said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Hopley, who having been summoned before the Magistrates at the instance of Mr. Wynne, the Inspector of Mines for the Staffordshire district, for having refused to bring up a gang of Colliers from the Madeley Court Colliery when required to do so, had dismissed the summons; and whether the reasons had been given which induced the Magistrates to dismiss the summons?

said, in reply, that he was informed by the clerk to the magistrates in question that there was not sufficient evidence adduced before the Bench to justify a conviction. The circumstances appear to have been that the men down the mine disobeyed orders by not sending up the weight which should have been used to counterbalance the other shaft, and Hopley, therefore, would not send down the "doubles" to bring them up. The men below then procured "doubles" from another place, but Hopley gave them notice that he would not land them until they sent up the weight.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the lamentable amount of juvenile criminality, largely attributable to the spread of cheap publications and theatrical representations of an exciting and immoral character, which corrupt the children of the lower classes, and stimulate them into courses of dishonesty and vice; and, whether the Government will propose any remedy for these growing and most serious evils?

said, in reply, that the hon. Member had been good enough to place in his hands samples of the publications of which he complained. The police authorities had also placed similar periodicals in his possession. The publications, although very bad in their character, were not of such a nature as to mate them liable to prosecution. They were merely sensational, and did not come within the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act, or they would be seized and destroyed. With respect to the theatrical representations referred to, he was informed that there was a great deal of exaggeration. With regard to those places that were known as "penny gaffs,"—the police had told him that those which they had visited the performances were not in themselves immoral, and therefore the authorities could not interfere. As to the publications, he begged to assure the hon. Member that if anything whatever could be done to counteract their tendency he should be happy to do so.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between the Foreign Office and the Treasury on the subject of the amount of compensation to be granted to Foreign Office Agents in the event of their agencies being abolished; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

said, he would lay on the table the Correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Treasury on the amount of compensation to be awarded to Foreign Office Agents in the event of their offices being abolished.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the discussion in the House of Commons on the 23rd of July last, If any authoritative decision has been given by the Spanish Tribunals in the case of the Tornado; whether the claims of the crew for compensation for harsh and unjustifiable treatment ore still under consideration; and, if he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House, any further Correspondence in the matter of the seizure of the ship, and the prolonged detention of the crew of that vessel?

Sir, I regret to say that no authoritative decision has yet been come to on the subject. I have more than once made representations to the Spanish Government, but the answer has always been the same—that the Government could not interfere with the ordinary Courts of Law. With regard to the granting of compensation, that, I apprehend, will depend upon the decision that may be come to as to the character of the vessel, A few weeks ago I laid upon the table such Papers as I had, and since that time nothing of importance has been received.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Despatches from Abyssinia have yet been received; and, if not, whether he can account for the great delay in their transmission? If they have been received, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House when he proposes to move the Vote of Thanks to Sir Robert Napier and the Army of Abyssinia?

Sir, the Despatches have not jet been received. Some portions of the Despatches have been received; but not the Despatch which ought to be placed before the House before the Vote of Thanks is moved, and which refers particularly to the recommendations of Sir Robert Napier as to the services of the individuals engaged. The moment the remaining Despatches are received they will be placed on the table, and the House will see that it is absolutely necessary to have them. When they are received, I will give Notice of a day for moving the Vote of Thanks.

said, the delay was a little remarkable. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were some persons now in town who had been present at the taking of Magdala?

As I have seen the officers who have returned from Abyssinia, I will venture to answer the Question. Sir Robert Napier informed me, in a Despatch which has been laid on the Table of the House, that it was his intention to send an officer—Colonel Milward—with a Despatch containing details of the engagement which resulted in the capture of Magdala. On Saturday evening last Colonel Milward arrived, having been detained in consequence of the vessel in which he sailed getting aground. The Despatch gives full details of the action before Magdala; but the closing paragraph states that Sir Robert Napier proposed to send by the following mail a further Despatch, which would give the re-embarkation of the troops, and at the same time full particulars of the services of those whom he wished to recommend to notice. In a private letter tome Sir Robert Napier said he hoped to send this by Colonel Fraser. Very late on Saturday Colonel Fraser arrived, and left some letters at my house. The Despatch in question was not among those letters; but I have hopes that it may be among some other Papers that were sent to the Horse Guards.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is his intention to go on with those Bills that night?

said, in reply, that, although he was anxious to proceed with those Bills, there were others of greater importance on the Paper—the Irish Reform Bill for example—which stood before them on the Paper, and the Registration Bill, which stood next. If he found that the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill was concluded at such an hour as would leave the Registration Bill sufficient time to pass a second reading, he would proceed with the India Bills, but not otherwise.

said, he wished to know, Whether the Electric Telegraphs Bill would be taken on Thursday?

Yes.

said, he wished, in consequence of an Answer just given to a Question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in case the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill should not be finished that night, which was highly probable, he did not think it would be right to place it first on the Orders for Thursday?

I think there are reasons why the arrangement which has been made should be adhered to at present; but I will certainly take care that the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill shall not be neglected.

rose, pursuant to Notice, to move the following Amendment:—

"That no Bill can be satisfactory to the people of Ireland which does not provide for a rental franchise of £6 or upwards in counties, instead of a rating franchise of £12 or upwards, and a rental franchise of £3 or upwards and a lodger franchise of £3 or upwards in boroughs, instead of a rating franchise of £4 or upwards; that votes at Elections be taken by ballot; and that no borough be disfranchised, but that the boundaries of boroughs having less than 6,000 inhabitants be extended so as to include within the limits of such boroughs all premises, for the purpose of conferring the franchise on the inhabitants thereof."

Before the hon. Member moves his Resolution I wish to point out to him that it exceeds the limits prescribed for such Motions by the Rules of the House. It is a Resolution which in reality anticipates discussion on every clause of the Bill, and on some points with respect to which Notice of Amendment has been already given, It seems to me to go beyond the rules laid down by the practice of this House. It would, I think, be more regular to move that the Committee on the Bill be postponed than to propose a Resolution couched in such terms.

said, he would withdraw his Motion in deference to the opinion of the Speaker. He hoped to be able to carry the Amendments embodied in the Resolution in Committee on the Bill; for without them he did not believe it would be worth the paper on which it was printed,

said, he rose to urge upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the expediency of proceeding only with the enfranchising portion of the Bill. The redistribution part could not stand, inasmuch as those boroughs which it was proposed to disfranchise were not the smallest, and appeared to have been selected for disfranchisement on some capricious system, in support of which no valid argument could be advanced. He felt assured, he added, that nobody could be more thoroughly actuated by a desire to act justly in the matter than his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but then, he must acknowledge that it was a somewhat arbitrary mode of proceeding to propose to give a third Member to Dublin on the minority principle, and to divide the counties in those cases in which an addition was made to their representation. Then, although it was intended to disfranchise six boroughs, only one of the seats—that conferred on Dublin—was to be given to a town, although, as things at present stood, the counties were represented in nearly the proportion of two to one. What he would suggest was, that the town of Portarlington alone, which only possessed 100 voters, should be disfranchised, and that the seat thus obtained should be conferred on Kingstown, Dalkey, Monkstown, and Bluckwell, which contained a population of something like 28,000. If that suggestion were adopted matters might be much simplified; but if the Bill were proceeded with as it stood, it was clear, from the number of Amendments of which Notice had been given, that the discussions on it must occupy several nights.

