franchise, I have no doubt, would have been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the clauses we have proposed in the Bill to facilitate the enjoyment of the franchise by any who desire it and are worthy to possess it—although they may by the accident of legislation not be immediately and directly empowered to obtain it—will, I think, convince every one that that is our sincere intention. The borough franchise which we propose for Scotland—identical in spirit, if not absolutely in form, with the borough franchise in England—is a franchise founded on a principle which has been accepted by the country. That principle is that the franchise should be intrusted to those who perform public duties and thereby prove themselves competent to exercise the franchise at Parliamentary elections. The condition of residence is also approved by the country. The arrangements we have prepared with regard to those householders who may be anxious to obtain the franchise, but who, on account of the conditions accepted by the country, may be debarred from immediately enjoying it, are of such a nature that they will, if not entirely, yet to a considerable degree remove every obstacle in the way of obtaining it. The English Bill, upon which the Scotch Bill is founded, will when passed have the effect, if not immediately, yet ultimately and gradually—and better because gradually—of elevating the character of the people of this country by increasing the interest they take in the management of their own affairs. And to teach them to manage their own affairs is the best mode of rendering them fit for the possession of the franchise, by which they may influence the affairs of the Empire. Her Majesty's Government accept the division on Thursday last as a sanction and guarantee of the general policy of the Government with respect to the borough franchise. They believe that after that vote there will be no difficulty whatever in proceeding with the English Reform Bill with expedition, and in a manner satisfactory to the House. They have experienced already much assistance from the House in the conduct of that Bill. There are many questions, no doubt, on which they are ready to assert the view which they think the right one, but with respect to which the opinion of the House will greatly influence them. I hope, therefore, that under these circumstances we may proceed with that Bill, which is the model of the Scotch Bill, after the Scotch Bill has been introduced, and that we may make considerable progress even to-night. Having said that, I will also state—I hope in a manner which will offend no one—that I most anxiously hope—after the vote of Thursday last, that there will be no attempt indirectly—for I will not use the word "surreptitiously"—to rescind or perplex that vote. From the conclusion at which the House then arrived it is impossible for the Government to deviate. I say this more particularly, because I have heard of violent speeches made since the last sitting of the House, which, considering the anxious task we and the House generally have undertaken, are not of a very encouraging character. When it is borne in mind that, whatever differences of opinion may be entertained by particular individuals and sections, the House has been engaged for a considerable time in settling how a large increase of electoral power should be distributed among the people of this country; considering also that, probably this very evening, after the introduction of this Bill, both sides of the House, in the total absence of party feeling, will proceed to deal with the subject of the lodger franchise, with, I believe, an earnest desire on the part of the great majority of the House to bring to a safe and satisfactory solution a question of particular interest to the people of this metropolis—considering all this, I most deeply regret that the recent addresses were ever delivered. I feel that they do not assist the Government or the House, and this is a matter which interests the House as much as it interests the Government. Those addresses do not assist us in bringing this affair to a happy termination. I regret much that the old stages and antique machinery of agitation should have been re-adjusted, re-burnished, and sent up by Parliamentary train to London. We are, moreover, threatened with an agitation of a most indefinite and incoherent character; for at this moment I am at a loss to know whether the proposed agitation is to be in favour of manhood suffrage or a £5 rating. All this is not satisfactory, and it is a great impediment to me in introducing the Scotch Bill to the consideration of the House this evening. I should have been very glad if, after the vote of the House on Thursday, it had been considered that a definite decision had been arrived at on the subject of the borough franchise. I regret very much that these spouters of stale sedition should have come forward to take the course they have. It may be their function to appear at noisy meetings. But I regret very much they should have come forward as obsolete incendiaries to pay their homage to one who, wherever he may sit, must always remain the pride and ornament of this House.

"Who but must laugh, if such a man there be?

Who would not weep if Atticus were he?"

Notwithstanding these menaces, we shall be able, I trust, to continue our labours with calmness, and with a common endeavour to produce as good a Bill as the contending principles of different parties in this free country will allow. Nothing has surprised me more in the ebullitions which have recently occurred than their extremely intolerant character. Everybody who does not agree with somebody else is looked upon as a fool, or as being influenced by a total want of principle in the conduct of public affairs. Sir, I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the temper of the House of Commons or the temper of the country. I do not believe that they will sanction such proceedings. I believe they utterly disapprove them, and I appeal with confidence to the House to assist Her Majesty's Government in any efforts they make to improve these Bills for the Representation of the People. I have said that the franchise in the boroughs in Scotland will be similar to and almost identical with that of the boroughs in England. The occupation franchise for the counties will be reduced on the same scale, and in the same manner, as it has been proposed to reduce it in England. The property franchise, untouched in England, will be untouched in Scotland. It is now my business to call the attention of the House to the, for the moment, more novel and interesting subject of the re-distribution of seats. There were forty-five Members for Scotland at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832. That had been the number of Scotch Members from the Union of the two kingdoms. After more than a century's experience, they were by the Bill of 1832 increased by eight. Although only thirty-five years have passed; after giving the most complete consideration to the whole question of the representation of Scotland, and wishing to give it, under all the circumstances, a fair and adequate representation, we propose to increase the number of Scotch representatives to sixty. That is, to add seven to the number it now possesses. In speaking of the apportionment of the new Members, I would first address myself to the claims of the Universities. These are very learned, ancient, and distinguished institutions, and they have in their time produced very able men. But it was not until the year 1858 that they had a popular constitution conferred upon them. They were indebted for that popular constitution to the Government of which I was a Member, and it was the then Lord Advocate, the present Lord Chief Justice Clerk of Scotland, Mr. Inglis, who introduced the measure. Until a measure of that kind was carried it was quite impossible that the question of the representation of the Universities could be considered, because, owing to the want of a popular constitution, they had no means of establishing a constituency. That measure has been perfectly efficient and singularly successful. It has accomplished its end. It has given the four Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrew's a constituency of about 5,000, rather more than that of the University of Oxford, rather less than that of Cambridge, and considerably exceeding the constituency of what is called the University of Dublin—in fact, only Trinity College, which is 1,700. I do not grudge Trinity College its two Members, though they are not always on the same side as myself. I do not grudge it them for this reason—I think that the title and function which the college possesses may ultimately lead to the establishment of a real University in Ireland. There may be other colleges affiliated to Trinity College, and that constituency will naturally increase. The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin have each two Members. Under this Bill the constituencies of the Scotch Universities will amount to 6,500; for there are 1,500 medical graduates whom it was intended to have enfranchised in 1858, and who were omitted only through a technical oversight. Under these circumstances, we propose to apportion two Members to the Scotch Universities, but that they shall be divided. We propose to couple the University of Edinburgh, which contributes one moiety of the constituency, with that of St. Andrew's, which is the smallest, and to give the two one Member. We also propose that the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen shall together return one Member. Now I come to what we propose to do with regard to the burghs and the counties. It will be convenient that I should put before the House their exact position as regards the population, electors, and value. Taking the Census of 1861 as our guide, the population of the burghs will be 1,244,106, and that of the counties 1,818,188. So that the excess of population in the counties is 574,082. The first inference from these figures might be that there should be a considerable increase of county Members. But, looking further, we find that there are 55,515 electors in the burghs, and 49,979 in the counties. So that the excess of electors in the burghs is 5,536. The annual value of the burghs is £4,700,000, and that of the counties £8,700,000. At present the counties have thirty Members and the burghs twenty-three. We propose to take the three principal counties of Scotland—Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, and Aberdeenshire—and we propose to give them an additional Member each. But, as no county has more than one Member, we propose that these three counties shall each be divided, and that each division shall have a Member. We propose to increase the representation of the borough of Glasgow, so eminent for its population, industry, and intelligence, and scarcely second to any place except the metropolis. We do not propose to give a third Member to the existing constituency, a plan which we think erroneous in principle and prejudicial in action. We would rather put it in a position similar to that of Liverpool and Manchester, with regard respectively to Birkenhead and Salford. We propose to divide Glasgow as it is divided naturally by its river, to give two Members to North Glasgow and the third to the south part of the town, including some of its suburbs, We propose to dissolve two groups of burghs, the Falkirk and the Kilmarnock burghs. Among these in their immediate vicinity, and identified with them by interests and pursuits, a variety of towns have risen since 1832. We propose that as to these and throughout Scotland every town with not less than 6,000 inhabitants shall be a burgh. The new burghs will be Coatbridge, Wishaw, Kirkintilloch, Helensburgh, Johnstone, Barrhead, Pollockshaws, Ardrossan, Hawick, Galashiels, and Alloa. The population of Coatbridge, the highest, is 10,500, there are several between 7,000 and 8,000, and the lowest population is that of Barrhead, which is 6,018. We propose to dissolve the two groups of the Falkirk and Kilmarnock burghs, and out of the burghs composing them and the new burghs whose names I have read we shall make three groups of burghs. One will be a new group. To that group we shall apportion a Member, and that will be an addition to representation. The Falkirk group will then consist of Falkirk, Linlithgow, Dumbarton—three burghs already in that district—and Kirkintilloch and Helensburgh—two new burghs. This group will have a united population of 33,223. The burghs composing this group are situate on the same line of railway, with an extreme distance from Falkirk, the proposed returning burgh, of about forty miles. Dumbarton was formerly in the Kilmarnock group. The new group to be represented for the first time will be called the Hamilton district. It will consist of Hamilton, Airdrie, Lanark, and Rutherglen, with Coatbridge (population 10,501) and Wishaw (population 6,112), both mining towns. These burghs have an aggregate population of 53,332. All are situate within the county of Lanark, and the character of their populations is very similar. Hamilton, Airdrie, and Lanark were formerly in the Falkirk, and Rutherglen in the Kilmarnock district. The third group will be called the Kilmarnock burghs, and will consist of Kilmarnock, Port Glasgow, and Renfrew, and the new burghs of Johnstone, Barrhead, and Pollockshaws. Their aggregate population is 53,133. These burghs are all, with the exception of Kilmarnock, in the county of Renfrew. Kilmarnock is in the county of Ayr. But it is impossible to put it in the Ayrshire group on account of its large and increasing population. The extreme distance between Kilmarnock and the other burghs, all of which are connected by railway, is under thirty miles. By that arrangement we add another Member to the Scotch burghs. There are some slight changes which we propose in existing groups. The Ayr burghs we propose to increase and strengthen by adding Ardrossan with a population of 7,674. This is the only alteration in the Ayr burghs. The Haddington burghs are weak in point of population, and the constituency requires to be considerably strengthened. It comprises two places, North Berwick and Dunbar, which have a population of little more than 1,100; and the whole population is not much more than 13,000. We add to them the town of Hawick, with a population of 8,191, and Galashiels with a population of 8,500. These are rising commercial towns, and ought certainly to enjoy a share in the representation. That will very much strengthen the Haddington burghs. They at present belong to the counties of Selkirk and Roxburgh. Hawick is distant from the returning burgh about as far as Jedburgh and Galashiels is nearer. In the Stirling district we have added the port of Alloa, with a population of 6,425, and within seven or eight miles of the returning burgh. The result is: We propose to give seven new Members to Scotland. Two to the Universities. One to Glasgow, which will be divided into North and South Glasgow. One to a new group of burghs. We propose to strengthen other groups of burghs by the addition of towns which have unquestionable claims to such a position, and to add three Members for the three chief counties of Scotland. I can hardly hope that every arrangement which we propose will pass unquestioned by the House, because for arrangements of this kind no such reception can be expected. All I can say is that if they can be improved by discussion, so much the better. Her Majesty's Government have no other object than to fulfil their promise of giving a full and fair representation to Scotland. They have given their best consideration to the subject. I hope, therefore, I am asking for leave to introduce a Bill which will meet with the favourable consideration of the House.

said, it would be premature to enter into any lengthened discussion of the topics brought before the House until they saw the Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now asked leave to introduce. But he would say a word on the subject of the borough and county franchise, and the re-distribution of seats. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman was rather embarrassed in explaining the provisions of the Bill. The other night he promised, and in the letter he had fulfilled his promise, that the new borough franchise for Scotland should be identical with that for England. But before you could produce identity by applying the same rule you must have the same subject to which to apply it. As the state of matters in Scotland was entirely different from that in England, the House would find what they would not have discovered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the effect in Scotland differed materially, and in some respects was entirely the reverse of that in England. Last year there was in some quarters a singular rage for statistics. No progress, it was declared, could be made without statistics, and the Government of that day were expected to inform the House minutely of the different classes of persons whom they expected to enfranchise. But the House had not a word of information as to the numbers who would be enfranchised under this Bill. They had been told that payment of rates was the discharge of a public duly, and that a man who paid rates was fitted for the franchise. He said nothing against that principle at present. But in the Reform Bill of 1832 there was a provision about the payment of rates in Scotland—namely, that no man should be enfranchised who had not paid his assessed taxes. There was no general rate at the time. Indeed, there was none now which might be made the standard. The assessed taxes were therefore chosen as the standard. This provision, however, gradually fell into utter disuse. In 1856, with the common consent of the Scotch Members and constituencies, it was abolished, and the qualifications was made rest upon the rental as it appeared upon the valuation roll. The payment of rates, the public function, which was henceforth to be the foundation of the franchise, stood in Scotland substantially in this way. The poor rate was considered the most to just. It was not universally adopted as the test, but it was generally. If they were to have the ratepaying element at all it was reasonable that the poor rate should be the standard. The poor rate was levied one-half from the landlord and one-half from the tenant. It was in the power of each parochial Board—a body corresponding to the Board of Guardians in England—to exempt any one they pleased on the score of poverty. In the Valuation Act there was a general provision that in the case of houses under £4, if they were not entered separately on the valuation roll by the valuation assessor, the landlord would be liable to pay the whole rate, he recovering from the tenant. Substantially, however—at all events, in the large towns in Scotland—it was not the practice to collect rates from the tenants of houses valued below £4. The landlord paid his own share, which was one-half, and as to the other half there was no collection at all. He had calculated the effect which the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce in Edinburgh, which might probably be fairly taken as a guide to the general working of the Bill. In Edinburgh there were upwards of 21,000 householders under £10. Of those, 15,739 were male occupiers. Deducting from this number householders under £4, and therefore not rated, of whom there were 4,452, deducting also paupers, defaulters, and those who were excused payment, 2,422, the total deductions being 6,874, you had an addition to the constituency under this Bill of 8,865. The £7 franchise in the Bill of last year would have admitted in Edinburgh 2,770. So that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to enfranchise three times the number which the Bill of last year would have let in. Far be it from him to express regret at this. But certainly this was a remarkable termination to the fifteen years' controversy which had gone on upon this subject. In 1852 Lord John Russell proposed a £5 rental franchise in Scotland. From that time to the present hon. Gentlemen opposite had been eloquent upon the dangers which would ensue from extending the franchise. The result now was that, whatever the Bill might do for England, they had come to the deliberate conclusion that in Scotland every man who paid his rates was entitled to the franchise, the result being to increase the number of voters three times beyond that by which they were so terrified last year. It was not important to taunt hon. Gentlemen with their previous opinions—first, because it was so easy that it was worth nobody's while to do it; and secondly, because he was not disposed to taunt them for coming to a sound and practical conclusion. For years the Liberal party had been entreating the present Government and their followers to put faith in the people. They were now showing their opinion that the people might be trusted. He did not taunt them with this. But when some of them boasted that the Government Bill would not enfranchise in England the numbers that would have been enfranchised by the Bill of last year, it was well to contrast the different treatment of householders in England and in Scotland, and to remind hon. Gentlemen, also, of their opposition to former proposals for increasing the franchise. He remembered a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1865 which struck him very much, and which made a great noise in the country. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman then were very different from those which they had just heard. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the Bill of 1859, said—

"All that has occurred—all that I have observed—and all the results of my reflections, lead me to this more and more, that the principle upon which the constituencies of this country should be increased is one not of Radical, but I would say of lateral reform—the extension of the suffrage, not its degradation."—[3 Hansard, clxxviii. 1702.]

Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that though the Government of Lord Derby had agreed to a lowering of the £10 franchise, his present opinion was opposed to any course of that kind. Yet, with respect to Scotland, they had come to this in substance—namely, not a £7, but a £4 rental, because every man above £4 was personally rated, and therefore would be admitted to the franchise. Though he was unfashionable enough to prefer a Bill like that of last year to a measure for household suffrage or a £4 rental, he was not afraid of "government by numbers," or any of those platitudes which hon. Gentlemen opposite had indulged in so much last year, but which had now been buried so as never to be likely to be raised again. He had always thought that the amount of the franchise was a matter of detail. He had no fear of intrusting to the people such an amount of political power as would enable them to decide who should represent them in Parliament. Although the proposals of the Government went far beyond anything ever proposed in that House in the way of enfranchisement, he did not see why it should not work for the benefit of the country. As far as the abstract proposition was concerned, he had no reason to oppose it. But he could not quit this subject without one word, and it was this:—The circumstances under which an extension of the suffrage might be dangerous were that those who had hitherto strenuously opposed it were now found to be its strongest supporters. It was dangerous, first, for this reason, that it encouraged those who had by agitation obtained this concession. It encouraged the most light, the most volatile, and those who were least to be relied upon, to believe that they had only to repeat the same means in other instances to secure the same result. It was dangerous, also, because it lowered the influence which the great Conservative party ought to have. [Laughter.] He repeated that the probable effect of this measure coming from the other side—though he did not deny there were some practical advantages in its so coming—was to limit the proper and legitimate influence of the Conservative party. It cast loose many of the political sympathies by which political combinations were bound together, and would probably raise questions which would otherwise have slumbered. He would, however, make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. He would strongly urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no fitting basis for the Scotch franchise could be found in the personal payment of rates. It was really equivalent to household suffrage with a £4 limit. If this was the object of the Government, it ought to be accomplished in a straightforward manner, and in such a manner that the present simple system of registration might be preserved. Let the parochial Board send in an annual return of those who were not rated, or who had not paid their rates, to the assessors, who would then be able upon their information to make out the electoral roll, and there would be no necessity for the machinery now proposed. He had only a word to add. When the right hon. Gentleman asked that the vote of the other night should be final, when he complained that there were those who were not altogether inclined to follow that course, he begged to say that he would take every opportunity afforded him by those who understood the question better than himself to try that the same justice should be meted out to England as to Scotland. When they saw the Bill of the Government with respect to Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman would be obliged to explain why every man who honestly paid his rates there should have a vote, while those who paid them in England, but paid them in a different way, should not. Before proceeding further, he wished to express his gratification at the representation which, it was proposed, should be given to the Universities. It was only right, if credit was to be claimed at all, to say that it was to a Liberal Government that the Universities were indebted for the removal of the tests, as without their removal not a single step could be taken in the direction of Reform. With respect to the county franchise, he trusted that some provisions in regard to residence would be enforced, in order to prevent that manufacture of faggot votes which had so long disgraced Scotland. With the same object, he thought that as a test of genuine occupancy the erection of some building on the land ought to be made a necessary condition. The proposals respecting the re-distribution of seats he would not then touch upon. The idea had crossed his mind that Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, and Roxburghshire would be considerably affected. He thought, on the whole, that Lanarkshire had been well selected. The consideration of those points would, however, come more properly on a future occasion. He was sure that the objects of the Bill would receive the fair and candid consideration of the House.

said, that it was not to be expected that in a matter of such importance no objection should be taken by Gentlemen on the other side to a measure introduced on that side of the House. It was only to be expected that different opinions might be held on some of the fundamental principles on which the measure was based. The Government, however, had no reason to be displeased with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, which dealt more with omissions than with anything that had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, he would answer one of the criticisms of his right hon. Friend opposite by saying that the principle of the Bill did not involve matters of statistics as to the number of voters to be enfranchised. The scale of enfranchisement had not been either restricted or enlarged by regard to numbers. The Bill was based upon a wholly different principle—namely, that those who fulfilled public duties should be admitted to the franchise. The reason why so much discussion took place as to the numbers to be enfranchised by the Bill of the late Government was that that Bill had been avowedly introduced upon the principle of numbers. Both in 1860 and in 1865 a claim was made upon the favour of the House on account of the smallness of the numbers to be added. When the late Government introduced their Bill upon that principle it was not surprising that the House of Commons should have entered into a critical examination of the figures; and, when found illusory or incomplete, that they should have asked for some explanation. The hon. Gentleman had said that the payment of rates could afford no foundation for the Scotch franchise. But it was not only a possible but a very excellent basis. In the majority of parishes in Scotland the tenants paid the whole rate and deducted half of it from the landlord's rent. Thus the personal payment of rates was a principle already in force in Scotland. His hon. and learned Friend had given an estimate of the number of those whom he believed would be enfranchised by this measure in Edinburgh. But he understood that in the city and parish of Edinburgh no one renting a house below £5 was rated to the relief of the poor. So that no fair estimate of the number to be enfranchised could be gathered from the number of houses rented at and above £4. Houses rented at £4 were, it was true, rated to the relief of the poor in the other, the West Church parish. But there was a wide difference between a £4 rating and a £4 rental. In any case, the numbers would not be so extensive as his hon. and learned Friend appeared to anticipate, though, to do him justice, his hon. and learned Friend appeared to entertain but little apprehension about the admission of fresh voters to the franchise. The numbers would not be overpowering. The increase to the borough constituencies would scarcely exceed 100 per cent. His hon. and learned Friend had in some manner congratulated Her Majesty's Government upon the trust of the people which they had exhibited in their proposals for the extension of the franchise. But to a charge of not trusting the people, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Conservative party had ever, in his opinion, exposed themselves. In 1859 a Conservative Government proposed a large addition to the constituency of the country. That fact in itself ought to free the Conservative party from any such imputation. He could not, at all events, see anything inconsistent in a measure so liberal as the one now before the House being introduced by the Conservative party. Because one party had inscribed "Reform" on its banner he could not understand why that party should monopolize the attempts to admit at the proper time a number of our fellow citizens, well qualified to exercise the trust, to the franchise—an object in which all well-wishers to their country should be willing to co-operate. Because they had objected to attempts to deal with this question when those attempts held forth no prospect of arriving at a settlement, that was not, as far as he could see, any reason why they should be debarred from introducing a measure based, as they believed, upon more satisfactory and lasting principles. On the contrary, now that there was a probability of this question being carried to a happy solution, he thought that it was greatly to the advantage of the country that its management had been intrusted to those who could call to their assistance moderate men of all parties. He would add but one word. By the system of grouping and distribution adopted in this Bill—a system upon which his hon. and learned Friend had not largely entered, but to which he referred with some amount of deprecation—he thought that many of the irregularities and inconsistencies of the Reform Bill of 1832 had been remedied. On the whole question, believing as he did that the majority of his countrymen were by their education and intelligence fully qualified to possess the franchise, and that the residences in Scotland, as a rule, were inhabited by men in a better social position than were those of a similar rental in England, he trusted that the measure was one which would recommend itself to those who desired to effect an improvement in the representation of their country.

said, that as a humble supporter of the measure of last Session, he rejoiced in being able to support the measure which had been introduced, and which gave a far greater extension of the franchise than that proposed by the former Bill, as far as Scotland was concerned. He wished to know was there to be any alteration as to the practice with regard to assessment in cases of owners above £4; and whether facilities were to be given to occupiers below that line to come upon the electoral roll. He had been all his life a strong advocate for a wide extension of the franchise to the people of this country; but he felt it would be bad policy on the part of the Government to extend the franchise in Scotland below the £4 line. Without any fear of being taunted for treating the matter from a Conservative point of view, he approved of what the Government had offered. He thought if their friends in England had an opportunity of seeing how well the franchise worked in Scotland they would not rest satisfied with the proposal of the Government, but never stop until they had obtained for England that measure of justice which the Government were willing to give to Scotland. It was said there was no bribery in Scotland and he was glad to hear it, but they had a system of creating faggot votes in the counties which was extremely discreditable, and which the Government had now a fair opportunity of remedying. With regard to the re-distribution of seats, he must say he had never advocated that Scotland ought to have so many Members as some said she ought to have. He knew the difficulties with which any Government would have to contend with from both sides of the House in regard to any scheme of re-distribution. He therefore did not feel disposed to object when the Government only gave them seven additional Members, because that was the proposal of last year. Under all the circumstances, it was not to be expected that the Government would give them more. But he was satisfied that the boroughs, which were increasing in such a remarkable manner, would be excessively dissatisfied when they found that they were to get only two more additional Members. The wealth of Scotland had of late increased far more in the boroughs than the counties. He questioned very much whether there were any towns in the world that had increased so much in wealth and general prosperity as some of the large towns in Scotland during the last fifty years. Take the town of Dundee. The increase of wealth and population in that borough was greater than in any in the United Kingdom, he believed. It had 100,000 inhabitants, and yet it had only one Member. He was therefore satisfied that the people of Dundee would complain, and with very great reason when a measure like this was introduced, that their claims were entirely overlooked. Although attached to the system of representation by counties and boroughs, and not desiring to see it materially altered, he did not wish to draw too hard and fast a line between towns and counties. Some of the counties in Scotland were very small, and he could see no reason why the electors of Selkirkshire should not be joined to the electors of Peeblesshire. On the question of the borough franchise, if they were to understand that it was to be a £4 rental, he believed it would give general satisfaction in Scotland.

, reserving to himself full liberty to take any necessary objections on future stages of the Bill, thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done for Scotch Universities; his offer was the most liberal that had ever been made in this respect. He also thanked him for the proposal made with regard to the burgh franchise in Scotland, which would give something like finality for the rest of the century—those thirty-three years which had been described as "a political eternity." But he asked whether the strange position of the House had not been made more strange by the Scotch Bill? Whether the leaders of his side of the House were or were not right in their views as to the immediate results of the English Bill, no reasonable man could doubt that in a very few years, if not in very few months, we should have virtually the same franchise from Land's End to John O'Groat's, and that franchise would be a lower one than any politician dreamt of a year ago. Who, when Lord Russell came in, and set about spending his fine majority like a gentleman, dreamt that we were coming to what we had? Neither he who wished nor he who feared to advance in a democratic direction had dreamt it. The truth was events had been too strong for men. The House had not mastered them. They had mastered the House. It was more easy to describe what had happened than to explain it. They had been carried along by the stream of tendency. The spirit of the times was using them as his instrument and working through them; but, when all was said and done, what a spectacle was presented, what a shipwreck of reputations, what a comedy of errors! He spoke from the point of view of one who neither wished for household suffrage nor deprecated it—from the point of view of one who believed and always had believed, that far too much was made of the question of the franchise, both by those who had urged and by those who had resisted its extension. He was firmly persuaded that although an extended franchise was a political necessity, and would do good partly by introducing into the House a certain number of persons who spoke more directly the opinion of the working classes than was done by any at present in the House, and partly because the troubling of the waters now going on could not fail to give an impulse to Liberal views; he was firmly persuaded that, after the great cataclysm that had been predicted, things would look very much as they did now, and that feeling was, he suspected, shared by many in the Liberal camp. But what could be the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite and of some on his side? Either the denunciations of democracy, so often heard of late, were wild rhapsodies, or those who uttered them must now be in a position which reminded him of a certain grim old German picture, in which a crowd of princes and prelates, knights and ladies, were gaily approaching a portal which appeared to lead to Abraham's bosom, but which an inscription at the bottom informed the spectator led really to quite another place. "The irony of the situation" had been recently spoken of, but surely the situation was ironical in another and not in a party sense. How many people were there in the House of Commons who really, ex animo, desired to go beyond the £6 rental burgh franchise of the hon. Member for Leeds and of Lord Palmerston's Bill? He was sure at this moment the majority of the House were conjugating to themselves, "I don't want, thou dost not want, he does not want, we do not want, you do not want, they do not want, to do so." And yet who did not see that the old £6 limit was "gone, frozen, dead for ever?" The Fates and the Destinies, at whom he scoffed, had beaten the right hon. Member for Calne. The irony was Sophoclean; the Bishop of St. David's should add a new illustrative page to his memorable essay. But what was the moral of the whole affair? If events had become too strong for them, and they were being hurried beyond what most of them desired, it behoved them to come to some agreement upon the question with all speed, for no one could watch what was passing in the country, or read the newspapers, without coming to the conclusion that, if the question of Reform were kept open much longer, the hon. Member for Birmingham would be in the position of a Girondin. Any one who had ears to heal, must heal from time to time now, in the press, a sharp querulous note, quite different from, and far more ominous of evil and danger, than what he might call the brave, hearty, English bellow of the hon. Member for Birmingham, with whom many Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House agreed in ninety-nine cases out of 100, and who really ought not, when he went down to his burgh, to abuse his best friends so loudly, if once in a way they chose to call their souls their own.

said, he congratulated the Government upon the production of a Bill which appeared to give satisfaction to both sides of the House. Whatever might have been his idea with regard to the reduction of the franchise in England, Scotland, in his opinion, had always occupied a different position, owing to the extent to which education was carried among the lower classes in that country. Statistics, he believed, would also establish satisfactorily that in Scotch elections hardly any of those immoral and corrupt practices were brought to bear which prevailed extensively in England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moncreiff) had attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he conceived to be an inconsistency in his Bills. But in Scotland personal liability to the payment of rates existed, so that the principle in England and in Scotland would be identical. He hoped the House would not object to the proposed addition of seven Members to the Scotch representation. In fact, if the fail proportions were observed, he believed they would have a right to twenty-two. At the present moment each of the fifty-three Scotch Members represented an average population of 59,000, whereas the 500 English Members only represented a population of 35,000 each. If they took wealth, population, or education, as the test, Scotland was entitled to an addition of twenty-two Members. Still he supposed they must rest satisfied with the proposal of the Government, which at all events would do one great act of justice, in giving real county representation. Where the large centres of manufacturing industry had grown up in the South of Scotland since the Reform Bill, they voted for the burghs, and there was therefore very little county representation at all. He thanked the Government for having introduced a Bill which would give universal satisfaction.

