moved, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Thames Embankment (North) Bill, that they do hear the Mayor, Alderman, and Commons of the City of London on their Petition in opposition to the Bill. He did not ask the House to interfere in any way with any decision to which it might already have come relative to the Thames Embankment. Under the Embankment Act the duty of maintaining the road was cast upon the parishes in which their portion of the road was situated. The Temple and the parish of St. Bride's were part of the ward of Farringdon Within the City of London, under the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and Corporation, and the duty of maintaining the road did not fall on those places, but on the Commissioners of Sewers. The Metropolitan Board of Works were attempting to establish for themselves a jurisdiction as regarded their part of the Embankment within the City. A locus standi had been conceded to the Commissioners of Sewers; but as they were merely an executive committee, as it were, elected by the Corporation, and having nothing to do with deciding on the general policy of the City with reference to its rights and jurisdiction, he contended that the Mayor and Corporation of the City should be heard before the Committee in a matter in which their rights and jurisdiction were so directly interfered with. It might be said that the Corporation were not entitled to be heard, because they were represented upon the Metropolitan Board; but he submitted that in a case where their jurisdiction was concerned they were entitled to be heard directly, and not indirectly through a subordinate body appointed for a merely executive purpose.

, as Chairman of the Committee of Referees to whom questions of locus standi were referred, said he attached great importance to uniformity of decision, and he trusted the House would support the practice that had hitherto prevailed. They learned from the valuable work of the First Clerk at the Table (Sir Erskine May) that since 1857 it had been the practice of Committees, that whenever members of a corporate body petitioned against any act proposed to be done under the corporate seal of that body, they were not allowed a locus standi unless they had a separate and distinct interest in the matter. In this Bill, the object of which was to transfer the jurisdiction of the Thames Embankment, so far as regarded lighting, cleansing, and the general superintendence of the roadway, from the vestries and other bodies under whose jurisdiction it was at present, no mention, either by name or otherwise, was made of the Corporation of the City of London. Their interest was represented by the Commissioners of Sewers, who were elected from the Common Council, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that the Lord Mayor must always be a member of the Commission. The Referees had admitted the locus standi of the Commissioners, and he must ask the House to confirm the Referees in the action which they had taken, and maintain uniformity of practice.

, as a Member of the Committee of Referees, said, that the Referees wore unanimous in the decision at which they had arrived, and that decision was in accordance with the practice which had hitherto prevailed.

said, he hoped the House would support the deliberate decision of its own Committee. He would, with the permission of the House, state the reason why the Metropolitan Board had introduced this Bill. Under the Thames Embankment Act of 1862 the Board were bound to hand over the roadway of the Embankment to the authorities of adjoining parishes and other bodies, who were thenceforward to have the duty of lighting and paving their respective portions. The jurisdiction of the Embankment wall was vested entirely in the Metropolitan Board, and if this Bill did not pass there would be half-a-dozen different jurisdictions in respect of the Embankment. These authorities might differ as to what was to be done, and thus the Embankment might be left in a discreditable condition. Looking to the Embankment as a national work, the Metropolitan Board had considered it their duty to introduce the present Bill, and would be quite content with any decision at which the Committee might arrive. He did not see why the Corporation should oppose by themselves, and also by the Commissioners of Sewers, and thus add to the expenses that wore to be borne by the ratepayers of the metropolis.

said, that on the showing of the hon. and gallant Member the case was an unusual one, because the Bill sought to set aside an existing arrangement—that the roadway was to revert to the respective parishes. This arrangement had been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, and he thought the House ought not to assist the Board in setting that Act aside by a Private Bill. The Bill was, moreover, an invasion of the rights and jurisdiction of the Corporation, and he thought they were entitled to be heard.

thought the strict rule with reference to locus standi would operate hardly in some cases, and that the important Corporation of the City of London could hardly be treated like the individual member of a municipal corporation, or a shareholder in a company. No doubt the Corporation was represented in the Board; but for all that there was the possibility of there being a conflict of interests between them, in which case, of course, the representatives of the City would be overruled, so that if the rule of the Referees were enforced, the City would be shut out from having its case heard. It must be remembered that the City of London had always enjoyed peculiar privileges in that House—one of which was, that any Bills which were promoted by the Corporation were treated as public Bills, and that its representatives presented Petitions at the Bar of the House.