said, that taking into account that they had reached the middle of June, and that everybody was anxious to prepare the way for an early dissolution, it was desirable that the discussions on the Bill should be shortened as much as possible. There were various Amendments on the Paper which would clearly, if brought on, raise questions of principle and lead to long debates; and it would be a great blessing, he thought, if they could be set aside so that hon. Members might be the earlier released from their labours. He saw no hope of their getting through the Bill in anything like a reasonable period if they were to proceed with the proposals of the Government, as to re-distribution of seats. Ireland would not suffer by leaving the remainder of the scheme to be dealt with by the better or worse men who were to follow in the new Parliament,

said, that in England 37 per cent of the Members would, under the new Bill, be returned by counties; whilst in Ireland the county Members were in the proportion of 62 per cent. It was, therefore, a very extraordinary thing to propose an increase of the number of Irish county Members. There was no doubt that the small boroughs in Ireland were not independent; but no party on either side of the House seemed to take into consideration the arrangements by which they might be made independent. The same arguments brought against five of the boroughs which it was proposed to disfranchise could be brought against all boroughs with less than 10,000 inhabitants. There were many boroughs in Scotland and Wales with under 2,000 population. His own opinion was that these boroughs in Ireland could not be rendered independent by any other plan than that of grouping, which had been found so successful in Scotland nod Wales. Though he should prefer to see Portarlington grouped instead of being disfranchised, yet he was willing to admit that that borough afforded by far the least strong case for the retention of representation, while Kingstown afforded by far the strongest case for enfranchisement; and he should be well content if the whole principle of re-distribution were given up, with the exception of the transference of the representative from Portarlington to Kingstown. The question of the Irish Church was at present one of absorbing interest in Ireland, and there were also other questions engaging the attention of the lower classes in that country, and preventing them from taking an interest in the subject of Parliamentary Reform, their feeling rather being not to be connected with that House at all. He therefore thought that it would be advisable that the whole matter of redistribution should be put off until those questions were settled and the mind of the Irish people was in a fit state to express their feelings with regard to Parliamentary Reform. Under these circumstances he should be glad if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sanford) were acceded to.

said, that when the Bill was introduced he objected to the disfranchisement of a number of boroughs in Ireland. The proposal to disfranchise boroughs while the county representation was increased could not he borne out by reference to the principle adopted in the case of England or of Scotland. He thought that such an arrangement would be fatal to the establishment of a fair system of representation. In the counties the landed interest and the landlords had a preponderating influence, and he did not wish to see that influence increased; but in towns the population consisted of people of varied interests and varied opinions. He still entertained the same objection to the Bill as he expressed on the night of its introduction. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) was one which was well worthy the attention of the Government. It would meet with very considerable support in Ireland, and, if adopted, would facilitate the progress of Business in that House. It was not to be regarded as in any sense a party question: and he hoped both sides of the House would concur in adopting the suggestion which had been made. He believed that the Bill would double the constituencies in boroughs; and therefore the number of voters would be so large as to form a good argument against disfranchisement.

said, he hoped the House would not forget the strong claims which Ulster possessed to increased representation. The present proposal of the Government by no means commended, itself as likely to be a permanent measure. He would take the statistics of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) himself, and he found that the number of Members, if allotted to the four provinces in proportion to population, and also to the annual value of property in each, would be as follows. According to the population in 1861, Leinster, with a population of 1,457,635, would have 26 Members; Munster, with a population of 1,513,558 would have 27 Members; Ulster, with a population of 1,914,236, 34 Members; and Connaught, with a population of 913,135, would have 16 Members. According to the annual value Leinster (£4,386,986) should have 35 Members; Munster (£3,263.804), 27 Members; Ulster (£3,830,040), 30 Members; Connaught (£1,416,301), 11 Members; and combining the population and annual value Leintster should have 34 Members Munster, 27 Members; Ulster, 29 Members; and Connanght, 13 Members. The numbers who could read and write in each province were—Leinster, 638,436; Munster, 533,516; Ulster, 712,999; and Connaught, 221,013; so that Ulster deserved more Members on every ground—of population, annual value, menu of population, and annual value, and education, as also on the ground of freedom from crime and number of electors. He altogether objected to the principle of grouping, which was accurately enough described by Mr. Whiteside when he said—

"You add one melancholy little town to another melancholy little town, and their union makes a still more melancholy state of things than did their separate existence."

said, he could not allow the question which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) to pass without some expression of opinion. The impression he had and which was considerably strengthened by what had been stated on both sides within the last half-hour, was that there was a great deal of force in the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). From the state of the Notice Paper there certainly appeared no prospect of a very speedy agreement upon the re-distribution scheme of the Irish Reform Bill; and he had other grounds for feeling anything but enthusiastic in entering on the consideration of the re-distribution clauses. The proposals themselves were objectionable, and he found it utterly impossible to assent to them, while, on the other hand, he well knew the difficulties a private Member had to encounter in proposing to substitute other provisions. Although the present system was exceedingly faulty, the possible changes must inevitably lie within a narrow compass, and therefore he thought it right to say that if the Government were disposed to let that part of the Irish Reform Bill stand over for future consideration there would be but little objection made on that side of the House, and the public interests of Ireland would not be imperilled thereby. But, at the same time, if the Government thought it right to go on with that part of the Bill, he should—feeling the proposals made by them extremely unsatisfactory—do his best, in conjunction with others on that side, to substitute some plan of re-distribution which he considered more suitable to the circumstances of the case and fairer to the various interests, especially with reference to the proportion of seats held by county and borough Members.

said, that he had been surprised to hear of any commercial interests requiring protection in the greater number of the towns in Ireland. With the exception of Belfast, Dublin, and Cork, there were no such interests. The interest towns were very nearly as agricultural as the counties, for what trade they had depended on the prosperity of the agricultural population. But he could not agree that there was a proper Irish representation. The immense county of Cork was under-represented, so was the county of Tipperary, and also the county of Down: these counties had but two Members each. The hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Sandford) had said that he was surprised there should be so many representatives of the agricultural classes in Ireland; but what was the proportion of electors in boroughs and counties? In the boroughs there were 32,000 electors, with four representatives; in the counties 134,000, with only sixty-four representatives. He contended that the counties ought to get more Members, not by taking them from the boroughs, but by giving Ireland additional representatives. Scotland had no better right to additional Members than Ireland. If they were to take population as the test, Ireland ought (not according to any calculation of his, but according to a Return that had been laid on the table of the House) to have 131 Members. The Scotch Members coolly set down the Irish Revenue at £6,500,000, and placed their own at £7,500,000; but the fact was that the Irish Revenue was nearer £9,000,000. Therefore, comparing both population and revenue, Ireland was clearly entitled to a large increase of Members. When speaking to other Irish Members on this subject they said that the claim of Ireland to additional representatives was perfectly just, but pointed out that there was no use in pressing it, because they would not get them. But, for his part, he could not allow the debate to close without protesting against giving Scotland additional Members when they were denied to Ireland, However, if the Government chose to accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), to leave the present distribution of seats within Ireland as they now exist, he felt that he could not hope for support even from Irish Members, and therefore would not at present throw any impediment in the way.

said, that they ought to adopt one of two courses—either to proceed to the disfranchisement, or at once to abandon that portion of the Bill. He had, however, one exception to take to the suggestion of the hon Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) that they should execute the wretched borough of Portalington, and leave untouched all the other small boroughs, which were not, a bit better. He dissented altogether from the idea that the present House was not perfectly competent to deal with a few boroughs, instead of leaving them over for a future Parliament. After settling the great questions of English and Scotch Reform, were they to pronounce themselves unable to decide about a few small boroughs? He did not agree with the plan of Her Majesty's Government; but the points upon which he differed from them were but few, and he was prepared to meet them upon those points. He quite agreed in the proposal that Kingstown and Rathmines should have a Member, because they were among the most rising townships in Ireland. The right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had said that there was no necessity for any re-distribution; but he recollected the same right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion saying that these were small trumpery boroughs, of which six if put together would not make a decent constituency. As a county Member, and not looking to the North or the South, he was always for giving to every borough that had a claim its due representation. He hoped, therefore, that a Member would be given to night to Kingstown, and also a second Member to Londonderry, although in al probability he should disagree in opinion with the Gentlemen who might represent them. When the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) spoke of the county representation as satisfactory, did his hon. Friend mean that the great county of Cork, with 490,000 inhabitants, was to remain content with only two Members? In England they had the land represented by a number of highly respectable Gentlemen, somewhat slow, but very sure—were it not for some recent indications he should say they were a remarkable honest body. But it was from the representation of the towns in England that they got all the vigour and energy of the nation. He had chanced that morning to look over the income tax accounts in England, and he found that while in 1815 the national income was derived from £137,000,000 of property it was distributed in this way—land was represented by £39,000,000, profits of trade under Schedule D by £37,000,000, and houses, funds, &c, by £61,000,000, the proportion being land, £39,000,000, as compared with £98,000,000 from other sources. But in 1867 the national income was derived from £291,000,900, of which the land represented £46,000,000, profits of trade under Schedule D £84,000,000, and houses, funds, &c, £160,000,000, or a proportion of £46,000,000 to £244,000,000. While, therefore, between 1815 and 1867 the increase from land had been only £7,000,000, the increase from all other sources was no less than £147,000,000. Now the increase in the borough representation strengthened every one of those great sources of income. But was that the case in Ireland? Nothing (if the kind. There were in Ireland 39 Members of boroughs, the population of which was only 707,000, the valuation being £1,600,000. Supposing the voters in these boroughs were taken on a £4 franchise the whole number would not be more than 66,000. On the other hand, the counties had only 64 Members, their population was about 5,000,000, their valuation £11,500,000, and the number of voters would, under this Bill, he 176,000. Therefore the claims of the Irish counties, especially the flourishing counties of Cork and Down, for additional representation could not be put aside.