said, he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in stating that there were no compound-householders in Scotland. All houses under £4 rental were by law compound-rouses. Every occupier was liable to be rated, and those who imposed the assessment could not resolve that all occupants under a certain rental should be relieved of the payment—it could only be done individually, There were a number of houses under £4, the occupiers of which did not at present find their way on to the electoral roll. Under this Bill they would be capable of being placed upon it, and, belonging necessarily to the class most liable to undue influence, he feared that the result would be to introduce into Scotch constituencies those elements of corruption from which hitherto they had happily been free. He looked accordingly with unqualified distrust upon that part of the Bill, of which, in other respects, he approved.

said, that having been absent from accidental circumstances when the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made, he had gathered but imperfectly the details of the Government proposal. He felt bound, however, to take the earliest opportunity of entering his dissent from those proposals, as far as he understood them, believing that they would be received with great dissatisfaction and disappointment, if not with indignation. His constituents had especial reason to complain that the claims arising to increased representation on the score of their increased and rapidly increasing population had been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. The town of Dundee was a rapidly thriving place, and had 120,000 inhabitants. He therefore considered that it was entitled to more consideration than it had received.

said, that as regarded the question of the borough franchise, he was disposed frankly to accept the proposal of the Government. When the English borough franchise was brought under consideration he was more favourable on the whole to the £5 plan than to that of household suffrage with personal rating. He voted to that effect in the division that took place before Easter, but with considerable hesitation, because he felt that household suffrage coupled with personal rating was infinitely preferable in theory. He thought the former plan more likely to work well in England, because he was somewhat afraid of that which had been called the residuum in some of the large towns where education had not reached that standard which would make it safe to give the franchise to all householders without exception. The House having expressed, by a clear and decisive majority, its approval of household suffrage coupled with personal rating, he thought it his duty to acquiesce in the decision and endeavour to make the best of it, rather than to attempt, by successive divisions, to reverse it. But whatever difficulty he might have felt in that respect as regarded England, he felt none as regarded Scotland. The standard of education there was such that largely as this Bill would increase the constituencies, it would not increase them to a degree that would be dangerous. The residuum of which there had been so much fear in England did not exist at all in many of the Scotch boroughs, and in many of the large towns it did not reach any great magnitude. As regarded the county franchise, some consideration was due to the question whether it ought not to be somewhat lower in Scotland than in England, especially if the property franchise were to be retained at the same figure as at present. In that case in Scotland they could not obtain the 40s. franchise which existed in England, and which had given to the English counties a large body of independent freeholders. But he could not see why the rule applicable to England should not apply to Scotland, and he trusted that point would be considered before the measure were allowed to pass. He thought, further, that it was desirable to introduce some provision to guard against the manufacture of paper votes. This had notoriously taken place in many of the smaller counties in Scotland, to an extent which had gone far to overbear and swamp the independent and legitimate representation of the counties. As to the re-distribution of seats, he was sure that all the Scotch Members would feel grateful to the Government for their proposal to give two new Members to the Universities. Considering the claims of other portions of the Empire, Scotland could hardly expect to have meted out to her what she would be entitled to with regard to the statistical computation of rental and population. But he did not think it good policy to keep up distinctions between Scotland and England in matters of this kind. Scotland and England were one country in all but their historical associations. It would be unfair to the former not to admit her claim to the enfranchisement of Dundee and Aberdeen, which if situated in England would unquestionably be deemed entitled to two Members each in any new scheme of representation. These were the only two towns in Scotland not included in the scheme of the Government which possessed paramount claims to increased representation. As the addition proposed by the Government to the representation of Scotland was to be made by an addition to the total number of Members in that House, the doing justice to Aberdeen and Dundee would be only a small matter if it was effected in that way. It would be better to give those towns an additional Member each, even if the Government had to abandon the grouping of those isolated boroughs of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken. Certain towns might be grouped. In the case of such counties as Peeblesshire and Selkirkshire, which had respectively unenfranchised populations, one of 10,000 and the other of 11,000, it would be a most glaring anomaly to take out their principal towns and add them to a group somewhere else. It would be far better to give additional county Members by grouping these two small counties.

said, that he recommended hon. Members to suspend their judgment upon the measure until they had seen and more narrowly scrutinized the proposals which the Government submitted to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had developed in his proposals the scheme laid before the House last year, when he threw out as a suggestion the mode of manipulating the counties in England, by picking the large towns out of the county representation, and placing that representation and the borough representation in antagonism, so that they might be separately represented. That was much condemned at the time, and every one thought they had heard the last of it. The scheme, if carried out, would make the representation too much in the nature of a class representation. The right hon. Gentleman was ungracious enough to take away the only considerable town in the county of Selkirk, but that could not be done without raising the question whether it would not become necessary to double up several of the small counties. Another point worth consideration was, that the Liberal party in Scotch counties had to fight their battles without the aid which arose in England from the freehold votes in the counties. If they cut away the towns from the counties they would sever from the counties those freeholders who constituted in Scotland, as in England, the strength of the county representation. Another proposal was to divide some of the large and most populous counties into two, and that was unquestionably a very large and important proposition. If Her Majesty's Government proceeded in that direction he should follow them, for he considered that the large overgrown counties might well be divided. But if that principle were to be carried out why was it limited to three particular counties in Scotland? With regard to the question of compound-householders, he would remind the House of the nature of the law with regard to Poor Law rating in Scotland. The local Boards in that country possessed a general power of exempting not merely individuals, but whole classes, and under the operation of that power Poor Law Boards had exempted, in some cases, all below £4; in other cases all below £5; in other cases all below £10, and in one case below £30. Unless there was to be some change in that law, he deprecated giving to the local Boards elected for the purpose of administering the Poor Law, a power which might be used for political purposes. The power they exercised at present was far more dangerous than that which was placed in the hands of the vestries in England.

said, he did not wish to protract the discussion, neither did he desire that it should be supposed, from his silence, that he was an assenting party to the proposal before the House. The House would do well to examine more closely into the operation of that proposal. He could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew a great deal about a great many things—more, perhaps, than most others in the House—did not know a great deal about Scotland. Indeed, he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would pretend to know much about that country, and his judgment had no doubt been influenced by some person who was better acquainted with the subject than himself, who had, perhaps, influenced his judgment in a way which, if he had had more acquaintance with the subject, he would not have permitted. The right hon. Gentleman's principle—if principle it might be called—of dealing with the re-distribution of seats was simply to extract from the counties all the urban population, so that every town in Scotland above 6,000 inhabitants would be manufactured into a borough and turned into a group, and the counties would then be purely rural. The whole of the urban electors in the different counties were to be turned into the boroughs to relieve the landed interest of the urban votes. He thought the House would not be prepared to support such a proposition. The group which he had the honour to represent was one of those which would be affected by it. Kilmarnock, a thriving manufacturing town of about 25,000 inhabitants, was now united to a number of boroughs with which it had no connection except a political one. The marriage however, was not, in these days of railways, inconvenient. Nevertheless, it was proposed to dissolve the existing tie between them, and to unite Kilmarnock to other boroughs with which it had no interests, not even political interests, in common. He was unable to understand what public object was to be gained by such an arrangement. But it was a less important matter than the question of the county votes. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring down the county occupation franchise to £15; but if the proposal were to be accompanied by a total absence of restrictions with regard to residence and building on that occupation—as was the case in the Bill of last year, very much to the distaste of many hon. Gentlemen—no improvement would be effected in the county representation of Scotland. He trusted both sides of the House would insist that the proprietary franchise in Scotland should be lowered to something about the figure at which it now rested in England. A £10 annual value was required in Scotland, while in England only 40s. a year was required. Why should there be any distinction in this respect between the two countries? He hoped it would not be taken for granted that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily, and as a matter of course, be accepted by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated where the proposed additional seats were to come from; and he wished, therefore, to ask him whether English seats would be taken from boroughs which it had not yet been proposed to deal with, or whether it was intended that there should be an additional number of seats in the House?

said, he thought the proposed borough franchise would work exceedingly well in Scotland, and he accepted it with all his heart. He agreed with what had been stated by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) that the effect of a £4 rental franchise in Scotland would hardly be to double the constituencies; but even if they were doubled, he was quite satisfied that it would be a good, sound, and honest franchise. With regard to the line below £4, and the proposed alteration in the Poor Law assessment, he suspected that there had been some misunderstanding. In some parishes there were very few ratepayers, and they did things by rule of thumb in some instances; but the rule in Scotland, under the Lands Valuation Acts, was that the public valuator only was bound to return the houses assessed at £4 and upwards; and although the authorities might order a special survey to be made, and a special list to be prepared of those under that limit, still the expense of making the special survey and the trouble connected therewith were so great that it did not pay; and in point of fact the authorities had nearly given up trying to make it answer. The result was that in the large boroughs they did not levy upon houses under £4; but in smaller boroughs, where rents were very low, they did levy under £4. And he would remind the House that those living in houses under £4 in small boroughs were not necessarily less reputable persons than those living in houses above £4 in large towns. And even in large towns there were differences. A house which would let for £3 a year in Paisley would let in Greenock, which was in the same county, and which was only a few miles off, for £5 or £6. Every one knew, however, that there was a class of improvident people in large towns who lived in miserable hovels, to whom it was not very desirable to give the franchise. As regarded the English Bill, the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) had given notice of an Amendment that no occupancy in England should be held to be a "house" within the meaning of the Act unless it contained at least two apartments. He (Mr. M'Laren) had given notice in regard to houses below £4 rent in Scotland that they should not be considered "houses" unless they also had two apartments with a window and fireplace in each. He thought that principle, if adopted, would work well. It would admit a large number of the working classes in burghs where rents were low, and in which such houses could be got for £3 and even less, in all respects equal to houses at from £4 to £6 in large towns. As to the county franchise, if that was to be £14, he thought it would be most objectionable; for it could not be considered except with reference to what was proposed to be done respecting the small towns in the counties. There were probably 100 towns in England with populations above 6,000 inhabitants, but no one had proposed to take and unite them with boroughs in the neighbourhood or out of their own county. Why, then, was one law to be applied to England and another to Scotland? Why were the towns of 6,000 population in Scotland to be carefully weeded out of the counties? The consequence would be that the counties would become purely agricultural preserves, and that the occupants of houses in the transferred towns, which now have some influence on the county representation, would then have none whatever, If the Government took all the occupants of houses of £14, who would make admirable voters for counties, out of these counties, and made them portions of boroughs ten, fifteen, or twenty miles distant, what would they get by their new county franchise of £14? They would only get a wretched class of small cotter fanners—men who in the Highlands are called crofters—a class of men analogous to the 40s. freeholders of Ireland, who were abolished by Parliament many years ago. In this way they would deteriorate the franchise, and such a Reform Bill would be a reactionary measure. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked about the Scotch Reform Bill, a few nights ago, he answered that it would be the same as the English Reform Bill. He (Mr. M'Laren) wished to know why this had not been done, and why Scotland should not have a county franchise the same as England. In the Reform Bills that had before been proposed for Scotland there had been a reduction proposed of the property qualification. One of them proposed to reduce it to £5, and another to £6. But these limits did not satisfy the people of Scotland. An agitation was commenced to obtain the 40s. freehold franchise the same as in England, because such a measure would be just in itself, and because it would introduce a class of voters who were both the owners and occupiers of the houses, and who were the very cream of the working classes. A technical difficulty about freeholds was thrown in their way, though a bonâ fide freeholder was just as well understood in Scotland as in England. In Scotland a freeholder technically meant one who enjoyed a charter direct from the Crown; but there were abundance of properties in Scotland held otherwise than by Royal Charters, which would give freehold votes in England. He need not explain to hon. Members what a freeholder meant in England. For these reasons he thought the county franchise was exceedingly objectionable, as were all the arrangements respecting counties. He would give an example. The county of Dumbarton had been referred to. The thriving watering place of Helensburgh was within the county, and so was the considerable manufacturing town of Kirkintilloch, containing a population above 6,000. If any one would look at the poll books for the last election, he would find that the Liberal candidate had a large majority in the districts which included these towns. Any one who could reason logically would see that to take these towns out of the county of Dumbarton would change the state of politics in that county. With respect to the county of Renfrew, it would be found that if the towns of Pollockshaws, Johnstone, Lockwinnoch, and Barrhead were taken out of the county, the same results would be produced. He did not ascribe motives—he called attention to the facts. He contended this was not a fair or impartial arrangement, and that it was calculated to have a reactionary influence. He objected to the Bill for another reason. Scotch burghs were already clustered together in groups of five, six, or seven, to an unreasonable extent. Instead of breaking up those clusters, and giving separate Members to the larger burghs, they took the large towns out of the counties and added them to the clusters without adding to the number of Members. The right hon. Gentleman said that he took Hawick and Galashiels by way of strengthening the Haddington burghs, thus increasing the population to about 24,000. The Haddington group already consisted of five burghs, the inhabitants of which amounted to 13,000. Why should they strengthen Haddington, which had only one Member, while many boroughs in England, with a population of 10,000, had two Members? Why should not Haddington be left alone? The reason was that by taking Hawick and Galashiels out of the counties they would strengthen the power of the landlords. It would be observed that they did not by this proceeding add to the power of the town Members in the House, because Haddington returned one Member now, and it would only return one Member then. So much for the manipulation of the counties. He could not catch the names of all the places that had been mentioned. The House had reason to complain that no Paper had been laid upon the table showing the population of the various towns which were to be taken out of the counties, or of the groups of boroughs as they stood at present, and as they would stand under the proposed arrangement. The counties were to have three additional Members, though they had not grown in population nearly so much as the boroughs, which were only to have one additional Member, for he did not include the University representation. If they went back to former times they would find that at the period of the Union, when Scotland had a Parliament of its own, and the people might be supposed to be qualified to manage their own affairs, the counties had thirty-eight Members and the boroughs forty-three. When the Union took place, forty-five Members were allotted to Scotland—more than the population or wealth of the country at that time could claim, and it was left to the Scotch Parliament to determine how these were to be distributed. The grandees who then sold their country [A laugh.]—why the price they received was on record—having the power to do as they liked, gave thirty Members to the counties and only fifteen to the boroughs. That was the way in which the burghs were robbed. By the Reform Bill of 1832 that injustice was in part redressed, and eight Members were added to the boroughs without one being added to the counties. By the present Bill three Members were to be added to the counties, and only one to Glasgow, and one to a new group of burghs, though everyone knew that the increase in the counties of Scotland was much smaller than in the towns. The counties had increased only 65,000 in the last ten years, while the boroughs had increased 107,000 in the same time. In the large county of Perth the population had diminished by 7,000, because the people were driven away to make room for deer forests. The same thing was taking place in other districts; and the increase in the counties was in the small towns which had sprung up during the last ten years—not in the agricultural population—and to take them out of the county constituencies was, practically, to increase the representation of the counties and the power of the landowners. The Bill, in respect of distribution of seats, was therefore unjust and ought to be resisted. Then, if the boroughs were to be put into groups why should not the counties be so also? The two principal towns of Selkirk and Peebles were royal burghs, and had been left in the counties to make up their several populations of 11,000 and 10,000. These two small counties ought to be united. Why should not these counties, which had between them a population of only 21,000, be united? If they went further North they would find the county of Sutherland with only 181 voters, and three-fourths of the property in the hands of one landowner. Why should not that county be united with another? The Bill, apart from its borough franchise, was bad in its leading principles, and from not dealing justly with Scotland, and was a reactionary measure which ought to be resisted.