said, that if the rule of the Referees were to be strictly enforced, the Board might propose to carry a new street through the Guildhall of the City, and the Corporation could not be heard. No roadway in the City had been so badly managed as that of the Embankment, and for that reason the Corporation were anxious to get hold of their portion.

trusted the House would support its own Court, and saw no reason why the usual practice should be deviated from. To depart from it would be a dangerous precedent, and the City had no separate grievance. It was clear that no substantial injustice would be done to the City, because it could appear before the Committee by its Commission of Sewers. He hoped that in this instance the House would uphold its own Rules and Regulations.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the inquiry into the revision and classification of the several departments of Her Majesty's Customs at Liverpool is yet completed; and, if so, whether the principle of revision and classification in force in London will be extended to Liverpool and other large outports?

Sir, the inquiry into the several departments of Her Majesty's Customs at Liverpool has, I believe, been completed; but the Commissioners of Customs have not yet sent the Report to the Treasury; and until it has been received and considered, I am unable to answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to give effect to the Resolution of the House of March 22, in reference to Private Legislation?

, in reply, said, that the Government had not yet been able to pursue their inquiry into the subject to such a point as to enable him to make any statement to the House upon the subject. It was, however, being thoroughly considered, and he hoped that before the Session concluded, the Government might be able to submit a proposal on the subject to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Hertfordshire regiment of Militia is to be called out for training during the month of August, while harvest operations are going on?

said, the day originally fixed for calling out the Hertfordshire Militia was the 13th of May; but on receipt of an invitation from the War Office for the regiment to join in the Autumn Manœuvres, the commanding officer answered that the regiment would be perfectly ready to do so. Upon that, permission was given to cancel the original arrangement, and to fix the time for a period corresponding to the Autumn Manœuvres.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he could state the day on which the regiment would be called out?

The Autumn Manœuvres commence on the 31st of August, and the regiment will probably be called out about the 14th of that month.

To place myself in Order, Sir, in the remarks I am about to make, I shall conclude with a Motion. I can assure you, Sir, in all sincerity, that there is no one in this House who can more regret than I do that any act of mine should tend to interfere with the course of Public Business. But I think, if hon. Members will listen to a very brief statement of what has recently occurred, they will think I am amply justified in pursuing my present course. The promoters of the University Tests (Dublin) Bill are not in the slightest degree responsible for the present position of affairs. Up to Friday last that Bill occupied in every respect identically the same position as any other measure introduced by a private Member. We had no claim for exceptional treatment, and we could not, with the slightest show of reason, have pressed the Members of the Government to give us a night for its consideration. We must have taken our chance with other Members. We should, no doubt, have done our best to press it forward, and if we had not succeeded in pressing it on, reluctant though we should have been to drop the Bill, there would have been no other course open to us but quietly to have submitted to our fate. But suddenly the whole aspect of affairs was changed; and I venture to say the Government—without any warning to the promoters of this Bill or Notice to this House—have adopted a course which is happily without precedent in the political annals of this country. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I think I shall be able to prove before I have concluded, that it is without precedent. Let me briefly narrate what has taken place. Last year I introduced the same Bill which is now before the House. It came on for discussion late in the Session, and, in opposing it on the plea that the period was too late for its consideration, what did the Government say? They said—"If this Bill had been introduced, not at the end, but at the beginning of the Session, it would have been our duty"—mark these words—"to introduce a measure of our own, or else to support the Bill." Well, this Session arrived. No measure of the Government was forthcoming. No allusion to the question was made in the Queen's Seech. We again introduced the Bill; and now we are told that we are trespassing upon the legitimate legislative province of the Government. We are not doing that. What are we doing? After what they stated last year we are not intruding, we are simply acting in strict accordance to their own injunctions. We introduced this Bill on the earliest possible day we could obtain, we fixed its second reading for the first day we could get. And when the day for the second reading arrived, I thought that the goal for which I had been striving for five years had at length been reached; I thought at length the Government could not escape from a clear and specific declaration of their views on the subject. But, inexhaustible as are their resources of evading a clear and distinct issue on this question, what did they do? They did this—and now you will see I am amply justified in saying that their course is without precedent—they supported the second reading of the Bill, but with this reservation—which was not mentioned at the time,—that half, or the greater part, of the Bill was so entirely objectionable in their eyes that they would not seek to amend it; that they would not seek to introduce new clauses; that if it was pressed they would treat it as a Vote of Want of Confidence. Where is there a precedent for such a course of procedure? If this is to be a precedent, what will it come to? If the Government is to vote for the second reading of a Bill and then turn round and say—"We will do all we can to impede your going into Committee upon the Bill. Before you can discuss a single clause we will throw upon you the responsibility of a Ministerial crisis; and if you press the Bill on in the sense in which the House passed the second reading, we will resign." If this is to be brought into a precedent, what will henceforth take place? The second reading of a Bill cannot be regarded as the most important vote which has been taken on a Bill; but it must be looked upon simply as a hollow pretext—an unmeaning sham. I am fully aware that the Government, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said that they objected to certain clauses. But that is no uncommon thing to do, and I venture to assert that never before did any Government or any party in this House support the second reading of a Bill, and then turn round and say—"If you won't take half of it away we regard it as so objectionable that we shall treat it as a Vote of Want of Confidence." Now, the Prime Minister and every Member of the Government, and every Member of fairness in this House, must be perfectly well aware that it was absolutely impossible for us to accept the alternative which was presented to us; and for this simple reason—the Government proposed that we should split the Bill into two. I stated distinctly before the division was taken on the second reading—["Order, Chair!"]—