said, he thought that, as the re-distribution scheme of the Government apparently gave satisfaction: to neither side of the House, it was advisable to abandon it. If it were proceeded with he should he prepared, at the proper time to urge the claims of Ulster to increased representation; for he believed that Ireland, and especially that province, had as good claims as Scotland, if not better. The valuation Returns for the last ten years showed that in Ulster there had been an increase of £1,500,000, while in other parts of the country there had been a decrease.

said, there was not the same reason for disfranchising small boroughs in Ireland as in England. In England there were large and growing towns, with enormous populations, which sent no representatives to that House, and it was in order to provide representatives for those places that the disfranchisement of small boroughs in England was urged. But that was not the case in Ireland. It appeared that the only town in Ireland over 10,000 inhabitants which did not send a representative to that House was Kingston and Rathmines, in the county of Dublin. He protested against borough seats being transferred to counties for it had always been held that variety of representation should be studied. The Irish county Members were, almost without exception, the proprietors of landed estates in the counties they represented or in adjoining ones. Members of the trading, professional, and mercantile classes were only returned by the boroughs. He did not believe the proposal to transfer five seats from boroughs to counties would meet with approval, and he was not surprised to find hon. Members desirous to get rid of the difficulty by asking the Government to withdraw their scheme. He objected to any middle course being taken, and he protested against his own borough being made the scapegoat. Portarlington was not smaller than some English boroughs which, until the recent decision of the the House, had returned Members, nor was it much smaller than Dungannon.

said, that although the discussion was premature and not altogether in Order still he did not regret that it was raised, and he hoped it might lead to some advantageous arrangements between the two sides of the House. The proportion between the urban and the county representation had been fixed in 1800 and in 1832, and there had been no change since. As a county Member he objected to the annihilation of boroughs to increase the county representation. Such a change would lead to lamentable consequences in every sense with respect to the interests of Ireland. The desultory propositions of several Members ought not to be attended to, inasmuch as they had given no Notice of them and placed no scheme whatsoever before the House for the consideration of Members. In fact, there were only two schemes before the House, one, the scheme of the Government and the other the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent). The scheme of the Government was devoid of all principle, and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford was founded upon a fallacious principle. The scheme of the Government was against all constitutional principle, inasmuch as it proposed to merge the borough representation in the county representation; and the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford was founded on a fallacious principle, inasmuch as it placed the English and Irish boroughs on the same basis as to population. A population of 5,000 in an English borough represented a decaying village, but not so in Ireland. An Irish borough with 5,000 inhabitants, according to the proportion of the urban population in the two countries, was equivalent to an English borough with 10,000. He recommended that the defective scheme of the Government should be struck out of the Bill, and in that case he recommended his hon. and gallant Friend not to persevere with his scheme, but to withdraw it.

said, the Government re-distribution scheme seemed to be condemned by Gentlemen opposite, because they disliked the transfer of borough seats to counties, and by his own (the Ministerial) side, because it gave additional representation to the South and not to the North. He thought Ireland should be treated in same way as England—boroughs with less than 5,000 inhabitants being disfranchised, and the seats being given partly to the large towns and partly to the counties. Kingstown ought certainly to be represented, and additional representation should be given to Cork city, Dublin city, and, perhaps, to Belfast, as well as to the counties of Cork and Tipperary.

said, he hoped the Government would tell the House what they really intended to propose, and not lose time by discussing points that might hereafter be given up, and that could only be dealt with in Committee.

said, he could not understand the object of the discussion, unless it was to throw cold water on the whole plan for the reform of the Irish representation. For hon. Members to pick out and discuss particular portions of the question was certainly to prejudice it. He did not see why this Bill should be divided, and a half left to be passed by another Parliament. He was anxious to go into Committee, and he should then be able to meet the statements and arguments of the hon. Members for Dublin (Mr. Pim) and Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate), and show that the claims of Ulster were not paramount. The English Reform Bill had occupied almost the whole of last Session; and he had no reason to suppose that the Government or the House would be reluctant to give sufficient time for the fair and full consideration of the Irish Reform Bill.

I do not understand what ground there is on the part of the hon. Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent) for blaming the Government in regard to the course they have taken. They have moved that the House go into Committee on the Irish Reform Bill, where upon a discussion not originated by the Government, but in which the Irish Mom hers on both sides have taken a great interest, has arisen. It would not have been becoming in us to stifle that discussion, because it has enabled us to learn the general opinion of the House on the matters which have been raised. All that has been said shall receive respectful and careful consideration; but I do not understand that anything has occurred to prevent the. House from going into Committee, on the Irish Reform Bill. I hope that the Committee will now go on with the business before us.

said, he rose to move an Amendment. The existing franchise in boroughs in Ireland was a rating of £8. When the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved for leave to bring in the present Bill he stated that he proposed to lower the borough franchise from £8 to £4; but instead of lowering it to £4, the noble Earl had made it necessary that a voter should be rated at something "more than £4." [The Earl of MAYO: I said "about £4."] The clause now made the franchise above £4, for which there was no sufficient reason. The valuation in Ireland was conducted by persons appointed by the Government, and the valuation usually proceeded by steps of from 10s. to £1. The effect of the clause would be that in order to entitle a man to the franchise he must be rated at, say, £4 10s. It was desirable that the Government valuators should not consider whether the effect of their rating would be, to give the franchise or not. His Amendment would render it necessary to alter the law of rating, and he had put upon the Paper a Notice in conformity with his present Amendment. The effect of the clause, as it was now worded, would be to disfranchise all who were rated at £4, of whom there are considerable numbers. Such an amount would be quite high enough, because it would usually indicate a house of between £5 and £6 rental. He begged to move on page 2, clause 3, line 4, to leave out the words "more than," which would place the borough franchise on an intelligible and rational basis.

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, taken in conjunction with a Notice he had given of an Amendment in Clause 26, would practically alter the law of rating in Ireland as it had existed ever since the Poor Law was established in that country. That law of rating was that in the case of all tenements rated above £4 the pour rates were paid, one half by the landlord and the other half by the tenant; whereas in the case of all tenements at or below £4, the whole of the rates were paid by the immediate lessor, and no demand was ever made on the occupiers for poor rates, That principle had worked very satisfactorily, and it practically exempted from the payment of poor rates the greater number of persons who were unable to pay them. That system got rid of the difficulty in the way of the collection of rates which existed in many instances both in England and Scotland, and he believed the day was not far distant when some such system—he was then speaking only in regard to the collection of rates—would be adopted for the entire United Kingdom. The great closeness between the rates struck and the rates paid in Ireland was, perhaps, one of the most remarkable features presented by the administration of the Poor Law. Since the introduction of the Poor Law into Ireland the total amount of rates made was £20,300,000, of which £19,500,000 sterling had been actually collected; so that the total amount of poor rate declared irrecoverable out of that very large sum in a period of more than thirty years, including the time of the famine, was under £1,000,000. The Committee ought, therefore, to pause before it interfered with a system which had worked so admirably. The increase which the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would cause to the constituency, although not very large, would include the very poorest class, and as a rule precisely those whom the law had declared to be unable to pay their rates. The increase to the borough constituency which would be made by giving household suffrage to every man in Ireland who paid rates would, in round numbers, be about 9,700 or 10,000; and the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would add to that number some 2,000 persons scattered all over Ireland, the greater portion of them living in the city of Dublin. The great objection to the Amendment was that it did not affect only the persons who were rated at £4 in boroughs. Taken in connection with the Amendment proposed in the 26th clause, it would interfere with the system of rating over the whole of Ireland, and would render the occupiers of 39,000 tenements who were now exempted from poor rates, liable to pay those rates. No cause had been shown why they should create so great a disturbance in the Irish Poor Law and inflict so great a hardship on thousands of poor people. Nobody had asked for such a change. On the contrary, all whom he had spoken to were perfectly satisfied with the working of the present law, and not a single petition had been presented to the House since then. He therefore hoped that the Committee would reject the Amendment.