As yet we have not obtained a word of information from any authoritative source upon a question which is of great interest to the three Kingdoms—namely, in what manner the additional seats proposed to be bestowed upon Scotland are to be obtained. The Government have presented a Bill which disposes of the whole of the seats in England. Not one English seat is left disposable for the wants of Scotland. The increase of the numbers of this House is a question of great general importance. It is a practical question not to say a Constitutional question, and it is hardly possible to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could contemplate an augmentation of the numbers of the House without having stated it to the House as a political proposition of great breadth and weight. I remember a speech of the right hon. Gentleman—I have not referred back to it today, but it was made in 1852—when there were four vacant seats. The Government were then about to dissolve Parliament, and there was an understanding that no questions would be introduced except such as were of a necessary or urgent character. The right hon. Gentleman then defended the introduction of a Bill for the disposal of those four seats upon the plea not that this House consisted of too few Members, but that it was necessary to raise the House to the Constitutional number of 658. If the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much value to that principle, it confirms my belief that if he had intended to increase the numbers he would have stated his intention to the House with the significance the proposal would deserve. We seem, therefore, to be driven to this only other alternative, that he must mean to take away from Ireland the seven new Members for Scotland. That is the only part of the representation yet undealt with by the proposals of the Government. If he really intends to do anything so cruel, I trust he will not succeed. But, then, I should like to know whether an addition is to be made to the numbers of this House. That is a question upon which I give no opinion whatever except that it is a matter so important that we are entitled to expect that it shall be submitted to the notice of the House in a manner enabling us to pronounce a fair and impartial judgment upon it, so that, having a fixed number of seats to give, we may be able to give them according to the relative claims of each part of the United Kingdom. As far as the provisions of this Bill extend, I have no doubt that they will undergo a thorough investigation. I shall not now refer to the question of the county franchise or the re-distribution of seats further than to say that I think there is great force in what has been said by my hon. Friends and by other hon. Members relating to these subjects. With respect to the borough franchise it is necessary I should say a few words. These few words need not be the same as it has been my duty to use, and may be again, with respect to the extraordinary proposals which have been made for England, and which I must frankly admit the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to consider after what passed in the House the other night as in the main adopted by the House. I speak, therefore, in the character of one of the minority, and I will say a word as to the expectation which the right hon. Gentleman has now held out, and the concessions he is disposed to make. As to the Government proposal for the Scotch borough franchise, I must distinguish between the principal part and a portion of the proposal, which I cannot help hoping will be found only subsidiary and admitting of a remedy. The principal part of the proposal—I mean the plan of the Government with regard to householders below £10—gives within the boroughs of Scotland a large and liberal enfranchisement, without any odious and offensive distinction between man and man. That is a proposal which testifies to me the great progress that has been made upon the question of Reform in the mind, I do not say of the Government or of a particular party—it is quite unnecessary to go back into such matters—but in the mind of Parliament and the country. I cannot help fearing, however, that when we descend to the lower part of the scale in Scotland as in England—though the lower part of the scale there has a different relative importance—we get upon difficult and dangerous ground. I do not understand what answer is to be made to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dunlop). At present our information is imperfect as to the state of the law and as to the practice in Scotland. But here is a point which may deserve some attention. Whether from policy or from what he feels to be due to the consistency of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman is determined to avoid introducing into the Scotch borough franchise what he calls "the hard line." I have never been able to understand the intensity of the right hon. Gentleman's hostility to "the hard line;" because, although he has undoubtedly constructed a plan for the franchise in England and now one for Scotland, in which no such line is drawn, yet, after all, if the principle of a line be so indefensible in the case of the occupying householder, how are we to defend the principle of a line in the case of an occupying lodger, and how are we to defend the principle of a line in the case of the county voter? I do not deny that there is an advantage in getting rid of a line; but will the right hon. Gentleman be able to get rid of it even in Scotland? I join with him in the hope that this question of the borough franchise will be discussed without any infusion of party spirit. The concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman to popular principles in the changes he proposes are so ample that it would be most unjust to except to them on the ground of quantity and extent. Still, it is necessary to see what their working will be, and here is one particular point. Under the Valuation Act in all cases where any lands or hereditaments are under £4 a year, and the names thereof are not inserted in the valuation roll, the proprietor of these lands and hereditaments is to be charged with and pay the assessment upon them. When charged with and paying such assessment, he is to have relief against the tenants and the occupiers. This is not a compulsory exactment; but it is an enactment which is in general operation. With regard to these lands and hereditaments under £4 the proprietor is the sole person chargeable. He is not chargeable upon a reduced rate. He is chargeable upon precisely the same amount as the tenant would be if he were charged. Inasmuch, therefore, as the proprietor can do it without the cost of one shilling to himself, will he not have every inducement to pay the assessment, not in his own name, but in the name of his tenant, and in that way to make voters of the whole of these tenants under £4, and, of course, to use his influence over them? That appears to me to be a serious matter, and I do not think it is a desirable relation to create between landlord and tenant. Then, again, the 42nd clause of the Scotch Poor Law Act makes it lawful for the parochial Board of any parish or combination to exempt from payment of the assessment or any part thereof, to such an extent as may seem proper and reasonable, any person or class of persons on the ground of their inability to pay. The right hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to avoid the hard line, places himself in this difficulty—that it depends upon the parochial Board to determine to what point the franchise shall descend. I do not think that is a satisfactory state of things. There is much in the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter). I do not say that the opinion he has given is one which ought to be adopted; but I think we ought to consider whether it would not be desirable to make the line of £4 absolute so far as the borough franchise is concerned. If that is a conclusion adapted to the circumstances of Scotland, it would not be fair to Scotland to deprive her of a beneficial arrangement from the fear of some conclusions that may be drawn therefrom unfavourable to certain arrangements proposed for England. I hope that these matters will be considered, and that they will be considered as plain questions of business, it being fully admitted, I think, on this side of the House by all those who have spoken upon the subject that the spirit of the proposals of the Government respecting the burgh franchise in Scotland is such as we cannot but commend. But the right hon. Gentleman, along with a flattering allusion to myself which was far more than I expected or deserve, was pleased to allude to the difficulties which beset him and his Colleagues in treating of Reform. Alluding to speeches make out of this House, he said there had appeared in London since last the House discussed this question a regiment or a body of persons whom he described as incendiaries. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Obsolete incendiaries!] I should be rather inclined to take critical exception to the phrase "obsolete" incendiaries. I presume it means worn-out or superannuated incendiaries, though that does not make the phrase more complimentary. The right hon. Gentleman spoke also of "spouters of sedition." [An hon. MEMBER: Stale sedition.] Yes, "stale sedition." Now, I do not know that I have made myself amenable to a charge of this kind. If so, I hope my conduct will be fairly challenged in this House. But as I have heard some of the speeches to which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman refers, I wish to make a few remarks on that subject. In the first place, I question the prudence of denunciations of this vague and general kind by officers of the Crown and by leaders of the House of Commons, couched in terms which it is easy for anybody to use against the most temperate expressions, upon the most reasonable subjects—terms which cannot be brought to any distinct test, and which the right hon. Gentleman does not at the time illustrate by informing us what are the particular statements and who are the persons that he thinks fit thus to characterize. I must say that the language of the right hon. Gentleman brought to my mind in a manner more than usually vivid the reflection that when authority comes into the field for the purpose either of forbidding or denouncing, unless it can carry its denunciations or prohibitions to some positive issue, it inevitably loses credit or power. If there have been "spouters of sedition" in London or elsewhere dwelling among us, who have received countenance from Members of this House, it is highly desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should call those persons to account before the proper tribunals, in order that if guilty they may be visited with adequate punishment; and if not guilty, that the levity of attacks of this kind may be apprehended by the public. As respects the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has had to encounter, they have arisen from the nature of the subject. There have been at issue, with regard to the constitution of the borough franchise in England, principles of great breadth and depth. The argument urged on behalf of the franchise proposed by the Government has been of very high pretensions. It has aimed at founding itself upon the fulfilment of public duties and the revival of old Constitutional principles. The objections taken to it, on the other hand, are not of a character to be settled by an adverse vote in this House. They rest on this—that, in the belief of those opposed to this franchise, the distinctions between those who are personally rated and those who are not is unjust, offensive, impolitic, and adverse to the fixed and general convictions of the country. The right hon. Gentleman will easily draw a distinction between convictions of a less binding character, and the sense of an obligation, which cannot be escaped from, to save the House, to save the Legislature, to save the country, as far as may be, the inconvenience and even the peril of a protracted agitation, which in our sincere and deep convictions we believe must grow out of the attempt to found the basis of Parliamentary representation on such principles as these. To what I have said of the Scotch borough franchise as proposed to-night, I must add that the right hon. Gentleman is among his own most formidable difficulties as regards the English Bill. If he is discouraged with respect to his English Bill, I do not think he has any reason for discouragement with regard to the Scotch Bill, which confers the franchise without offensive distinction between man and man. If he is discouraged either as to the possibility of passing the English Bill through the House, or, as is more probable, as to the general acquiescence in it after it has passed, I must tell him that no one has struck a heavier blow at his English plan than he has himself aimed at it by his Scotch plan. Let him produce a plan which in its broad, main, commanding features shall give a wide and liberal popular enfranchisement, without offensive distinctions between man and man—let him do that, and he will find his difficulties vanish from his sight, and he will be able to come down and congratulate the House and claim just credit, not only for having conciliated opponents and disarmed opposition, but for having prepared for the acceptance of the people of England a plan worthy of their approval upon a question with respect to which almost all their minds are at this present time both excited and exercised.

said, he had listened very attentively to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that right hon. Gentleman had not even attempted to make out a case for adding to the Members of that House. At any rate, he had failed to show any case for adding to the Scotch Members. In ten counties in Scotland there were not 1,000 voters. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by bringing in a Reform Bill for Scotland which left untouched Sutherlandshire with its 180 voters? In the matter of giving the counties of Scotland a fair representation nothing was done. Instead of putting large towns together, why not group the counties? It might be said that Irish Members were not interested in this question. He maintained that they were; and upon the way this Bill was received much would depend of the course the Irish Members would take. The entire province of Connaught, containing 5,000,000 acres, sent to Parliament only thirteen Members. Could Irish Gentlemen be content with that when seven additional Members were to be given to Scotland—especially as the Members from that country were always to be found in the ranks of their opponents? ["No, no!"] He took his stand upon the merits of the case, and contended that Scotland had no claim to an increased representation. Ireland had a far greater claim.