I am very unwilling to interrupt any hon. Member of this House, and especially the hon. Member for Brighton; but it is my duty to advise him that he is now travelling beyond the point allowed by the Rules of the House, inasmuch as he is discussing the merits of a Bill which stands as one of the Orders of the Day in the Order Book of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will most carefully try to obey your ruling. I do not want in the least degree to discuss the principle of this Bill, or to compare it with any other. My object is simply to recur to the course of procedure which has been suggested to us by the Government, and I think after a few sentences you will see I am not out of Order. What did the Government ask us to do? They said—"Cut your Bill in two, and drop one portion." My simple answer is that it is absolutely impossible for us to do so. Suppose I had cut it in two, I should have exposed myself to the reproaches of hon. Members, who might have come forward and complained that I had broken faith with them, because I only proposed to press forward a part of what I had obtained their assent to on the second reading. It was absolutely imperative, therefore, before doing so that we should receive a release from the House. I went to the hon. Gentleman to whom communications are usually made, on Friday, and said—"I do not wish to do anything in the least degree to obstruct the Government; I shall simply treat this Instruction as a question of procedure, and shall speak for only two or three minutes upon it; but I consider that I am bound in honour to give the House an opportunity of stating whether they wish the Bill to go on, as a whole, or to be divided. If the House say they wish to go on with it as a whole, I consider myself bound in honour to persevere with it in that form. If, on the other hand, they should say they wish to have it divided in two, I shall consider I have received the release of the House, and I will then endeavour to follow the injunction of the House." No one can say that was other than behaving in a conciliatory manner towards the Government. But the strongest point of the whole case I shall now come to, and it is one which has induced me to take the unusual course of moving the adjournment of the House. It seems to me that the course of proceeding taken by the Government is absolutely fatal to the privileges of private Members, for if it is to be used as a precedent, it destroys for once and for ever all chance of their legislating upon any subject. In what position are we placed by the conduct of the Government? If they had not treated this measure as one implying a Vote of Want of Confidence in their proceedings, we should have had a fair chance of bringing on the Bill. For as the second reading had been carried by an overwhelming majority, we could fairly have appealed to the House to assist us in getting the Bill into Committee, even as late as half-past 11 or 12 o'clock at night. We should, therefore, have had some chance, however small, of getting the Bill through. But what I wish to maintain—and I rest the whole point of my case upon this—is, that the Government have effectually destroyed every vestige of a chance of our getting the Bill into Committee. I can show that my statement is correct for three reasons. In the first place, it would have been perfectly legitimate and in accordance with the usages of this House, if a Bill of a private Member did not involve a Ministerial crisis, to bring it on at half-past 11 or 12 o'clock; and there is no chance of my being able to get on the Bill sooner. When, however, that Bill is stated by the Government to involve the fate of their Administration, would it not at once strike everyone as perfectly preposterous to begin a debate involving a Ministerial crisis at that hour, when the debate would be instantly adjourned, the Government saying they would not give a day for its continuance? My second point is equally strong. Before this measure was treated as one affecting the fate of the Administration, the great bulk of hon. Members on each side of the House were anxious to press it on. This was shown on the division for the second reading; and hon. Members having Motions would have assisted us by postponing them. But now every hon. Member who does not wish to see a Ministerial crisis says that instead of being anxious to press the Bill forward, he is anxious to do all in his power to prevent it coining on. We have, therefore, not one chance out of ten which we had. My third point is, that before the Government treated proceeding with this Bill as a question involving confidence, they knew as well as I that three-fourths of the hon. Members who sit on this (the