said, he thought the proposal ought to be limited to boroughs, and believed his right hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) was quite willing that it should be so limited. Thus altered, the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given no sufficient reason for opposing it. It was true that was not a very large question, but that fact told both ways; and in speaking of the great disturbance the Amendment would cause in the rating system, the noble Earl much exaggerated its effects, especially if it were confined to boroughs. He could confirm what the noble Earl had said in regard to the admirable manner in which the poor rates were collected in Ireland; but he could not believe that that inconsiderable departure from the present line at which the occupier became personally liable, but which would make a considerable addition to the borough franchise, would seriously impair the collection of poor rates. Again, the noble Earl himself proposed a much greater departure than his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lawson) now did from the present system of rating in regard to five large cities, of which Dublin was one; for in those five places the limit of liability was to be reduced from £8 to over £4. The entire addition to the borough constituencies resulting from that Bill was a very moderate one indeed, and he should welcome the extension, how ever small, that would be given to it by the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, which he hoped the Committee would support.

said, that on the second; reading of the Bill, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland entirely approved the principle of the proposed borough franchise for Ireland. Occupiers at and under £4 would not wish to have the franchise on the condition of paying rates, and the Amendment before the Committee would be regarded in Ireland among all the parties concerned as a breach of faith.

said, that the consequence of retaining these words in the clause would be to do great injustice to five large towns in Ireland. It would disenfranchise the occupiers of 319 tenements in Cork alone, and practically fix the rating qualification at £4 10s., which would be equivalent to a £7 rental.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) whether he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) with respect to limiting his Amendment to the case of boroughs?

was understood to answer in the affirmative.

said, that if the Amendment were adopted, it would lead to much confusion, as well as open the door to fraud and corruption, inasmuch as the very poor class of householders could never pay the rates for themselves.

said, that the operation to which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland now so much objected, he had himself proposed to carry out with regard to no less than two-thirds of the whole of the voting population of boroughs.

said, that all the Government were proposing to do was to assimilate the law of rating all over Ireland, so that a principle which had been found by experience to act well might prevail in counties and boroughs alike. The proposal that came from the other side was to compel occupiers of houses in boroughs to pay rates and to leave those in counties exempt.

said, this clause did, not follow a single principle which had been laid down with respect to the English Bill. A most inconvenient "hard and fast line" would be imposed by it. The proposition of the Government was to give every man a vote who was rated over £4, and the Amendment was to give every man a vote who was rated at £4. In Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Belfast, and Waterford, those who occupied tenements valued under £8 paid no rates and the Government proposed to give every man in those towns a vote who was rated at more than £4. In other words, in giving a man a right to vote they put upon him the hard condition that he should submit himself to a rate to which he was not now liable. This would apply to eight-tenths of those admitted to the franchise. Why not accept the convenient figure of £4? By this clause, the noble Lord was inflicting a great hardship on eight-tenths of those admitted to the franchise.

said, he proposed that this and the two following clauses should be postponed, in order that the Government might have the opportunity of considering the suggestion which had been made to-night. He proposed, however, to go on with Clause 13, and to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) so as to do away with the Boundary Commissioners.

said, he did not understand why Clause 13 should not be postponed also.

said, he would explain that when they came to the clause.

inquired what the Government proposed with regard to this clause?

said, that with the permission of the Committee, he would explain the course the Government meant to take with respect to the question of boundaries. He was sure the Committee felt it would be a matter of great convenience if any inquiry into the question of boundaries could be dispensed with. There was really, as he would show, no necessity for any extensive alteration of the Parliamentary limits of boroughs. He found that in fourteen out of the thirty-three boroughs in Ireland the Parliamentary boundaries were the same as the municipal boundaries. These boroughs were Armagh, Carlow, Clonmel, Tralee, Wexford, Bandon, Dungannon, Ennis, Enniskillen, Kinsale, Mallow, New Ross, Portarlington, and Youghal. In these fourteen cases they would be disposed to leave the boundaries as they were, being the same for municipal and Parliamentary purposes. In a considerable number of them the population had increased since 1841, so that there was really no case whatever for altering any of their boundaries. In fourteen of the remaining boroughs the Parliamentary boundaries were larger than the municipal—namely, Carrickfergus, Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterfoid, Dungarvan, Lisburn, Newry, Sligo, Cashel, Coleraine, and Downpatrick. In these fourteen boroughs, with the exception of Carrickfergus and Lisburn, the population had decreased; in no instance had they extended beyond the present municipal boundary; therefore, they did not require to be enlarged, and no one suggests their reduction. That leaves only five boroughs to be dealt with—that is, Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Dundalk, and Athlone. In Dublin there were some small portions of the city north of the North Circular Road and south of the South Circular Road which were contained within the municipal boundary, but were beyond the Parliamentary borough. These parts of the city should be included in the Parliamentary boundary. As regarded Belfast and Londonderry, the Parliamentary boundaries should be extended, as in both these places the towns, from considerable additional buildings and a largely increased population, had gone beyond the present Parliamentary limits. The Government proposed that in these cases also the Parliamentary boundaries should be extended, so as to correspond with the municipal. In Dundalk and Athlone a small extension will take place by assimilating the municipal and Parliamentary boundary. The Government were prepared to omit the 13th clause, and to adopt the first portion of the clause of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) had given Notice, which provided that where the boundary of any municipal borough did not coincide with the Parliamentary borough, all that part of such municipal borough extending beyond the limits of the Parliamentary borough, but within the municipal limits, should hereafter form part of the Parliamentary borough. The second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would provide that in the case of any borough not municipal, but under Town Councils or Commissioners, the boundaries as settled for the purpose of local government should be the Parliamentary boundaries also. This would bring in such towns as Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Coleraine, Galway, Newry, Down- patrick, and Cashel, and as it would have the effect of curtailing the limits of those boroughs he should not think the Committee ought to agree to it. He believed that in the case of the borough of Cashel it would have the effect of reducing the number of voters to the extent of one half. He thought that if the Committee adopted the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, and agreed to the suggestion of the Government, they would get rid of nil necessity for a Boundary Commission in the case of the Irish boroughs.

said, he would withdraw the latter portion of the clause of which he had given Notice. He had not intended that it should apply to the boundaries of existing Parliamentary boroughs, but introduced it to meet the case of Kingstown if it should get a Member.

What does the right hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) really want?

said that the general principle on which the Government proposed to act in cases where the municipal now exceeded the Parliamentary boundaries was to extend the latter so as make them conterminous with the former.

, in the absence of Mr. G. MORRIS, moved an Amendment, having for its object to except from the operation of the clause the towns of Carrickfergus, Drogheda, and Galway, and the cities of Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick, and Waterford.

said, that when the English Reform Bill was under discussion he voted for an Amendment having a similar object with regard to certain places in England to that of the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member in favour of certain Irish boroughs; but the agents on both sides were now of opinion that it would have been better to provide additional polling places.

said, he hoped that the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not assent to the Amendment. He thought the exception made last year in the English Bill was of doubtful policy; but the Amendment now proposed did not rest even on the same ground. The boroughs included in it were not, he presumed, of the extent of Manchester or Liverpool.