I freely admit that discussion on an occasion like the present is necessarily desultory, and that no Gentleman will be pledged by first impressions, whether adverse or the contrary. I have but one or two remarks to make as to the principle of the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says is different from that on which the English Bill is founded. I regret if there is any difference. The intention of the Government was, that the principle of both Bills should be identical, and I have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman which conveyed to me any distinct reason why he should have adopted the conclusion he presented to the House. What we want as a recipient of the suffrage is a person qualified by the test we decided on, which, in our opinion, is the best, if not the only one that can be depended upon—namely, the bonâ fide payment of rates. That is the principle of the English borough franchise and of the Scotch borough franchise. It is true there is a difference between the two countries. In Scotland there may be a certain number of householders who would not be assessed to the poor, and who therefore are not privileged to come upon the register. But even with regard to these we have inserted a clause in the Bill which will give the same relief as in England is given to those who wish to fulfil those duties of citizenship which qualify for the franchise. The position of the two countries in that respect is identical. I am therefore at a loss to understand on what foundation the right hon. Gentleman grounds his anticipation of evil consequences—why he expects such popularity and success for the borough franchise in Scotland, and such dissatisfaction and disaster for the borough franchise in England. Far from being discouraged by the reception which the Bill for the English franchise has met with, nothing that has occurred in this House in regard to that Bill is in my opinion of a discouraging character. It has been brought forward under circumstances of extreme difficulty. It was brought before a House not in general political sympathy with the Government. Yet by the influence of argument, reflection, and due consideration—because the proposal has been before the House, not for weeks only, but for months—and by that co-operation with the general feeling of the country which acts upon the feeling of this House, we have after due deliberation, in one of the fullest Houses which have met here for many years, recorded our opinion that the principle the Government have adopted is the right principle for the borough franchise. I see nothing discouraging in that. My views of a discouraging situation are therefore different from those of the right hon. Gentleman. I can truly say that not only are Her Majesty's Government not discouraged, but they are resolved to adhere to their policy, sanctioned as it is by the decided opinion of this House. Our policy on that point is one from which we will not deviate, and we cannot undertake the further conduct of this measure if called upon to deviate from that policy. Upon every other point—and there are points of great importance and interest—we will consult the opinions of the House. We have been willing, and are still willing, to consider these subjects. We shall assert and maintain our opinions; but if the opinion of the House is adverse to our own, no doubt information and reasons will be given adequate to the occasion, and we are prepared to consider them in a spirit of sincere respect and conciliation. I have one or two words more to add on this question. There appears to be some misunderstanding, which naturally arises on occasions of this kind, when leave is asked to introduce a Bill. First, as to the amount of the constituency. I never much care to offer an estimate of the amount of the constituency proposed to be enfranchised. But I am, perhaps, furnished with as good information on this subject as any other Member of this House. My belief is that the effect of the proposals we make in regard to the borough constituency of Scotland will be to double the amount of the existing constituency, and as the whole amount of the constituency does not much exceed 50,000 or 55,000, I cannot conceive that these are numbers that ought to alarm any one. But the House will do me the justice to remember that I have never urged the question of numbers in these matters. We have rather urged the general interest of the country. We have endeavoured to found the franchise on a sound principle, and we believe that if that principle be sound the application of it will be safe. I think that the reduction of the value in the occupation franchise in counties as it is reduced by this Bill, is a prudent and proper course to pursue, but I see no reason to change that somewhat equivocal franchise called the property franchise. It is a copyhold franchise, which is equivalent in English counties to £10. It is a property franchise in counties. I may be told that it is only reasonable to establish a 40s. freehold franchise in the Scotch counties. If we were re-constructing the English constituency, do you think we should establish the 40s. franchise? I respect it, because it is an old franchise. It is as old as the Tudors, if not more ancient. It is not one, however, which fairly represents the moderate possession of landed property, which ought to be intrusted with the suffrage. I would not disturb it, but it is susceptible of considerable abuse. From what I know of Scotland, I believe it is always represented on paper, but in England the 40s. freeholders are a bonâ fide body. It is an ancient franchise, which has been extensively exercised and ought to be respected. But it is not a normal franchise which any judicious man would propose if you wanted the freehold interest of a country to be represented de novo. We are not therefore prepared to propose any change in the property qualification. The result of our proposal will be a very considerable extension of the borough franchise—I say double. In regard to the counties, there will be a considerable addition, but by no means so considerable as in the boroughs. I want to say one word on observations which have been made as to the elimination of boroughs of a minimum population of 6,000 from counties. I was prepared for what has been said by hon. Members opposite on that subject, but when they have well considered the matter they will find that their first impressions are erroneous. The intentions of the Government are very different from those which have been imputed to them. The conclusions of hon. Members are very natural, according to the old Parliamentary traditions, but they have little foundation. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock has imputed to me a knowledge of Scotland not equal to his own. I do not pretend to such knowledge. But I do not remember where I have seen counties so much studded with towns as in Scotland. We propose to take—how many towns out of counties do hon. Gentlemen think—to strengthen our interest? We propose to take eleven towns out of the counties, and the whole population of those towns is about 75,000. How any one can suppose that by taking eleven small towns out of the population of counties—towns that are rising ports, that are centres of mining and manufacturing industry, and which ought to be represented—how any one can suppose that that can affect the representation to any great extent—the population of these towns being only 75,000—is to me perfectly surprising. I have placed before you the relative amounts of population of boroughs and counties. I do not want to take population, however, as a mere test. I have shown you that there is an excess both of population and property in counties. An excess of population of nealy 600,000, and that in point of annual value that of the counties is double. What will happen if those eleven boroughs are taken out of the counties constituencies? The population of the counties will still exceed by 500,000 the population of the boroughs, and the value of the counties will exceed by £4,000,000 the value of the boroughs, which is only £4,600,000. Another hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lanarkshire, seems to suspect that the Government had formed a dire plot for dividing the county that he represents. The reason why we divided that county into three is that it is seventy miles long. By the Bill we are about to introduce, we shall propose the same regulations as to boundaries as in the English Bill. It is totally out of the power of any Ministry or political party to arrange or "doctor" the boundaries of any county and borough. What we propose in England we shall also propose in Scotland. We propose that certain gentlemen of great eminence, of political experience, and high character shall be appointed as Boundary Commissioners. I am not authorized to mention the names of those who will take the leading part, but there is one whose name, if he accepts the office, will be received with universal respect and confidence. Therefore that puts an end to all the observations of possible jobbery or political contrivance in the division of these counties. The same hon. Member said that there is a number of parishes in Scotland in which there is no rating at all, and he thought that this was a great reflection upon our plan. We have ascertained that there are forty parishes in Scotland in which there is no rating; but with one insignificant exception, that of Wester Anstruther, those parishes are in counties and not in boroughs. The conclusions, therefore, drawn by the hon. Gentleman as to the inadequacy of our materials for the settlement of the borough franchise, on the ground of there being a great number of parishes in which there is no rating, fall to the ground. I believe I have now answered every material question which has been addressed to me, with the exception of one important question, which has several times been brought forward in the course of the discussion. Where are these additional Members to come from? In the first place, I may say that they will come from the constituencies. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says it is a "practical question" how these Members are to be obtained—which it undoubtedly is, "not to Say a Constitutional question"—for he was very guarded in his language. In 1852, there occurred one of the many contests which I have had with the right hon. Gentleman. It was on the occasion of my proposing to apportion the forfeited seats of St. Albans and another corrupt and insignificant borough, the name of which I have forgotten. [An hon. MEMBER: Sudbury.] I proposed, I believe, to give them to Birkenhead, South Lancashire, and the West Riding. The right hon. Gentleman opposed the measure, and in that as in several other instances was successful in his opposition, the result being to deprive those constituencies for a considerable period of those representatives which, after seven years of experiment and failure, the Government of which he was a Member was obliged to assign them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a "practical, not to say a Constitutional, question;" but who said it was a Constitutional question in 1852? I was the person who maintained that it was a Constitutional question, and for a reason which I should be prepared to urge again under similar circumstances. We were on the eve of a General Election, and one of the arguments I used was this. If you are going to dissolve Parliament, let the people elect as large a number of Members as the law permits—let them elect a full House. That—not the number of 658—was the Constitutional question. But what has that to do with the question we are now considering? The right hon. Gentleman wants to make out that there is a great Constitutional principle at stake with regard to the proposal of the Government involving an increase in the number of Scotch Members. But what did he say in 1852? He totally dissented from me, and said he saw no magic or cabalistic charm in the number 658. He thought it perfectly absurd for me to lay any stress on the importance of going to the country with the full Constitutional number of 658, for he saw no magic, no cabalistic charm in that number which ought to induce the House to take so rash and precipitate a step. Well, Sir, I, too, see no cabalistic charm in the number 658. I believe it is much more important that there should be a fair and adequate representation of the people of Scotland than that we should adhere to a conclusion which no man can pretend to regard as anything but a practical and not as a Constitutional question. I am not prepared on the part of the Government to diminish the representation of England in order to increase that of Scotland. That representation might, no doubt, be much better distributed. We have brought forward a measure which will, I believe, distribute it to much greater advantage—a measure which will confer representation on flourishing towns having separate interests, whose population find industry give them a fair claim to be represented in this House. It is to the advantage of the country that they should be represented, and no one can suppose that in making that proposition we are trying to strengthen the rural interest by eliminating those communities. Everybody who has studied the question admits that those places have been properly selected, and I have not heard a single person demur to that selection. It is, of course, possible to conceive a much more extensive redistribution of representative influence. But I very much doubt whether anybody could make a proposal to that effect with any expectation of seeing it carried. Circumstances and experience will gradually effect those changes which may become necessary, and as new interests arise it is well that there should be in this country a fund of representative power in order to meet those requirements. It was by a sacrifice of the representative power of England that Scotland obtained an increased number of Members in 1832; but I think it would be most unwise to put any further strain upon that power, or upon the fund which we possess. We have once liberally and handsomely assisted Scotland, and I am not prepared to recommend any further step of that kind should be taken. This remark is not at all preliminary to a proposal to reduce the number of Irish Members. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel French) need not suppose—though his countenance indicates that he does—that I am going to make any proposal of that kind. But he will allow me to say, with all respect to himself and his countrymen, that I think they have at present a very fair share of Parliamentary representation. The Irish representation may, like the English, be very much improved. But, as far as numbers are concerned, I do not think they have any cause to complain. At the same time, it is not my wish that those numbers should be diminished. What, then, is the conclusion? If the number of Members in England ought not to be diminished, if the number of Members for Ireland ought not to be diminished, and if it is clearly made out that there is not a fair and adequate representation for Scotland, is Scotland to remain in its present position because the question of increasing the Members of this House is "a practical, not to say a Constitutional, question?" Sir, if it were both a practical and a Constitutional question, I should be prepared to meet it. On the part of the Government, I shall make, with regard to an increase of the Members for Scotland, the proposal which I have not the slightest doubt Parliament will, in its wisdom, adopt. I doubt not that Her Majesty will, in due time, in the exercise of Her prerogative, seal the verdict of both Houses of Parliament on that subject, and will, by enacting this measure, give a fair and adequate representation to the people of Scotland.

said, that the Bill offered more to Scotland than those who had been advocating Reform for many years could have expected. But while giving a liberal franchise it tended to make the representation more Conservative by withdrawing large towns from the counties. A number of the counties, including those of Dumbarton and Renfrew, would be left wholly under landlord influence. He should certainly oppose that part of the measure. Scotland was a Liberal country, but the present plan would destroy it and make it more Conservative. He admired the first part of the Bill, but objected to the re-distribution scheme.

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown his sincerity in his proposal for increasing the Scotch representation. Any proposal for affecting that increase at the expense of England would have been defeated by English Members. He did not believe any Scotch Member attached any importance or cabalistic charm to the number 658. The right hon. Gentleman having invited suggestions, he wished to commend to his consideration the propriety of fixing the suffrage at £4, in order to obviate the difficulties which might arise from the power of parochial authorities to alter the rating. He would also suggest the propriety of defining a dwelling-house by providing that it should at least be a tenement containing two rooms. He believed that with a few amendments the Bill would be very acceptable to Scotland.

said, that the Bill took away more than it gave to Scotland. The system of personal payment of rates would destroy the simplicity of the present self-acting system of registration, which worked admirably. The Bill was, in fact, a registration agent's Bill. As to the grouping clauses, he did not see why the towns should be taken out of the counties. The groups were large enough at present. He also objected to the division of the county of Lanark, and one Member for each division. The people of that county desired that the two Members should sit for the whole county. The Bill would destroy the simplicity of the existing arrangements, by which voters found their names on the register without having given themselves any trouble.

said, that the admirable self-acting registering system which at present existed in Scotland would not be interfered with as far as the voters above £4 were concerned, while facilities would be afforded to those below that figure by which they would be enabled to get upon the register.

said, that before moving the insertion of certain words in this clause he wished some Member of the Government would explain the meaning of the words "personal payment of rates." He did it from no desire to disturb the decision already arrived at by the Committee, but from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Brett) had given different meanings to them. The latter said that under the clause it would be necessary for the voter to pay or provide for the payment of his rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to contemplate actual personal payment by the tenant. The existing law was that if by any fair contract between landlord and tenant the former undertook to pay the latter's taxes, the tenant would be presumed to have paid the rates. But under this Bill it might be held that the tenant would not have done so unless he paid by his own act, or that of some one employed by him. He brought forward this Amendment because he thought great difficulties would arise, and there would be great chances of men losing their votes if the words he objected to were left in the clause. Several revising barristers had told him that if the Bill came before them in its present state they would be obliged to call upon the voter to prove that he, by himself or his servant, had provided for the payment of the rates. By Clause 36 it was made bribery to pay the rates of any person with a corrupt view; but it was held by several Judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber and by the House of Lords, in "Cooper v. Slade," that where an act was prohibited by Act of Parliament, the word "corruptly" was altogether otiose. It appeared that these two clauses taken together would render it necessary for every man to pay his own rates, and he hoped the Government would agree to an Amendment which could in any event do no harm.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member that the insertion of the words he proposed would do no harm. A great deal of harm had resulted from the insertion of idle words in Acts of Parliament, inasmuch as they raised the very questions it was intended they should settle. Under the present law it was held that payment of a tenants' rates by the landlord was payment of these rates on behalf of the tenant. But, as had already been shown, on the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), the tenant under such an arrangement would come upon the register while his rent, and consequently his rates, might remain unpaid, and his condition might have been such that had he not been a compounder he would have been excused from paying his rates on the ground of poverty. It was to avoid this that the Government had insisted on the personal payment of rates. But the Bill had not the phrase "personal payment of rates." That was a description rather of the Government's intention. The Bill required that a man should be responsible for his rates. It was necessary, in order to come within the provisions of the Bill, that a man should have his name upon the rate book and be personally responsible. Whether he paid the rate with his own hand or by the hand of another, the receipt was made out in his name and his liability ceased from that time. Thus it would be seen the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member would probably raise the very question he desired to settle. The case of "Cooper v. Slade," to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, depended upon the words contained in the Corrupt Practices Act. The thing forbidden to be done corruptly in that Act—namely, the payment of money to voters for travelling expenses, was forbidden to be done, whether corruptly or not, in another statute. Therefore it did not matter whether or not there had been a corrupt payment if there had been a payment at all. But in the 36th clause of this Bill the whole stress was laid upon the word "corruptly," and the onus of proof was thrown upon those who sought to establish that the Act was done corruptly. The 3rd clause exactly followed the language of the Reform Act of 1832. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would regard his explanation as satisfactory, and would not press the Amendments he had proposed.

said, he thought it would be very inexpedient to introduce unnecessary and inoperative words into an Act of Parliament. If a person had caused these rates to be paid, could it be said that he had not paid them? He protested against any distinction being made between payment and cause of payment. There was nothing in the Act which required personal payment—the Act required personal rating and personal liability. The moment any Act was performed whereby that liability was discharged, the rate would be held to have been paid by the tenant. He did not think that Her Majesty's Government would object to introduce the words "bonâ fide."

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had answered the argument respecting the 36th section. The word "corruptly" applying to that might be considered as otiose. It said—

"Any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any rate on the part of any voter for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, or for the purpose of inducing him to vote, shall be guilty of bribery."

Could a man pay another's rate for the purpose of inducing him to vote without doing it corruptly?

said, that he understood by personal rating, personal liability to pay the rate. The enjoyment of the franchise was based on residence, rating, and payment of rates. Where these elements existed the occupant must necessarily possess a direct personal interest in the welfare and good government of the country, and ought to be entitled to the franchise.

said, he regarded the insertion of the words "bonâ fide" as essential, but he did not care so much about the phrase "cause to be paid."

There is no objection to the insertion of the words "bonâ fide."

said, he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would have been as satisfied with the Bill in its present form as were the great majority of persons in all parts of the country, without asking the House to have it altered in such a very material portion as that touched by the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer by his Amendment was creating discontent and dissatisfaction in a case where everybody was content and satisfied with things as they stood. He had gathered from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening that he really did not understand the significance of his Amendment. Did he thoroughly appreciate the state of feeling on this point which had been manifested, not only in the metropolis, but throughout all parts of the country? The right hon. Gentleman had expressed surprise that the same satisfaction was not felt with the English as was with the Scotch measure of Reform. The reason was this. The Scotch Bill was applicable to the state of the law in Scotland, where there was one system of rating and paying rates. In England, instead of there being only one system, there were four. There were two general Acts, not agreeing in any of their term. There were a multitude of special local Acts differing from each other and from both general Acts. So that the law differed in different places, and in some cases differed in parts of the same town. The string of words proposed to be introduced could not apply to those varying sets of circumstances. People were amazed that the Government, having prepared a Bill which in its original provisions was perfectly satisfactory, now came down with a proposal to throw everything into confusion. He was astonished at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in covering this proceeding, suggesting that those who differed from him in the matter were only animated by what he was pleased to term "a factious spirit." Nothing was more unfounded. Twenty years ago the like dissatisfaction was manifested against portions of the Reform Act bearing on this very same subject. Sir William Clay's Act was introduced to meet the evil. The Reform Act of 1832, in many of its provisions, had proved a constant source of irritation from the attempt which it made to mix up two things wholly irreconcilable—the payment of rates with the electoral vote. But Lord Russell always persistently held to the same view, and even his Bill of 1860 exhibited the same defect, and proved an entire failure. As long ago as 1863 the question of the compound-householder was engaging public attention. In June of that year a deputation from the Parliamentary Reform Association sought an interview with Sir George Grey, with a view of representing that the disfranchisement of the compound-householder which had proved successful in London was being attempted in Manchester and other provincial towns, and that unless Reformers were prepared to use their utmost endeavours to preserve this deserving class of voters, there was every probability that the character of the larger constituencies would be materially altered. That statement was made in 1863, and a draft of a Bill to amend the state of the law was prepared. It might be asked, why was it not brought forward? It was pressed on the attention of the Government, but postponed from time to time in expectation of some general measure of Parliamentary Reform being introduced. Last Session the Government, having all the facts before them, were called on to legislate. The consequence was that Lord Russell, against his own expressed convictions of many years' standing, was driven to the conclusion that it was impossible to legislate satisfactorily by any measure connecting the enjoyment of the franchise with a system of payment of rates. The Government made a re-actionary proposal to the demand for the redress of a grievance which had been raised throughout the country during the last twenty years. All was to be done in pursuance of a mere theory—the theory that electors were to undertake personally to pay their rates as a condition of their admission to the franchise. But the doctrine that the right of voting was to be connected with a personal contribution to the burdens of the State would be made the foundation of a new and a more extensive agitation, and would be laid hold of as a justification of universal manhood suffrage. It was difficult to imagine Conservative statesmen putting forward an idea so revolutionary in its character. The theory that any person bearing a share of the public burdens was entitled to a vote led directly to manhood suffrage, for every man bore his share of the public burdens, and was liable in the last resort to be called on for the public defence. The measure would only create discontent and dissatisfaction, and the object which the Government professed to have in view—namely, that of effecting a settlement of the Reform question, would thus be utterly defeated. The people saw clearly what would be the result of the adoption of that proposal. They knew that it was a scheme for placing the franchise, in the first instance, in the hands of a body of landlords ["Oh, oh!"], who would use the law for the purpose of letting in or excluding voters, as they might find convenient. That was the belief which prevailed among the public, as might be learnt from the language held by the members of a recent deputation, which consisted of as respectable and intelligent a body of men as he had ever seen assembled upon any similar occasion. He could not, of course, arrest the career of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but let the right hon. Gentleman remember that although he was carrying his measure by the assistance of Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, those Gentlemen did not support him upon the same ground as the Members who sat beside him. They reconciled their mode of proceeding to their consciences by this reasoning—they did not care whether what he was doing would satisfy the country or not, because, if it did not, they would be the first to propose its alteration in order to render it conformable to the wishes of the people. The result would be that the House would have to consider the subject again and again, until they were compelled, by the force of public opinion, to strike out from the Bill the words by which it was then proposed that it should be disfigured. If any class of persons were held to be entitled to the franchise, it should be given to them clearly and unmistakably. It should not be made the subject of any of those petty acts and contrivances by which it was sought that the professed object of the measure should be defeated. ["Oh, oh!"] The public would know how to appreciate those arts and contrivances. He was satisfied that when the time of trial came it would be found that a majority of the Members of the House would not be prepared to risk the chance of their re-election by supporting the vicious provision which the Government were then submitting to the Committee.