Ministerial) side of the House were strongly in favour of the Bill. There was only one English legal Liberal Member, and not a single Scotch Member, who voted against it; but on Monday night, after that threat was issued, hon. Member after hon. Member came to importune me to give way. I am divulging no private correspondence; what had occurred was notorious. That was the intention of the move. Hon. Member after hon. Member came to me and said—"We concur entirely in your Dublin University Bill; we agree with every clause of it. There are few measures we would rather see passed; but when it comes to a question of turning out a Government, can you expect us to prefer Dublin University to a Liberal Government?" And Dublin University must go to—I will not describe where. I am not going to be unreasonable. I do not think I have been. I recognize as fully as any man can do the right of the Government to treat whatever question it pleases as one involving a Vote of Confidence upon their Administration. It is for them to decide what implies confidence and what does not; but what I venture to assert is this—and I believe the sympathy of the country will be with me when I say that if they raise an issue of confidence upon a particular measure, they are pursuing a line of policy which, to say the least, is not characterized by courage or by fairness, if they refuse to give those against whom that issue of confidence is raised, an opportunity of trying it. The Government virtually prevents us coming on with our Bill; they interpose in our way what amounts to a Ministerial crisis, and then having entirely altered the character of our position, absolutely refuse to give us an opportunity of discussing the measure. If there is one thing the English people appreciate more than another, it is that of fighting in a fair and open way. I venture to assert that if the Government persist in refusing to accept our challenge, the verdict of the common sense English people will be that they are dismayed and abashed. Why do they shrink from this contest? They have enormous odds on their side. We cannot bring to bear a threat of resignation; we cannot bring to bear a threat of dissolution. But this is only the coping-stone of what has been going on for many years. When the English nation reviews what has taken place upon this question during the last five years, it is not difficult to anticipate their judgment. For five years I have been trying to obtain a decision upon this question. Twice my proposals have been talked out. Twice they have been counted out. Twice they have been got rid of by threats of Ministerial resignation. ["No, no!"] It is perfectly true; and numberless as have been the speeches from the Treasury Bench—I do not wish to make any charge—but it is absolutely impossible to extract from them anything like a clear declaration as to the meaning of Ministers upon this subject. What, then, will the nation conclude from all this? That the Government in using these tactics to prevent discussion—for that is what it amounts to—do so either because they have no policy to avow, or because they are afraid to let the great bulk of the nation know what that policy is. I am asked—"Why don't you postpone the measure until next year? You are impatient; let the Government legislate upon the question." What security have we for that? Are they not already sufficiently deeply pledged in legislative promises? Have they not already undertaken to legislate upon five times more subjects than they can possibly undertake? How many questions has the Secretary of State for the Home Department under consideration? No one is more fully prepared than I am to commend the marvellous industry of the Prime Minister; but he must admit that after the division taken last week upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), the whole question of local taxation and local government must be taken up next Session by the Government. That was the meaning of the Vote as I understood it; and although I voted against the Motion, I must admit the subject presses for solution. Now, you cannot introduce a greater or more comprehensive measure than one such as that Motion pointed to. A great authority in this House—the late Mr. Cobden—said it was almost impossible for a Government to pass more than one great measure in a Session. And when we are asked to postpone our Bill, cannot we get instructive warning from the past? What happened three years since? I hope the House will allow me to give this instance, which is an exactly parallel case. When the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) had failed to press forward his Intestacy Bill for three years, and then was nearly on the point