, who had entered the House after his Amendment had been proposed, said, that some parts of the Parliamentary borough of Galway were seven or eight miles from the town. If voters living at that distance were not conveyed to the poll by car they would in winter have to start from home before daylight in order to vote at an election. If expenses of conveyance were allowed at all, they ought to be allowed in boroughs comprising a large rural district. He hoped the Government would agree to his Amendment.

said, that although the Parliamentary boundary of the city of Cork extended for seven English miles, no polling places were allowed beyond the limits of the municipal boundary. He would suggest that in Cork and similar places the candidates should be allowed to convey to the poll voters who lived beyond the municipal boundary. The only other way of meeting the difficulty would be to create additional polling places: but his own opinion was that adopting such a course would lead to inconvenience;

said, that these county towns were really districts of counties, and it would be impossible to provide polling places for the sparse population scattered over them. The candidates for such districts should be allowed to provide cars for voters, as the candidates for counties were allowed to do.

said, that as the representative of one of the boroughs affected by the Amendment, he was quite sure that candidates for these places would rather not have the privilege of increasing the expenses of their election in this way. He could speak feelingly, for he knew the extravagance and imposition which attended this form of expenditure. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment. Those voters who wished to come in and vote were perfectly able to do so.

said, he wished for a clear explanation of how the Amendment would operate. Would candidates be debarred from paying the travelling expenses of voters who happened to be away in the country?

said, that with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir Henry Winston-Barron), though his (Mr. Pim's) election had cost a great deal of money, he had found the carmen of Dublin less inclined to imposition than many in a higher social position. Still he doubted not that the voters in outlying districts always contrived somehow to attend every fair and market in the borough, and he did not see why they should not he left to find their way to the poll. Scarcely any of them were without a horse.

said, that many of the electors in these boroughs were poor men, who could not afford to pay the expense of a cart, especially as carters demanded higher terms at election time. Unless the candidates were allowed to pay these expenses a number of voters would practically not be allowed to exercise the franchise. The exception made in favour of certain English boroughs ought to be extended to analogous cases in Ireland.

said, he thought Dungarvan should be included in the Amendment, as if comprised a large rural district.

said, he had no objection to strike out Waterford and insert Dungarvan, since the hon. Member for the former town (Sir Henry Winston-Barron) seemed to have a painful recollection of the impositions which had been practised upon him.

said, it was ridiculous to suppose that Galway voters were unable to walk five miles. They frequently walked such a distance to markets and fairs; and such an exertion, for an election happening perhaps once in three or four years, was surely not unreasonable.

had learnt, since he recently addressed the Committee, that the five polling places in Galway were all in the city, whereas in the English boroughs they were so distributed that no voter had to walk more than two miles or two and a half. It was manifestly unjust to expect voters to walk five miles.

said, that he objected to the clause alto-gather, as subjecting candidates to imposition, and not merely to its application to Waterford.

said, the discussion ought not to turn on the virtues or vices of carmen. He thought the fault of the Amendment was that it went on a general principle, regardless of the particular circumstances of each borough. Drogheda, for instance, had an area of only 5,000 statute acres. He thought the Amendment was defective, inasmuch as it proposed to except small as well as large boroughs. In places of great size, like Limerick, which comprehended 33,000 acres, he thought that exception might fairly be allowed.

said, that the Amendment if carried would only be a temptation to bribery and corruption.

said, he was willing to omit Waterford as well as Drogheda from the Amendment.

said, he did not know why Dublin should not be one of the excepted places, especially as Dublin was itself a county. The better course would be to strike out the clause altogether and allow these expenses to be paid where they were not paid corruptly.

said, he thought that this clause was a very peddling way of dealing with bribery and corruption. That question could not be satisfactorily dealt with in a clause such as this, nor could a clause be framed to carry out even the limited object at present in view if justice were to be done to the peculiarities of different boroughs.

said, it appeared from a Parliamentary Return that out of ten boroughs in England exceeding thirty square miles in extent, only two were exempted. He objected altogether to the exemption of Drogheda which had an area of but nine square miles.

said, he was of opinion that their principle should be to diminish the expenses of candidates, and then they would not get a corrupt House of Commons. The proper remedy for the evil complained of was the increase of polling places. That was the only way to grapple with the question of candidates' expenses. He would divide the boroughs into districts and establish polling places in each. He would have additional polling places even where there were only three or four voters. Why should electors have to go five or six miles to record their votes?

said, that at present it was no easy thing in Ireland to establish a number of new polling places, though it might be easy to pass an Act to effect that object. A good deal of formality had to be gone through before they could be erected; and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in which the polling places were usually situated would always oppose with the utmost violence the granting of any new polling places by the Quarter Sessions, because their sale of whisky would thereby be effected. But it was a mistake to suppose that the expanses of the candidates would be diminished by an increase in the number of polling places. Booths must be erected, each candidate must have an agent and a polling clerk at every polling place, and in fact the remedy would be worse than the evil.

said, he thought that if the House was in earnest on this subject of Parliamentary Reform in Ireland there ought to be no hesitation in dealing with the question now before the Committee. If they decided upon granting the suffrage to the Irish people, they ought to give all possible facilities for the exercise of the voting power. Those facilities ought not, however, to be provided at the expense of the candidates, but of the public; and even if carriages were necessary for the conveyance of voters to the poll, these also ought to be provided at the public cost. Additional; polling places were provided in the English Reform Bill, and if, being necessary in Ireland, they were not provided by the Legislature, what would the Irish Reform Bil be worth after all? There were numbers of places in England much larger than those in Ireland for which exemptions were now sought, and, in his opinion, exceptions ought only to be made in extreme cases.

said, ha was of opinion that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. G. Morris) were adopted it should be limited to those cases in which there were voters outside the municipal limits of the boroughs. No payment should be made for car hire within those limits.

said, he could not consent to withdraw the clause which was framed on the English Act. The best course that the Committee could adopt was to follow the precedent of the English Act as a general rule, but he admitted that there were cases in which such a rule would be equivalent to depriving residents outside the municipal boundaries of their votes. Under these circumstances he proposed to omit the boroughs of Drogheda, Kilkenny, and Waterford from the clause, leaving Limerick, Galway, and Cork under its operation. He did not think the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) would work satisfactorily. It would only lend to difficulties if one portion of the voters of a borough were subject to a different law from those who lived in another portion of it.

said, though car hire was of some importance, Reform in Ireland was more important. They could not introduce corruption into a borough more readily than by sanctioning the payment of car hire. In his opinion the constituency ought to pay the expenses of conveying voters to the poll.

said, that no sensible man could entertain a doubt with regard to Drogheda. In the English Bill of last year an exception was made in favour of four places, which were called boroughs, but were to all intents and purposes more like counties than boroughs. If an exception was made with regard to Irish boroughs they ought to be in the same category as the places to which he had alluded, otherwise the rule that had been laid down by Parliament would be broken through. Cork was the only borough which came within that rule.

said, that he proposed to limit the exception to three towns—Cork, Limerick, and Galway. They were the largest in extent of any in Ireland. Cork had an area of 70,000 acres. Limerick 33,000, and Galway 34,000. The case in their favour had been very much pressed, and he thought it would be better to conclude the matter by making an exception in their regard.

said, that if twenty- four square miles was considered a sufficient area to justify an exception being made in favour of one of these boroughs, it would be impossible for Parliament to resist any applications for a similar exception that might be made by English towns.

said, that in the borough which he represented there were voters living at a distance of five Irish miles, which was equivalent to something like seven English miles, from the only polling place in the borough; and to have to walk that distance to and from the poll was no slight matter. He should divide the Committee with regard to Galway.

said, that until he was persuaded that an Irishman could not walk so far as an Englishman he must oppose the Amendment. The largest of the boroughs contained only 47,965 acres, while the smallest of the boroughs excepted in England contained 51,246.

said, that in his opinion no case had been made out except on behalf of Cork, for Gal nay comprised thirty-five and Limerick forty one square miles, so that if the polling place were central voters could be only about three miles from it.

said, that the polling place was at one extremity of the borough, and this made all the difference.

said, that nearly all the counties of cities and towns in Ireland had been exempted from the operation of the clause except Dublin, It was true Dublin was not of a large area; but the Parliamentary boundary extended several miles beyond the municipal boundary, and there were many more voters, who would have to go six or seven miles to the poll. He should move, therefore, that Dublin be added to the list of exemptions, and he was sure the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) would support him.

said, he would do no such thing. It was true that Dublin deserved to be exempted as much as Cork or Limerick, but as he was opposed to the exemption of those places he could not agree to include Dublin.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, which there was nothing in the circumstances of Dublin to justify.

said, he thought the noble Lord had made out a strong case, and as he (Mr. P. Dawson) was well acquainted with the locality he would give him his support.