said, he hoped the Committee would not allow themselves to be drawn into the discussion of a question they had already so fully considered. The present Amendment was a necessary consequence of the adoption of the words "as an ordinary occupier" on Thursday night, and was framed solely for the purpose of carrying into complete effect those words. It was then settled that the elector must be rated as an ordinary occupier. The provision now before the Committee, that he should pay as an ordinary occupier, followed as purely consequential thereon. Yet they were then asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman to enter again into the whole question of the condition of the ratepaying occupier, including the complicated rights and claims of the compound-householder. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Committee on Thursday night laboured under the mistaken impression that they were discussing a trifling matter. But the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) had accepted the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one which afforded a convenient opportunity for discussing the Amendment he had himself placed upon the Paper, and his Amendment was then fully discussed accordingly. The present proposal would merely introduce into the clause a change which necessarily followed from their former decision. He should decline to be drawn upon such an occasion into a discussion of the general question. The Committee would not be deterred by any fears of further agitation from adhering to the conclusion at which they had previously arrived.

said, that he now moved the insertion in the clause of the words—in reference to the payment of rates by the occupier claiming the franchise—"and which have been duly demanded of him by the overseer, collector, or other officer appointed for that purpose." Under the law, as it at present stood, the occupier was liable for the payment of the rate on the very day on which it was levied. It often happened that persons did not know when the rate was made, as the overseer might reside four or five miles off, and various other obstacles might present themselves. The result was a practical hardship, and one of a nature which the best and most hardworking of the working classes were the least able to meet. The best workmen would not like to lose their time by going long distances in search of the overseer for the purpose of inquiring whether a rate was made, and when. On the other hand, the worst and least employed of the workmen who might want to obtain a vote for the purpose of making money of it having plenty of time on their hands, would take care to obtain the necessary information, pay the rates, and get a vote. If the rating clauses were not intended to act as an undue restriction, he saw no reason why the Government should object to this Amendment. The object of his Amendment was to remedy the grievance, by imposing upon the overseer the duty of making an application for the rate, and to provide that no man should lose his vote for non-payment, unless such application had been made to him. The Amendment would also have the effect of preventing overseers from exercising partiality in the discharge of their duties. It sometimes happened now that in places where political feeling ran high the overseer would collect the rates from persons on his own side and omit to collect them from the other side.

said, that the answer to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend was that there was no reason why the new voters to be created under the Act should have greater facilities than the old ones. The existing law required that the old voter should pay the rate whether it was demanded of him by the collector or not. Why should a difference be made in favour of the new voter? He thought there was no ground for the Amendment.

said, that he was in favour of the old voters being also relieved.

said, he thought it was a gratuitous assumption on the part of his hon. and learned Friend that the overseers were unfairly biassed in the discharge of their duties by political considerations.

said, that he thought the right course would be to apply the present Amendment to all classes of voters alike.

said, that the overseers were compelled to collect and pay the rate into the bank within a limited time after it was made. As the claim could not be made for six months it was evident that before that period the whole rate must have been collected, or the overseers would stand in an awkward position when the auditor came to examine their accounts. The Amendment, therefore, seemed to him wholly unnecessary.

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman) had some reason to complain of the manner—the very impolitic manner—in which his proposal had been met by the learned Solicitor General. The Government proposed a clause relating to the new voter. His hon. and learned Friend said, "Give in that clause a certain relief to the new voter;" and the Solicitor General reproached him because he did not relieve the old voter. Let the Government extend the same privilege to the old voter. The answer of the Solicitor General amounted to this:—"The old voter is under a grievance. You are going to remove the grievance for the new voter, and I contend that the new voter should remain under the grievance also." Was it a grievance or was it or not? Last year, when the late Government were engaged in considering whether it was expedient or not to repeal what was called the ratepaying clauses, they took occasion to inquire into what was the practice in the different boroughs of the country with respect to them, and they found that in various boroughs they were turned to this use. Where there was an unscrupulous overseer, he called upon his own friends and gave them an opportunity of paying their rates, and he did not call upon his opponents to pay the rates, and they therefore missed the opportunity of paying. They could not deny that this abuse occurred from time to time. The argument of the Solicitor General was quite irrelevant, because it was obvious they could not deal with the old voter in a clause wholly relating to the new, and if it were thought right to extend this relief to the old voter, the time to do that would be when they came to the consideration of preserving the existing rights of franchise. He could not imagine anything more impolitic than the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. ["Oh, oh!"] It might not be impolitic in the sense supposed by the hon. Gentleman who now interrupted; but it was impolitic in this sense. For him, and probably for his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman), this was a small matter. They thought the clause incurably bad in its fundamental principles, and therefore they might be under some temptation to let it go forth with all its faults rather than to make amendments with the view of introducing into it some small improvements. The present suggestion in no way interfered with the efficiency of the clause, and surely it would effect a practical improvement. It did not in the slightest degree call in question the principle of the clause, nor did it mar what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General regarded as its beauty, and what he thought was its incurable deformity. The suggestion would, however, render the clause a little less unpalatable to the country, and therefore he hoped it would be adopted by the Government.

said, it was a curious phase in the discussion of this question that hon. Gentlemen opposite were filled with a suspicion that everybody concerned would be guilty of some great wrongdoing. First, it was thought that the occupiers were so thoroughly vicious that they would not make a claim, but suffer some persons corruptly to make it for them. Next it was supposed that the landlords would run the voters up in their rent. Now it was suggested that the overseers would corruptly abstain from doing what was clearly their duty—namely, to demand the rate. Those who made use of such an argument clearly forgot that an overseer would hardly like, for the sake of making a political arrangement, to run the risk of rendering himself subject to heavy penalties for not collecting and paying in the rate. It was incumbent upon an overseer to demand his rates in the ordinary course of things, and to render his accounts to the Poor Law Auditor when the proper time came round. It was suggested, however, that in consequence of some political arrangement between the overseer and the new voters he would neglect to do his duty, which would raise all sorts of controversies before the revising barristers. For his own part, he was quite satisfied that the clause would work very well as it stood. If there were any question of rating it ought to be dealt with under the Rating Act. He thought it was taking a low view of the state of society to assume that every one was inclined to do wrong.

said, that the Solicitor General had argued that because it was the duty of the overseer to collect the rates with an impartial hand, therefore he did it. The fact was that he very often failed to do so, and there ought to be no opposition to a proposal which would have the effect of keeping him up to his duty if he were inclined to neglect it. As a matter of fact it was well known that while the rates of the political friends of the overseers were actually collected, those of his political opponents remained frequently uncollected, with a view to their disfranchisement.

said, he hoped that the obvious reasonableness of the proposal would be regarded by the Government as a ground for acceding to it. Undoubtedly it was the fact that in some boroughs where political feeling ran high the overseers might be at all events open to the suspicion of using their power for the purpose of interfering with the election.

said, he hoped the Government would not persist in their opposition to the Amendment. Many on his side were prepared to support the Bill if this were conceded. He had had occasion to speak to his own overseer on the subject, and the conclusion at which he had arrived was that the overseer ought, as a matter of course, to demand the rate.

said, that though there might not be any considerable objection to a proposal made in Committee, yet the Committee ought not to be hurried in assenting to it if not well matured. He did not pretend to be a gentleman of the long robe, and he confessed that when he read the language of the Amendment respecting the rates being "duly demanded," he felt a wish to be favoured by the legal acumen of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Denman) with a precise definition of the meaning of the words "duty demanded." In his own imperfect knowledge on the subject he should have thought that the moment a rate became due it might be "duly demanded." Assuming his interpretation to be correct, he could conceive that by adopting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Committee might be agreeing to a clause of extreme rigour and strictness, and one which might prove most unpopular and inconvenient. He could not think that the language proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be adopted by the Committee. He was perfectly willing that the whole constituency should be treated, as far as possible, in the same way. But if the Committee adopted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, wholly irrespective of the objection he had just taken, it would affect the new and not the old constituency, and would be about as blundering a piece of legislation as could well he conceived. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could, after due deliberation, propose a clause which would affect equally the new and the old constituents, it should be taken into consideration, and if it were framed in language which could be understood, the Government would make no objection to it. At the same time, he must say that the language now offered for adoption by the Committee respecting the rates being "duly demanded" would lead to much inconvenience, and that instead of accommodating and facilitating the progress of affairs, it would greatly embarrass the people, who would be called upon to make these contributions. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would perceive that, although his proposal was very well intended, yet it was couched in language which might well be re-considered. If, however, he would frame a clause applicable alike to the old and the new constituencies the Government might be able to assent to it without difficulty. If the hon. and learned Member insisted on pressing the Amendment now before the Committee he should feel it his duty to oppose it.

said, he would at once accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, and would, he hoped, answer the observations that had been made conclusively and to the satisfaction of the Committee. He was quite ready to bring up a similar clause applicable to the old voter. That could be done at any stage of the Bill. But it was absolutely necessary, if the proposal he had submitted was to be carried in regard to the new voter, it should be inserted in the place he proposed, because the clause defined the rates which were to be made payable by the voter as a condition of his obtaining a vote. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment would impose an additional rigour upon the voter. But he apprehended this would not be so, because now no rates could be payable until a reasonable time after the rate had been made. That was the law applicable to all such matters. In order to meet the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman he was willing to add the words, "in the manner hereinafter mentioned," so that his Amendment would run thus—

"And which have been duly demanded of him by the overseer, collector, or other officer appointed for that purpose, and which have been demanded of him in the manner hereinafter mentioned,"

leaving it to the Government to propose the manner in which the demand should be made.

said, that if the words "duly" and "overseer, collector, or other officer" were struck out of the Amendment, so that it might read "and which have been demanded of him in the manner hereinafter mentioned," these words might be added, and a clause applicable to both the old and the new voters could be introduced at a subsequent stage.

said, he wished to ask whether Government would throw upon him the responsibility of preparing the clause or would themselves undertake it?

said, the Government would themselves prepare and introduce the clause.

said, that on this understanding he would strike out the words.

moved the following Amendment to sub-section 5 of the same clause after the word "January:"—

"Who being of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, or as a lodger has occupied in the same Borough separately and as sole tenant for the twelve months preceding the last day of July in any year lodgings being part of a dwelling-house, which lodgings would let unfurnished for ten pounds a year, and has resided in such lodgings during the six months immediately preceding the last day of July, and has claimed to be registered as a voter at the next ensuing registration of voters."

He said, he believed the House was anxious to come to a decision upon this question with as little surplusage of words as possible. He would not therefore reiterate the arguments he had previously brought forward. He had on the former occasion, when introducing the subject, stated that without some such clause as he now proposed the Bill would be ineffective for London and other towns. It had on both sides been admitted that the principle of a lodger franchise was not incompatible with the scope and purpose of the Bill. What the Committee had then to consider was the figure at which such a franchise should be fixed, and the machinery by which it was to be acquired. He believed that a very great majority of those who sat on the Liberal side of the House were of opinion that £10 a year was not an unreasonable point at which to fix the lodger franchise. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had given notice of an Amendment which coincided with his own, except that it named a sum of £15, instead of £10. As he (Mr. Torrens) could not agree to this he must divide upon it. The hon. Member had suggested that the words "in the same borough" should be added to the clause, and though that was a restriction of what he should like to obtain for the inhabitants of the metropolis he should not oppose it. [Mr. GOLDNEY: The words I would suggest are "within the borough."] It was well known that in London one side of a street was in one borough and the other side in another, and there might therefore be some difficulty to the revising barrister if some such words were not inserted. The hon. Member also proposed that any person who had inhabited the same lodging, being part of the same dwelling-house, for twelve months, and having the other qualifications provided, should be entitled to the franchise; but that was a very serious curtailment of the right founded upon the analogy to the case of the householder. The householder might acquire the right by living six months in one house and six months in another in the same borough, provided they were of the same value, and the lodger ought to have the same privilege. It might be said that as lodgers were more migratory in their habits, some distinction ought to be drawn between them and householders, and if the hon. Gentleman could show any reason why that distinction should be made he would consider it; but it would be a deviation from the principle that the rights acquired under the Bill should as far as possible be equal. Then, again, with respect to the question of value. He had heard it said that hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to found an argument upon the ground that in some districts of London it was not possible to go lower down in the scale than £10, or 4s. a week, and that it would not be desirable to include the very lowest grade. This was not, however, the fact. Though there were some districts in London where excessive and rapid demolition had deprived the population of adequate house accommodation, so that it was impossible for Christian men or women to find lodgings to live in at a lower rent than 4s. a week, there were many parts of the metropolis where decent lodgings could be obtained at a less rent. He had directed an inquiry to be made respecting the house accommodation in six contiguous streets in Clerkenwell, where the houses were not exceptionally high-rented or low-rented, and in those six streets there were 315 houses, in which 369 separate lodgings were occupied by individuals or families. The Amendment which he proposed would enable 229 of those persons to claim to be put upon the register, while 140 would be excluded on account of paying a less rent than 4s. a week. But the proposal of the hon. Member, limiting the franchise to lodgers who paid £15 a year for rent, would render capable to claim to be put on the register only eighty-seven of the lodgers he had referred to, and would exclude 282. If, then, hon. Members were not in earnest in a desire for the establishment of a lodger franchise, let them support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. But if they meant to enfranchise any considerable number of those persons who were not able to occupy entire houses for themselves, they would vote in favour of the £10 lodger franchise. There was no reason to fear that the lodger franchise would not work well in London. It was well known that gentlemen occupying chambers in the Inns of Court, and paying no rates, as Lincoln's Inn and the Temple were extra parochial, were registered as electors for the apartments they rented. He had never heard any question raised as to the solvency of the occupiers, and the non-payment of rates was no practical disability. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would adopt his Amendment.