said, if there was to be any payment at all it should be the payment of 1d. to each voter to enable him to cross the bridge. It would be for the noble Lord, or some other candidate—and he hoped it would be another candidate—to pay the voters their toll.

suggested, as a way of getting over the difficulty, that there should be a rider, making the bridge free on polling days, as Chelsea Bridge was thrown open on Sundays.

said, he thought it would be necessary to insert words restricting the payment for conveyance to the case of voters brought from places within the Parliamentary borough, or else it might include voters brought from the Continent. He would move to add words to that effect on the Report.

said, he thought the proposed alteration would be very disadvantageous, and that it would be much better to assimilate the law in boroughs to that in force with regard to counties. There was no reason why there should be a distinction between them. It was desirable to get rid of fictitious notices, sent in by mere political agents, and often signed without the knowledge of the person, on whose behalf they were ostensibly made. The public were put to great expense in respect to fictitious claims, there being no power to give costs against those who resorted to the practice.

said, that if an agent were permitted to sign a notice, it should be provided that he should be required to prove that he had received authority to act as agent. Otherwise a political agent might of his own accord send in claims for half a county on the plea that he was acting "on behalf" of the persons concerned.

said, such an Amendment as that had always been steadily opposed in England, because its practical effect would be that a political agent would sign any number of claims without the parties hearing a word of the matter, and when once he got their names on the register he would regard them as his voters, and they would never escape from him.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that there was no penalty against a clerk of the Union for omitting the name of a qualified person from a list of electors. He begged to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the subject in order that a remedy might be provided.

said, the offenders could be called to account by the Poor Law Commissioners.

said, that as proposed by the clause, the rate in certain boroughs was to be made on the immediate lessor, where the value of the property was not more than £4, and it would be a very hard case if the lessee, through the act of the immediate lessor, should be deprived of his right to vote.

suggested that the clause should stand for the present, and he would bring up a new clause.

It is better to postpone it.

In regard to the ensuing election, it would be necessary to pass a temporary clause relating to the position of the voters this year, while this clause will refer to them in future. There is no necessity for postponing this clause.

put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

proposed to add a proviso, to the effect that the occupants of land or tenements in a borough rated at the net annual value of less than £8, and more than £4, should be entitled to be put on the register and vote at the election of Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the immediate lessor should not have been rated,

The Question has been put that the clause stand part of the Bill.

asked when the now clauses would be brought up and the consideration of the Bill resumed. He gave Notice that as soon as the postponed clauses were disposed of he should ask the House to adopt in the Irish counties a franchise of £8 instead of £12.

I think it is due to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and also to the importance of the question generally, that no time should be lost in coming to a conclusion upon this question of the Irish representation, and therefore I will remove the Order which I had arranged for Thursday, and will put this Bill first for that day.

said, that when the question of the Government of India was under discussion some ten years ago it was evident that it was the intention of Parliament that it should be at liberty to reconsider the mode in which the Council at home should be appointed, and the time at which their offices were to expire. He could not understand, therefore, why it was now proposed to grant the members of that Council pensions at once. The term of office which was suggested in their case by the Bill was in his opinion too long. The great object which it was desirable to attain he apprehended to be the introduction into the Council of men who had recently returned home from India, and who would be able to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the latest knowledge obtained in that country. That object could not, however, be secured if the members of the Council were to receive their appointments for a great number of years. He ventured to think that seven years would be ample time, and as the Council consisted of fifteen members, he would have two of them retire every year, so that a new element might thus constantly be introduced into that body, and that freshness communicated to it which it was of great importance, in his opinion, that it should possess. This plan would open a door for the employment soon after their return home of those who had served their country in India. He wished also to point out that the Under Secretary of State for India was not by law entitled to take any part in the proceedings of the Council, even in the absence of his chief from. London. That he regarded as a most anomalous and unsatisfactory state of things, and he should submit that as the Secretary of State was empowered to appoint eight out of the fifteen members, the eighth should be, ex officio, the Under Secretary, who should take his place in his absence, just in the same way as the Under Secretary for the Home Department transacted its business in the absence of its head.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that seven years was a sufficiently long period for the tenure of office in the case of members of the Council; but he would suggest that there should he a power of re-appointment, because, while it was desirable to bring in those whose information was fresh, it would often be a great disadvantage to the Council to lose the services of some particular Member. Instead of two members being obliged to retire every year, one of the two might be eligible for re-appointment.

said, that when introducing the Bill his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India stated it to be his intention, in the event of its passing, to propose that the accounts of Indian expenditure should be dealt with in the same way as the Imperial accounts, in the respect that they should be submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts appointed every year by the House. Before that was done, however, it was, in his opinion, desirable that that Committee should have an opportunity of considering the whole of the arrangements which the Government meant to make for the audit of Indian accounts. It was intended that the auditor of those accounts should stand in an independent relation to the Secretary of State for India, and that the audit should be one of a real and effectual character; but his impression was that the auditor at the India Office held some other appointment, that so far he could not fairly be called an independent officer, and that the audit was reduced to something like a mere shadow. What he should under those circumstances suggest was, that before any further action was taken in the matter the whole question of the audit of Indian accounts should he referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, so that it might be dealt with thoroughly previous to the third reading of the Bill. Proposals had been made to the effect that there should be an independent auditing of those accounts, as in the case of the Imperial accounts.

said, he thought that the term of twelve years was too long for the tenure of office by members of the India Council. Under the East India Company directors went out every four years and could not be re-elected for a year. The civil servants in India, some of whom returned to England every year, were thoroughly acquainted with the change which the progress of education was making in the minds of the Natives of India, and it would be a great advantage to have such men taken into the India Council at short intervals. At the three Universities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, numbers of Native graduates every year look honours in the examinations, in the same way as at Oxford or Cambridge, who necessarily from their self-respect looked to fill situations of influence, honour, and emolument. Where was the opening for the employment of such men unless the Covenanted Civil Service in India was thrown open to them? He intended, in the Committee upon the Bill, to propose that the duration of the tenure of office by the members of the India Council should not exceed five years, the time for which the Governor General and Governors of the Presidencies and staff appointments were tenable in the army. It might be desirable, as suggested by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), that certain individuals distinguished by capacity for Office should be permitted to retain their posts in the Council for a longer period than others; and power might be given in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State for India to grant this permission in exceptional cases.

said, that the main principle of the Bill was to provide for the service in the India Council of a succession of men coming fresh from India. There were various ways in which that might be done, and when the Bill went into Committee he would discuss the several propositions which had been made; and be prepared to state why, on the whole, he thought the proposal in the Bill the most convenient. In a Council of fifteen members, each employed for twelve years, there would probably be rather more than one new appointment per annum, and, allowing for vacancies, there might be two appointments in every three years. A man trained a great deal of experience in the India Council, and often got more complete views of Indian business after being a year there than he had when first appointed. He should be perfectly ready to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and to refer the mode of auditing the Indian accounts to the Committee on Public Accounts, who, after considering the subject, might make such recommendations as they thought desirable. Though the position of the auditor might be unsatisfactory in respect to his holding another situation, the audit was, nevertheless, efficiently conducted.

said, he hoped that when the Bill got into Committee the Secretary for India would offer some explanation respecting the power proposed; to be given to the Governor General to make laws for Natives of India wherever they might be, whether in India or in any other part of her Majesty's dominions. Hitherto this power had been limited in its application to Natives in India, and he wished to know why it was now to be extended. The provision in the Bill giving to the Lieutenant Governors of different Provinces very summary powers to make laws appeared to be a rather retrograde proceeding. The Bill provided for a difficulty—which now existed—in case of a difference between the Governor General and the majority of his Council; but it contained no provision to remedy an important defect in the present constitution of the Governor General's Council. Some further provision was requisite by which the Governor General should be empowered to conduct the ordinary business of government, by dividing his great administration into several Departments and playing one member of the Council at the head of each. The provision for introducing Natives into the permanent Civil Service required great consideration, for it was of no use subjecting candidates at home to stringent examinations if there was to be a back door in India by which the Governor General could usher Natives into the Civil Service. He thought it would be very much better to guarantee to the Natives that to which; they were clearly entitled—namely, the uncovenanted branches of the Civil Service. He was afraid that at present it was too much the practice for those in power to appoint their own dependents to this part of the service; and the result was that the Natives had little confidence in the manner in which public business was conducted.

said, he thought it objectionable that the Governor General should have power to introduce Natives of India into the higher branches of the service without proper provision being made to test their capabilities and qualifications. With regard to the Uncovenanted Service, he took a similar view to that of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). Of the civil servants in that brunch, 75 per cent were European adventurers, ignorant of the languages of India, and usually the protegées of men in Office.

said, he thought that, in the absence of any Papers bearing on the question of the admission of Natives into the Civil Service, such an explanation ought to be given as the importance of the change deserved, particularly with reference to the extent to which it was to be carried.

admitted the propriety of the suggestion that Papers bearing on the question ought to be produced. He had laid before the House Papers relating to the administration of Bengal, which ranged to a considerable extent over the more important questions raised by the Bill; but there were Papers relating to the appointment of Natives which it was desirable the House should be in possession of before passing the Bill. He would take care that they should be laid on the table, and in the meantime it would, perhaps, not be convenient that be should discuss the general subject.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that neither in this Bill nor in the Reform Act of last year was there any provision for the serving of notices of objection on lodgers, who consequently would not know until they went into Court whether they were objected to or not. Now, this new class of voters, to whom the franchise had been conceded after much consideration and controversy, would number many thousands in the metropolis, and would be very numerous in the principal towns, and they would be grievously disappointed if they found themselves practically debarred from their anticipated privileges. The service of notices of objection answered two good purposes—it apprised the claimant that his claim was disputed, so as to enable him to attend the Court, and establish his right, and it relieved from the necessity of attending those whose claims were not objected to. Now, as many of the lodgers would be working men, it could not be expected that they should attend the Court day after day in order to see whether they were objected to or not. He was sure the Home Secretary and the Solicitor General would be anxious to have this defect supplied, and he had called attention to it in order that it might be considered by the Select Committee to which the Bill was to be referred.

said, he wished to call attention to another point. He was advised by a barrister well fitted to give an opinion that in thickly-populated counties, such as Middlesex, where many persons had qualifications in one district and their place of business in another, in which latter they would vote, a poll could not he got there as the Bill stood in one day. Under Clause 6, the numbers in each polling district would begin with 1, so that throughout the county there would be many of a particular number; but those who voted in a polling-place other than the district where their qualification was situated would have no number at all. Supposing a quarter of the constituency were in that position, and assuming the constituency of Middlesex to number 20,000, there would be 5,000 without numbers; and how would it be possible for the poll clerks, without a numerical list to guide them, to find the name of any such person who presented himself? He trusted this point would be considered by the Committee. Moreover, under Clause 15, claims might be made until; the 25th of August; but the Act of last year altered the day for making objections from the 25th of August to the 20th, consequently there would he no opportunity of objecting to persons who might send in claims between the 20th and the 25th.

said, he hoped the House would not proceed with unnecessary precipitation in this matter. If ever there was a time for exercising due deliberation and caution it was now, when the country would have to manipulate three most important Acts conferring great privileges on the people. Therefore he objected to decapitating the revising tribunal. He objected to cutting off the head of the Common Fleas. He had every confidence in the legal ability of the Revising Barristers; but he was certain they would be glad to be supplemented by the learning of that high Court. And it would be satisfactory to the country to know that amid the changes and chances of electioneering life there was an august tribunal, unruffled by the popular breeze, to which the more difficult questions of their franchises could be referred—

"Apparet Divum numen, sedesque beatæ,

Quas neque concutiunt venti, neque nubila nimbis

Aspergunt."

said, he thought the point relating to lodgers a very serious one. Unless the lodger franchise was to be merely nominal, the law ought to require that notices should be served upon them when their right to vote was objected to; for otherwise, though the greater portion of them would be poor men, they would have to attend the Court from the very beginning of the revision to the end, in order to know whether they were objected to or not. Knowing this, very few of them would register at all. The obstacles in the way of the lodger were much greater than in the way of any other class, for instead of being put on the register by the overseers he had to make his own claim, and to repeat it every year. He ought not, then, to be liable to unknown objections at an unknown time.

said, that the Act of last year required the lodger to appear before the Revising Barrister, and substantiate his claim by proving the value of his lodging and the other conditions which he had to satisfy. The service of a notice of objection would thus make no difference, for under any circumstances he was bound to attend the Court, whereas the ordinary voter was placed upon the register by the overseer and had no need to attend unless objected to.

said, that on the lodger franchise being considered last year it was thought impossible that the overseers should make out the list of lodgers, and that it was necessary that lodgers should make their own claims. The fear that lodgers who had made a claim would waste much time in waiting on the Revising Barrister for fear their claim should be disputed had no foundation; a certain day would be appointed for lodgers to prove their claim, and objectors would be heard on that day and no other. He did not think the objections raised by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) were to any extent insurmountable, and he had no doubt the Select Committee would soon find a way to meet them.

said, he thought the Bill demanded most serious consideration. It was agreed on both sides of the House that an early dissolution was desirable; but the question arose, what was necessary and what unnecessary delay? To decide on this question, he appealed to a great principle, which he proposed to lay before the House. The next Parliament would be the most important ever yet elected by the English people; and this he said without fear of contradiction. Parliament had resolved on making the greatest change in the Constitution ever resolved on since Parliament had existed the change might be described as a statutory revolution, because it transferred political power from a mixture of classes to at least a body in which one class preponderated. He would not take as certain the opinion of the wisest man in the country, as to what the next Parliament would be; no one could speculate with accuracy upon it; they were, indeed, taking a leap in the dark. The next Parliament might be a success; it was just as likely to be a failure, and result in the total subversion of the state of things which had raised England to its present eminence. Under these circumstances, it was of the utmost importance this new Parliament should be elected according to the law; and that could not be done without carrying out in the most stringent manner all those safeguards with which the wisdom of Parliament had surrounded the admission of; electors to the franchise. So far from passing a law to hasten the process of making up the register, he would, on the contrary, have extended the time; the change was so momentous that, instead of having the electoral roll compiled with increased haste, he would have the work done with greater deliberation, and have no pains spared to secure a more genuine constituency than any that had ever before existed. How did the case stand, as regarded the Court of Appeal? To hasten the formation of the new electoral rolls, several additional Revising Brrristers were to be appointed; the chance of diversity t of opinion would, therefore, be proportionately increased. Under such circumstances the need of appeal would become more urgent; but, strange to any, the Government proposed to do away with it altogether; and the new House would find itself in the extraordinary position of having among its Members some who would not he entitled to their seats, if the appeals from Revising Barristers had been duly heard. He had yet another point to offer for the consideration of the House. Immediately a difficulty arose in the new Parliament, the Government of the day would be able to point to the extraordinary circumstances he had detailed as a valid reason for saying the country had no confidence in the Parliament as a true representation of its opinion; another dissolution might therefore be reasonably expected in the course of a year, simply because Parliament had been elected in a hurry and a scramble. He did not, however, intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, weighty as were the reasons for condemning it; he merely wished to point out what a grave responsibility rested upon the Select Committee to which it would be referred, and to urge that Committee to consider the question without respect to party, and with a full appreciation of the tremendous results their acts might bring about.

said, he thought that no greater tax should be imposed upon the artizan who claimed to vote under the lodger franchise than was now imposed upon the householder. It would be extremely hard that a man in receipt of good wages should lose his day's earnings, and, in some cases, his earnings for two or even more day a because he received no notice, whereas a shopkeeper, who could easily and without loss leave his shop for an hour or two in the course of the day, was entitled to the notice.

said, that as an old clerk of the pence—perhaps the only one in the House—he wished to congratulate the Government on their having brought forward this Bill, which he believed would effectually accomplish the object that both parties had in view. He could scarcely believe that the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had read the Bill, or he would have seen that there was no interference with the preliminary stages of registration, and that it was not till the Revising Barrister came into play that them was any change in the periods allowed for the purposes of registration. The changes that had been made were such as he thought would effectually enable the clerks of the peace to have the register ready by the time required in order to have the elections in November. With regard to the lodger any defects in regard to his case might easily be remedied in Committee. They were all agreed that as the lodger was not rated he would not be put on the register without sending in his claim; but having done that, he would be put upon the register, and there ought to be no necessity for his appearing unless his claim were objected to, in which case there was no reason why he should not receive notice. There was no difficulty in the Bill that might not be remedied in Committee.