said, that the introduction of a lodger franchise had to some extent met the favour of the Committee, and therefore that principle need not at the present moment be discussed. He wished the persons who were placed on the roll to be respectable artizans, and not another class who would swamp them. In respect to the case of Clerkenwell, the hon. Member, whose exertions to obtain better dwellings for working men he readily acknowledged, had forgotten this fact— that although they were proposing to admit in every house a certain number of lodgers who occupied for a certain value and complied with other requisites, they did not take away the original claim of the occupier of the house himself. It had been generally admitted in the Registration Courts, that although a man might let a large portion of his house, yet if he retained the control, and paid the rates, he retained his own vote. The proposal now made was to add other votes to that of the occupier, and that would not merely be adding 140, but increasing 315 to 445. In considering the question of value this fact must be borne in mind, that the lodger paid nothing more than his rent. He was not called upon to pay rates, repairs, water rates, or insurance. If the qualification was fixed at £15 the amount he would be required to pay would be not more than 5s. 9d. per week. He had extended his investigations into this subject into different portions of the metropolis—St. George's, Westminster; St. George the Martyr, Southwark; Bermondsey, Islington, St. George's-in-the-East, and Bethnal Green. The result of his inquiries was this—that in Westminster, the very lowest single rooms were let at 4s. or 5s. a week. The general charge for two rooms—and the Committee would be of opinion that not less than two should entitle to a vote—for two rooms on the ground floor was 7s. 6d.; on the first floor, 8s. to 9s., and in the attic, 5s. 6d. He had ascertained that it was impossible to obtain two decent rooms for 6s., and many which might be designated as cells, let at 4s., 5s., and 6s. In St. George the Martyr a decent mechanic could not obtain two rooms for less than 6s. a week, and he was shown single rooms occupied by paupers who paid from 2s. 6d. to 3s. a week. He mentioned these facts to show the class of people who would be introduced to the register at the rent of £10 a year, or 3s. 10d. per week. In Bermondsey, two tolerably decent rooms might be obtained for 5s. or 6s. a week. No two decent rooms could be obtained for less than 4s. In the model lodging-house of Mr. Waterlow, the lowest price for two rooms was 4s. 6d., the next price was 5s. 6d., the next 6s. 6d., and some were 7s. 6d. In Islington, he found that two rooms might be obtained for 4s. 6d., but they were looked upon as people of an inferior grade who occupied them, and the general price was 5s. 6d. or 6s. As a general rule, a working man was fairly able to apportion about one-fifth of his earnings for house-rent; but taking the general class of good mechanics who earned from 35s. to 40s. a week, even putting their wages as low as 30s., they would be able to pay a sum representing £15 a year, or 5s. 9d. a week, for that purpose. If they lowered the lodger franchise to 4s. a week, they would bring in a class of labourers who would almost wholly swamp the class of skilled artisans. The words which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) last year introduced into his proposed lodger franchise were "an annual value of £10;" but the words proposed by the hon. Member were "the sum for which the lodgings would let unfurnished." In his explanatory statement last year the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said that the annual value ought to be irrespective of rates, furniture, and the ordinary outgoings which an occupier had to meet. Therefore, £10 annual value, when they took into account rates and those other outgoings, would be brought up to a letting sum of about £15. They must also bear in mind that rents were rising, and still likely to rise, and that the difficulty experienced was not in finding tenants, but in finding lodgings. In Bermondsey, a rent of 5s. 6d. per week would be increased if repairs were asked for by the tenant. A lodging franchise of 5s. 9d. a week would give a fair sample of an artizan. But if they went down to 3s. 10d. a week a class of mechanics would present themselves whom it might not be desirable to introduce. He proposed to move, in substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member, after "January," to insert—

"Or being of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, as a lodger has occupied separately, and as sole tenant for the twelve months preceding the last day of July in any year, the same lodgings, being part of one and the same dwelling-house, which lodgings would let unfurnished for £15 a year, and has resided in such lodgings during the twelve months immediately preceding the last day of July, and has claimed to be registered as a voter at the next ensuing registration of voters."

said, he would suggest that the words "being of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity" should be omitted from the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens') Amendment, as those words were already contained in the earlier part of the clause, and would equally apply to householders and lodgers should a lodger franchise be adopted.

moved to insert in the third line of the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens') Amendment, after the word "year," the words "the same" before "lodgings."

said, that the metropolitan Members ought to be under a deep obligation to the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) for the trouble he had taken in visiting the neighbourhoods in question, and making himself acquainted with the state of the dwellings of the artizan class. For he fell confident that he had not undertaken that task simply with a view to that debate, but in order to assist the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) in his efforts to improve those dwellings. There were, however, several points which the hon. Gentleman did not seem to have included in his inquiries. For instance, he had not dwelt much upon the question of furniture, and the guarantee offered by the possession of furniture. Were the lodgings he had inspected furnished or unfurnished lodgings? Again, were the lodgers whom he had seen such lodgers as would reside for a year in the same place, or were they migratory lodgers, who would not be qualified under the Bill? The hon. Member had chiefly spoken of the weekly rents, holding up 4s. a week as a very low rent. But a Bill had been introduced that night giving the franchise to householders in Scotland who paid a rent of 1s. 7d. a week. In London there were scarcely any householders in that position. The corresponding class must live in lodgings. In London there were only 33,000 male occupiers of houses under the £10 line. As far as the working man was concerned it was impossible for him to hire a whole house, except in very rare cases, for himself. The great majority of working men in the metropolis would not obtain votes except as lodgers. They could not procure houses within their means, and those virtues which might be exercised by the holder of a small house in the country could, therefore, not find expression in the metropolis. The ideal voter, in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, seemed to be a man who lived in a little house in a little town, and paid his rates himself. But what were they to do in London, where there were no little houses? [An hon. Member: Build them.] The working man was at present in this difficulty. In bad neighbourhoods the small houses were numerous, but the artizan might not like to live in them and bring up his children, amid the sights and sounds they must there encounter. In the good neighbourhoods the houses were beyond his means, and if he became a lodger in them he would not have a vote. The question was whether, if they took the £15 line, an adequate number of working men would be admitted. The hon. Gentleman had not told them whether lodgers who had good furniture of their own and who stayed a considerable time in their lodgings could not obtain their rooms at a lower rent than those whose furniture was bad and who remained but a few weeks. Knowing something of the dwellings of the working classes in London, he could state that there were tenements where at 5s. a week two rooms, exceedingly well furnished and perfectly fit for any artizan, his wife, and two children, were inhabited by a class whom nobody would wish to exclude from the franchise. In London it was not optional with a man whether he would be a lodger or not. It was quite natural that hon. Members opposite, who were more or less afraid of the compound-householder, should look upon a lodger as something rather worse, and should be still more afraid of conferring the franchise upon him. But why did men live in lodgings? Sometimes because they could not find houses. Sometimes because they were bachelors, and surely there were such things in the world as respectable bachelors. He was not prepared to deny that there might be greater weight and greater political virtue in married men, and that they were better able to perform their duties to Church and State, besides being personal ratepayers. But he thought the House would be going too far to look into these niceties. Why should they require him to have two rooms if he only needed one? They now found themselves resting upon an entirely different footing to that on which they stood last year. They had given up the doctrine of numbers, and therefore need not know how many lodgers would be enfranchised. The doctrine of numbers had been abandoned when it had served its purpose of defeating the Bill of last year, Nor need they ask into which class these lodgers would fall, because the argument of the balance of classes had also been wisely abandoned, after it had served its purpose of defeating the late Government's Bill. Unless a franchise of this kind were granted, however, the best part of the working classes of the metropolis would not be able to obtain the franchise. It would be desirable for hon. Members to remember what had happened to the £6 householder. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had been asked over and over again to consent to the admission of £6 householders, but they had refused it, and the consequence was that now their own Government had to propose to admit all householders, potentially if not actually. If they wanted a settlement of the question—and they all knew that the most anxious desire for a settlement was above all things swaying the House, and sometimes, according to the views of some of them, hurrying them on to decisions which they would afterwards regret—if that desire for settlement was considered, they could do nothing better than accept a £10 lodger franchise, rather than a £15 franchise, otherwise they would be certain to experience that which they had experienced in the case of the householder. In the next Parliament a £7 lodger franchise would be proposed, and in the end a Conservative Government would probably have to come forward to propose that all lodgers should be enfranchised, and when they had admitted all lodgers and all householders, they would have something like manhood suffrage. A refusal to grant the £10 franchise now would only lead to a continual agitation for a lower franchise.

said, that some time ago the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) stated that the Bill of the Government was based upon a principle, and that to that principle they were prepared to adhere. He would like to ask upon what principle was the Bill now based as to the lodger franchise? They had been told usque ad nauseam—even this evening, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated the "oft told tale"—that the principle of the Bill was the personal payment of the rates and the abolition of a hard and fast line. But they were now adopting a hard and fast line, and abolishing the personal or any payment of rates. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) said that the Conservatives had abandoned the balance of classes after turning out the late Government. He (Sir Rainald Knightley) wished to ask the Conservative Government what was the object of establishing household suffrage with the personal payment of rates for one class of occupiers, and no personal payment of rates for another class of occupiers? Was that the object which they (the Conservatives) had in view in turning out the late Government? Did they reject the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) last year because it did not go far enough? He would venture to say there was not a single Gentleman on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who spoke against that Bill who did not object to it because it went too far. It was argued last year that if the Bill then before the House was passed they would be stranded on the shoal of universal suffrage, and that that would be the greatest misfortune that could possibly happen to the country. He was aware of the difficulty in which the Government were placed at the commencement of the Session, and that if they had not brought in a Reform Bill they would have been defeated by an Amendment to the Address. It would have been better for the Conservative party and the character of public men for the Government to have accepted that defeat and the party to have gone into Opposition than to have abandoned the position they had taken on this question.

said, the question before them was one of the most important they had yet had to consider. He hoped that the exertions of landlords and Societies would bring about a better state of things than that which existed, and that rents would fall. A lodger franchise of £15 would be an extremely inadequate one. There were many large blocks of houses being erected upon the property of the Marquess of Westminster, in which a man could rent a couple of rooms for 3s. 6d. per week. Those rooms were good enough for any person. They were quite as good as he should ever wish to live in, if he were a single man and wanted lodgings. It was a great mistake to calculate the ordinary income of the skilled artizan in London as ranging from 33s. to 36s. per week. Though he might receive that at some periods of the year, the general average of his wages was not more than 24s. a week. Taking one-sixth of that for house-rent or for his lodgings, he could not afford to pay more than 4s. a week. If, then, they took the higher figure of £15 for the lodger franchise, they would exclude at least two-thirds of those people whom it was the professedly sincere wish if both sides of the House to enfranchise—the better class of the skilled artizans of this country.

I wish to state very frankly and very briefly to the Committee the difficulty in which I find myself in this matter of the lodger franchise. My understanding of the situation, Sir, is this. We, who sit upon these Benches, have finally abandoned the defence of the existing borough franchise, because £10 is a figure and not a principle. We have accepted in its stead a principle, independent of amount, which has been stated with the utmost precision to be this—"that the discharge of a public duty should confer the enjoyment of a public privilege." Measure the lodger franchise by this standard—What duty does a lodger discharge? Ratepayers I know, and taxpayers I know: but who are lodgers? Again, what principle is there in £10 or £15 which would withstand the first assault on the amount? If you ask me what figure I should prefer, I should answer that all alike are so utterly indefensible, that I should prefer that which is least likely to be attacked. That is a condition which is certainly not satisfied by the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney). I hope, Sir, I shall not be understood in these remarks as reflecting upon those whom this franchise would introduce upon the register. In my opinion, thee would compare not unfavourably with the rated occupiers below £10. Generally, I think, their introduction would have a Conservative effect on the constituencies. That, certainly, would be the case in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. But I am not prepared, Sir, to purchase a personal advantage at the cost of the whole principle of the Bill I am supporting. I shall therefore vote against the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens), against the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney), and against every proposal of the same nature, until the lodger is presented to me in the character of one who claims "a public privilege by the discharge of a public duty." I may, perhaps, be in a minority; but at least, I shall not be illogical and inconsistent. And if some day manhood suffrage enters by the door of the lodger franchise, I shall remember with satisfaction that I, for one, did my best to close that door against it.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) had referred to the parish of St. George the Martyr, in Southwark, as to the lodger franchise. He had been informed by a medical gentleman who had had long experience in the parish that numbers of artizans occupied rooms at 4s. a week fit for their families to live in. He thought, therefore, that the insertion of £10 in the clause would be sufficient. Among many of his constituents that sum was thought too high.

I understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldney) to say that if the words at the end of the clause of last year "of the clear yearly value of £10," were adopted, and the clear yearly value were taken, he would agree to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Torrens).

said, the words in the Bill introduced last year he had stated were irrespective of rates and furniture, which would bring the lodger franchise to very nearly the same amount as he proposed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Bill which he introduced in 1859, which was not successful, proposed £20 as the figure for a lodger franchise. That included furniture, attendance, and I do not know what besides. In all probability, deducting all these things, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldney) now is considerably higher than that of the Government of that day. Therefore I hope that, considering we have made so much progress in other things, we shall not go back in this. There is another point. As you are lowering the franchise so much with regard to householders, it is quite clear that you will not act logically, nor in the direction of a settlement, if you do not, at any rate, bring down the lodger franchise correspondingly low. Although I think you might in the provincial towns, and even in London, have reduced it below £10, yet as that appears to be the sum which the House has looked to, and which the public have looked to, I would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldney) to accept that figure accompanied with the words in the Bill of last year. If he would do so, I should recommend my hon. Friend below me to allow his proposition to be altered accordingly.

said, that from the calculations he had made he believed that the alteration now proposed would bring the franchise nearly to the same amount as that which he proposed. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Torrens) would introduce the words "£10 annual value," he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would be glad to save the time of the Committee by accepting these words if it met the views of the Government.