admitted that the authority of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) as an old clerk of the peace was very high; but the hon. Member had himself convinced him on a former occasion that an election at the time proposed was impossible.

explained that he was then referring to a proposition that came from his own side of the House, to have the elections in the middle of October.

was sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He confessed that he could not understand why Her Majesty's Government had shortened the time at all. There were many hon. Members who, like himself, had supported the Government in carrying the Reform Bill through the House, who were anxious that the full advantages of the measure should be extended to those who were to be enfranchised under its provisions. Now upon this question he would cite the authority of the clerks of the peace in the most important counties of England, nineteen of whom had met last week to consider the subject. These gentlemen were of opinion that it would be extremely dangerous to shorten the time usually allowed for the purposes of registration, the decision they had arrived at being as follows:—

"Resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting it is not practicable to accelerate the preliminary stages of the registration prior to the day (the 1st of September) prescribed for the delivery of the lists by the overseers to the clerks of the peace, except at the cost of depriving of the franchise a certain class of persons on whom the right to vote has been newly conferred. 2. That this year, if extra exertions were used to obtain the delivery of the lists punctually by the 1st of September, it might be arranged for the Courts of the Revising Barristers to commence not later than the 21st of September, as an interval of at least twenty-one days is requisite for collating the lists, extracting the claims and objections for the guidance of the Revising Barrister, and the appointment and advertising of the Courts; and that such Courts should terminate by the 17th of October. That by extra exertion and expense the printing of the registers for delivery to the sheriff might be effected by the 30th of November; but that, having regard to the length of registers in the more populous counties, the printing and binding could not be executed at an earlier date; and that the meeting believed it to be extremely doubtful whether the printing could in some counties be completed by the day suggested, if the names were to be numbered consecutively throughout as at present."

said, he would remind the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Kendall) that no alteration had been made in the time allowed for the preliminary stages of registration, and that it was to those stages that the objections of the clerks of the peace chiefly applied. The work of the Revising Barrister, could be accelerated by the appointment of addi- tional barristers. He wished, however, to refer to a point noticed by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and to suggest that while the voters should be taken according to their respective parishes the numbering had better be left in the hands of the clerk of the peace. This might be done by beginning at 1001; and the difficulty with regard to the districts might be got rid of by asterisks. He could see no reason why the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) should fear that justice would not be done to the new electors in case of an election coming on before there had been time to decide the appeals from the decisions of the Revising Barristers. He did not believe that any difference would be made between the new voters and the electors under the present system, and it was now the practice, in case an election came on before an appeal had been decided, to permit the elector to record his vote. Some improvements were required in the arrangements as to polling booths. The Act of last year left the law in that respect as it was settled by the Act of 1832.

said, he had voted in two places without a number, and therefore there could be no practical difficulty with regard to the absence of the number. As to the lodger being obliged to "dance attendance day by day in the registration booth," all he could say was that he had himself proved that any voter himself on the register could defend any other person claiming the franchise. He had done it himself. If so, the lodger must be a most unfortunate individual if he could not get a neighbour to defend his claim in the Revising Barrister's Court. The thanks of the House were due to the Government for bringing in the Bill, and for their statement that they would secure a General Election as soon as possible. What object could there be in delaying the dissolution till January? There was great discontent out-of-doors at the prospect of delay in the assembling of the new Parliament. Trade was partially paralyzed, and therefore the sooner the present state of suspense was put an end to the better.

said, he hoped there would be power given to the Committee to examine witnesses. The Bill was a very good Bill; but it contained points requiring alteration. If one or two Revising Barristers, one or two county clerks, and one or two parliamentary agents were examined some difficulties which had been pointed out as likely to arise might easily be got rid of.

said, it would be important to have the House meet, if possible, at even an earlier date than was proposed. He thought it not desirable to shorten the time for making claims, nor the time for the Revising Barristers revising those claims. The object should be to gain time after the Revising Barristers had given their decision. At present, the clerks of the peace were allowed two months to make up the registers; under the Bill only from the 7th to the end of October. This time might be considerably shortened. The registers might be made up and completed in a week or ten days after the last day of the revision. All that was wanted was an increase in the staff of clerks in the office of the county clerks. All knew the rapidity with which the debates were taken down in that House late at night, copied, and printed, so as to be ready for transmission by the early trains. At all events the time might be shortened considerably. And this was the point to which the attention of the Select Committee should be directed. A list of persons entitled to the franchise, according to the information which reached the overseers, was published, according to law, on the 31st of July. This he would not interfere with. But in counties claims on the part of ratepayers omitted from the list were to be sent in by the 20th of August; in boroughs by the 25th of August. He could not see why the two things should not be assimilated by making the date in both the 20th of August. The overseers were allowed now to the 1st of September to copy out and fix the lists of objections on the church doors. He did not see why four or five days would not be enough for that work, and thus there would be a saving of a week; the Revising Barristers would be able to commence their duties on the 7th instead of the 14th of September, and, allowing them three weeks, their task would be completed by the 28th of September, and the registers might be published by the 5th of October. Allowing a week for the copies to be made, everything might be completed by the 12th of October, when the writs might be issued, and, allowing an interval of twenty-eight days, as proposed by the Government, the new Parliament might be brought together by the 9th or 10th of November.

said that generally the objections which had been taken to the Bill were such as would naturally come under discussion in the Select Committee, With respect to those which had been made by his hon. Friend who had spoken last, he would only say that there was not one of them which had not been most carefully considered by the Government. As for the saving of time which might be effected in the printing, while aware that in towns where there were great appliances much might be done, he must say there were parts of the country where it would be extremely difficult to expedite mailers, With respect to the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) be would venture to say that the hon. Gentleman had not read the clause with his usual attention, otherwise he would have found that if 300 could vote in a compartment under the statute of William, 500 could vote under the proposed Bill. He did not mean to go into all the objections which had been urged, because they were much more fit for discussion in the Select Committee; but in reply to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Kendall)he would say that the Government having conceived it their duty had brought in a Bill to shorten the time within which Parliament might be assembled; and having done so on a principle which they thought right for themselves and the country they were quite prepared to submit the Bill to the consideration of the Select Committee. Me should leave the question of examining witnesses entirely to the Committee.

said, he should oppose the Motion on the grounds that the Report of the chemists to whom the Bill had been referred was directly opposed to that of the Committee of last year, and that certain Amendments had been lately put on the Paper which altered the character of the Bill, and made the igniting point lower than under the present Act, He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he hoped the Under Secretary would not consent either to withdraw the Bill or to refer it to a Select Committee. He was quite satisfied that the point of 100 which had been agreed on would be a sufficient protection to the public.

said, he must ask for a longer time for the consideration. The Bill might either be postponed or referred to a Select Committee.

suggested that the Bill should be put through Committee that night, then re-printed, and that a week should be allowed for the re-consideration of the Report.

said, he hoped the Bill would not be referred to a Select Committee.

said, it was admitted on all hands that some legislation on the subject was necessary. The substances proposed to be dealt with by the Bill were of a very dangerous character; and these oils were used in lamps sold at a very cheap rate, and used to a great extent by poor people. Great precautions were therefore necessary. The Bill was originally framed in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session; but it being urged by various deputations that the test proposed was too rigorous, the question was referred to chemists representing both sides, and to the chemist generally consulted by the War Office. The recommendations of these gentlemen had been adopted in their integrity, and he believed the measure as now settled would ensure perfect surety. The modifications which had been made would effect the same end as the more rigorous test originally pro- posed, while the machinery already in use would not have to be materially altered; and he had the authority of the Petroleum Association for stating that the trade would not be injuriously affected. If the House should decide on referring the Bill to a Select Committee he should be compelled to withdraw it, since there would be no hope of its passing this Session; but he hoped they would agree on going into Committee.

objected to the Bill being read a second time at so late an hour, and without explanation.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather unreasonable. The Bill was a hybrid Bill, and notices had been duly given in the Irish papers. Its objects were to make better provision for the preservation of the Curragh, and to appoint a Commission to ascertain the rights of the parties interested.