I think it very desirable that, if possible, we should come to an understanding upon this subject without a division. There is, no doubt, a wish on both sides to establish this franchise, and if it can be established without any great difference of opinion I shall be extremely glad. I must, however, notice one or two observations which I think were not conceived in that spirit, and which by an elaborate and painful recurrence to past times have not assisted us, though I trust they will not impede us, in arriving at the conclusion which I feel no doubt the good sense of the House will adopt. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) seems to me on all subjects connected with the franchise to have a feeling of pique respecting what occurred last year, which I think it would be discreet in him at least to veil. He cannot calmly consider the question of the extension of the franchise without referring to the unexpected and, in his case no doubt, mortifying consequence of the decision of the House last year. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of this before, and I then passed it unnoticed. I think, therefore, that I have a right to notice it now; because although on a particular occasion one may not think it well to retaliate, still, if repeated, it is for the convenience of society that such things should not always pass unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted us with last year arguing the whole case of the increased Parliamentary franchise of the people, first from the fear of a Bill founded upon the numerical principle, and next from the influence it would give to a particular class. Now, I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government of which he was a member commenced their labours last year upon this subject by laying upon the table a blue book full, no doubt, of the most valuable information, accumulated with the greatest care, and, I believe, brought before the notice of Parliament with the greatest impartiality. What was the object of these researches? It was to show that certain measures would not produce the dangers which might be anticipated by us, and would not let in the numbers we feared. That was the first object. The next was to show that a certain class already had a certain power, and therefore we were to consider whether it was just that we should increase the influence of that particular class—the working class. These were the materials placed by the Government before the House of Commons in order that they might form their opinion. The Government drew our attention to the influence of numbers and classes upon the constituencies. They might be right. I do not say they were not right. That is not the point. But it is not for them to reproach us now, and say that we last year introduced considerations arising from the influence of numbers and classes. In placing such documents voluntarily on the table as materials from which we were to form our opinion, the Government themselves called our attention to these two very points, the influence of numbers and the power of classes. An hon. Baronet (Sir Rainald Knightley) who sits on this side of the House—who still does us that honour—has indulged in invective which by repetition becomes more perfect, and attacks us because he says we are going to accept the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) which he says we have so solemnly reiterated that we never would accept. In this, as usual, he makes a mistake. He calls upon my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), who may be signing Protocols at this moment, to vindicate his pledges that he, for one, would never deviate from the principle of the Bill, which was the personal payment of rates. The hon. Baronet is not for a moment, I suppose, prepared to contend that the payment of rates is the entire principle of this Bill. [Laughter.] Does any Gentleman who laughs pretend that it is the entire principle of the Bill? Is it the principle of the franchise which is founded on the possession of a sum in the savings bank? Is it the principle of the franchise which is founded on the possession of a certain amount in the public funds? Is it the principle of the franchise which is founded on the payment of a certain amount of direct taxes? What my noble Friend said, and what we all said, was, that with regard to the exercise of the most important franchise of the Bill, to which the observation alone referred—the borough franchise—we were of opinion that it should be founded on the personal payment of rates. That is a principle which is not relinquished, and which we shall not relinquish. I cannot, therefore, understand the taunt of the hon. Baronet when he says that the personal payment of rates is the foundation of all the franchises in this Bill. With regard to the lodger franchise, the principle of such a franchise bas been accepted by the House, and the only thing that remains is how to apply it in a satisfactory manner. I thought after listening to the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens), who spoke with personal knowledge which my limited experience confirms, that, when he described the residences and the households he had visited, the payment of 5s. a week would be a very good foundation for a franchise of this kind. My hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) has expressed a willingness to accept an Amendment which has been thrown out from the other side, which I believe will practically cause the same result. I will therefore throw no obstacle in the way. It is, I think, very desirable that the House should come to an understanding on this subject without a division. There is a feeling of great urgency on the part of the majority of the House, whatever may be said by some outside, to come to a decision on this subject and to carry the Bill, and I now hope we have arrived at a conclusion that will be satisfactory to the country.

said, it was fair to ask the lodger to be twelve months in occupation, but not ill residence. It would give sufficient security against evasion of the law. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his proposal.

said, it was only fair to ask from the lodger the same term of residence as other voters. The lodgers were not the migratory class which had been represented. He had made inquiries among lodgers in Westminster, and he found that many of them had resided in the same rooms for three, four, and five sears together. A residence of twelve months was therefore not too much to require.

said, that the lodger had been already placed under a disadvantage as compared with the householder. He was required to occupy the same lodgings for a year, whereas the householder might change his house. As the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) had made concessions already, it was only fair that he should be met in a corresponding spirit by the other side. There were Members of Parliament who were lodgers. He was not sure that there were not Cabinet Ministers. If they left at the end of the Session there would be occupation but not residence. A residence of six months, then, ought to satisfy the Committee.

said, that the other night he explained what was meant by occupation. The House laughed at it, and some pet lawyers got up to contradict it. When he went home he looked into his books, and found, as he generally did, that he was right. He wanted to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) what he called residing in lodgings unless a man had a bed and an opportunity of living there. A man who had lodgings could not occupy them without sleeping in them. He wanted to know, therefore, what was meant by a residence of six months? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Members of Parliament as lodgers. But if a Member of Parliament could not afford to keep his lodgings while he was away, they did not want him as a voter. He (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) could not understand why a lodger should have only six months' residence when a householder must have twelve.

said, it was well known to all revising barristers, and it had been confirmed by the Court of Common Pleas, that a man might occupy a tenement, such as a warehouse or shop, without residing in it, and why not a lodging? A man might occupy by putting his servant on the premises, without residing there himself. There was some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), and other hon. Members, with regard to the legal effect of the term residence. It had been held, not by revising barristers only—and he was one for some years—but also by the Court of Common Pleas, that the mere fact of a man leaving his house for a certain time, if he had the intention of returning, did not break the residence. A gentleman having a house—his going away for a short time into the country, or on the Continent, with the intention of returning, did not constitute a break of residence. The same principle would apply to lodgers, including the working man when he went to another part to discharge a particular duty, but still paying for and intending as soon as he had performed it to return to his original lodgings.

said, a man might occupy a shop by keeping his goods there, but he could not occupy a dwelling-house without living in it. He begged to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Brett) that he had been a revising barrister before the hon. and learned Gentleman, and his position was that there was a difference between occupying a shop and a dwelling-house.

said, he could tell the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) from his own experience that if he had inquired more closely he would probably have found that the persons in Westminster who told him they had lived three, four, and five years in the same lodgings had given up their lodgings some portion of that time. The lodger franchise existed in Scotland since the passing of the Reform Bill, and he found that lodgers who had been there four or six years in lodgings invariably went on excursions into the country, gave up their lodgings, and did not pay rent continuously for twelve months. If a twelve months' residence were inserted in the clause, it would disfranchise four out of every five lodgers.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

said, that he had no objection to the clause which the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) had placed upon the Paper. He trusted, therefore, unless the hon. Gentleman anticipated considerable opposition, that he would allow the Committee to proceed. There was only one other proviso—namely, that which stood in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid), and which provided that no man should under this clause be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling-house. To that also he had no objection, as it was quite in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. If the consent of the Committee could be obtained to those two additions that night, this celebrated Clause 3 would be passed. In that case he would, when the House again went into Committee, move that the other clauses to Clause 34 be postponed. They might then settle the question of compound-householders, and thus end everything connected with the borough franchise.

said, that under these circumstances he begged to move, without making any observation, the proviso of which he had given notice.

said, he objected to the course proposed, and moved that the Chairman report Progress. The Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) raised the most important principle in the Bill, and did not settle it. He objected to a house of two rooms being authoritatively stated by the House of Commons as a fit residence for a citizen of England. When the Amendment was discussed he should propose to add other qualifications.

said, he hoped after this division they might agree to pass the clause. ["No, no!"] It was very easy to say "No, no!" but he wished to hear some reason. Nobody voting on the Ministerial side wished in any way to be an obstacle to free discussion; but he hoped the Committee would proceed with an Amendment to which there was no opposition, and then pass the clause.

said, he would move "that no tenement should be considered a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Act, which contained less than two rooms." No civilized being should live in less than two rooms.

said, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was of no small importance. Many hon. Gentlemen had left the House under the belief that no further Amendment of importance would be proceeded with at that hour. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Gladstone!"] He was not ashamed to say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was among them. He appealed to the Committee whether progress ought not to be reported. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman affected the metropolis considerably. Not only a dwelling-house, in the sense of a separate house should confer a vote, but a part of a house separately rated should also confer a vote. There might thus be an apartment in a flat capable of accommodating a single man, which might be tenanted by a perfectly competent person, and yet the Amendment would exclude him from the franchise. It was not necessary there should be two rooms, provided the one was of a sufficient value. Certainly, the point was of too much importance to be decided at so late an hour.

moved, as an addition to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin), the words, "And that the said two rooms shall not, together, contain less than 1,600 cubical feet." He said that he thought that this was the smallest space in which human beings could live in moral and physical decency, and he trusted that the Committee would accept his Amendment. Various building societies were at present building rooms larger in size than those he would secure by his addition to the Amendment.

said, he considered that the Committee ought to report Progress. At an earlier stage some reference had been made to the case of flats in a house—as in those in Victoria Street—and of chambers in the Inns of Court, and the point involved was assuredly worthy of consideration. He ventured to suggest to both hon. Members that for the present they should withdraw their Amendments, provided the Government were willing to consider how far in the interpretation clause the phrase "dwelling-house" would be found to meet what was thought desirable in this matter.

said, that all he wanted was to assert a principle, so that a hovel might not be ennobled and dignified by having the franchise attached to it. Several Gentlemen sitting on the front Opposition Bench had characterized his Amendment as hasty; but it had been on the Paper for a great many weeks, and he was sorry that they should have paid so little attention to it. He sincerely trusted the Committee would support him. He was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Pease). This was a moral and social as well as a political question.

said, that if the Committee agreed to the course just advocated a large number of competent voters would be disfranchised. He himself voted for Finsbury three times; but he only occupied one room there. The Amendment had been brought on by surprise, and to his knowledge several hon. Members had left the House under the impression that it would not be brought on to-night. He knew of several curates in London who lived in one room, and he was aware that many single artisans did the same. Under these circumstances, he moved that the Chairman report Progress.

I am not disposed to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Hughes), not, however, that I at all sympathize with the motive that has induced him to bring it forward. The notice of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) has been upon the table for some considerable time, and every hon. Member has had an opportunity of forming an opinion upon it. The House might by this time have fairly discussed and come to a division upon the question during the hour which has been wasted—an hour which at this period of the Session was of great importance. It would, however, be most unwise were the Government, in the face of an active minority, to attempt to force the House into an expression of its opinion upon the question, under present circumstances, notwithstanding the large majority in favour of passing the clause now. When I consider the great labours of the House, and when I recollect that we have advanced to this stage of a great question on the whole with great good temper, I cannot refuse to assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, though I do so with regret.

said, the object of this Bill was to substitute for the office of Vice President of the Board of Trade a Secretary having a salary of £1,500 per annum, who should not be compelled to resign his seat on accepting office. He approved of the measure so far as it would save £500 by substituting a Secretary for the Vice President of the Board of Trade; but he thought that part of it which proposed that the Secretary should not vacate his seat on his appointment was objectionable. This question was in truth closely connected with a much larger subject, which must some day undergo discussion—namely, the question of vacating seats upon the accession to or transfer of offices. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stephen Cave) had been in error on a former occasion in representing that no official in the position of a Secretary vacated his seat by the acceptance of office. The Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, although holding the position of Secretary to another Minister, invariably submitted himself for re-election to his constituents.

said, that if the Government were proposing to establish a new principle in this matter there would be great force in his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers') remarks. But they did not make any such proposal. They abolished an office which carried with it the obligation of re-election, and substituted for it an office which, by analogy with the corresponding offices in other departments, did not impose such an obligation. If an Under Secretaryship were created of the former character, they would be establishing a new principle, and breaking through an old-established rule. It would be most unreasonable that, while the Under Secretaries in the great offices of the Secretaries of State were exempted from the necessity of re-election, this obligation should be imposed upon the Under Secretary of the Board of Trade. His hon. Friend had instanced the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but his office was more akin to that of a Secretary of State. He was practically head of a Department, and was a Privy Councillor. The provision for vacation of seats by Members accepting office was originally intended, as hon. Members knew, to prevent the House of Commons being swamped by a multitude of placemen. It was, in fact, forced upon the Commons by the rejection of their provision for limiting the number of office-holders. It had been enacted by the Act of Settlement, A.D. 1700, that no person holding office or place of profit under the Crown should be capable of serving as a Member of Parliament. This provision proving, as might have been expected, extremely inconvenient, was repealed in 1706, by the statute of 6 Anne, called the Act of Security. From the great historian Hallam they learnt that when a clause called the long clause in this Act of Security—which while limiting the number of placemen, admitted many more than now sit in the House of Commons—was thrown out by the Lords, the Commons, finding themselves unable to maintain their ground, consoled themselves for the enforced presence of an unlimited number of placemen by this provision for the vacation of seats by Members accepting office. The enactment was, in fact, originally, not for the expression of the opinion of a constituency on the acceptance of office by their representative, but for the absolute exclusion of redundant placemen. The object was loss of seat, not reelection. It might be said that a constituency ought to have the power of declaring whether it wished to be represented by an official or not, but when had such a plea in reality been urged? When a Member under such circumstances had failed in his re-election, had it not been in every instance from some other cause? What greater anomaly could there be than this, that when the first Lord of the Admiralty became Secretary for War in the same Administration he had to be re-elected, whereas, if the Government resigned, and he changed sides, he might remain as First Lord of the Admiralty under the new Government, repudiating all the principles upon which he was elected, and yet would not be obliged to go to his constituents? This regulation had long been felt on all sides to be an anachronism, an obsolete provision, altogether unsuited to an age in which we certainly could not complain of the excessive power of the Crown; a provision which in reality created annoyance, delay, and expense, and benefited no one except those who gained a livelihood in the troubled waters of elections. These remarks pointed rather to the general question; but whatever might be the opinion of hon. Members on this, he did not think they would wish to extend the application of the rule to an Under Secretaryship, an office the appointment of which was, strictly speaking, not in the Crown but in the head of the Department. The Return lately presented to the House showed no increase in Crown patronage, for though there was one more office than in 1827, the acceptance of which did not vacate the seat, there were five fewer offices of profit altogether, and there was this further difference between the present office of Vice President and that of Under Secretary, that the Vice President held two offices which vacated seats, one being that of Paymaster General—if that could be called an office of profit to which no salary is attached. This office, however, would not be attached to that of Under Secretary. He hoped the House would allow the clause to pass without the proposed alteration.

said, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) were entirely conclusive. The reference to the Chief Secretary for Ireland was inappropriate, because the Lord Lieutenant was the locum tenens of the Queen and the representative of Royalty in that country. His Chief Secretary was not only a high officer of State but frequently sat in the Cabinet.

said, he must insist on the importance of re-election upon accession to office. If an hon. Gentleman who had recently crossed the floor of the House, and was now a Judge, had not sat for a close borough, he would probably have paid the penalty of exclusion for his change of opinions.

said, the allusion just indulged in was plainly intended for his right hon. Friend Judge Morris. But the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely erroneous. Galway was no more a close borough than the City of London. His right hon. Friend, in the interval between the accession to office of the present Government and his becoming a Judge, was twice elected by the constituency by very large majorities.

said, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.