of carrying it, he, in a fatal moment, gave it up to the Government? Where is that Bill? Echo answers—"Where?" Do you expect to find it? You might as well look for grapes on thorns, or figs on thistles. Suppose we, in the same confiding spirit, give up this question to the Government. What security shall we have that it will be dealt with? Perhaps years would elapse before we had the slightest chance of passing a measure upon the subject. Now, apologizing for having detained the House so long, I shall, in conclusion, endeavour to clear myself from one charge almost of a personal character. It has been said that I am guilty of presumption in attempting to legislate upon the great and difficult subject of Irish University education. Happily, I can clear myself effectually from that charge without the slightest egotism. If hon. Members opposite were asked who are the two hon. Members among them most capable of dealing with the subject of Irish education, in whose favour would their verdict be given? I venture to say the two Members representing the University. If, turning to this side of the House, the Liberal Members were appealed to and asked to name the man who from his University experience, from his great ability, from his position in this House, from his representing a University constituency is best qualified to deal with the subject of University education, should we not all in a candid moment say it was my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair)? Therefore, I leave myself out of the question, and I say—"Don't look on it as my Bill; look on it as the Bill of those two hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House and of that hon. Member on the Liberal benches who are best fitted to deal with the subject." And if we have introduced a Bill which, before that threat of resignation, obtained an almost unanimous support in this House, why are we to be deprived of all chance of legislating? Is not the Government already sufficiently involved in legislative promises which it has small chances of redeeming? Why are we not to have the same chance as other Members—and we ask no more—in passing this Bill in which we all take so much interest? I am anxious to state that I shall adopt the course which I believe will be the most convenient to the House. I am going to make a proposal to the Government. It was made yesterday, and I think hon. Members will see after this debate is concluded that it might be accepted. I can only say that no one would be more pleased than myself if it had been accepted. If it had, I should not have had to trespass now on the House. I am ready to go on with the Bill to-morrow or the next day; but if the Government, object I do not want unduly to press them. If they will promise to give me a day, so that if we get into Committee we may have a reasonable chance of passing the Bill, the promoters of the measure would be perfectly satisfied; and we should be perfectly satisfied if the Government gave us a day before the middle of June. That does not seem a very unreasonable proposal. But what I do object to is this—that the Prime Minister yesterday—I have no doubt unintentionally—gave us an answer which leaves us in a worse dilemma than ever. We do not know whether the Government is going to give us a day or not. We do not know, therefore, whether to try to bring it on upon a private Members' night, or to rely on the promise of the Government. I am inclined to think that the promise of the Prime Minister is worse than useless. ["Oh!"] I would be the last man in the House to think of saying that the Prime Minister would not fulfil any promise that he made; but he candidly and particularly warned me against taking his promise to imply the possibility of the Government giving an early day. What conclusion am I to draw from that? If there be little or no probability of our getting an early day, what should we find if we rely on this promise of the Government? We may find that we have for the consideration of this measure the fag-end of a Morning Sitting in the dog-days, and that we are placed in the same position as we were last year, the Government again using against us the argument that it is absurd to go on with the Bill so late in the Session. In conclusion, I will say that for five years we have endeavoured to persevere with this question. We have fought it through many vicissitudes; it has suffered many reverses; it has seen many misfortunes. We have at last advanced to a position which we shall not willingly surrender. I can only say that what I have done in the past I shall do in the future. I feel that the object we have in view in proposing this measure is to secure the great cause of intellectual freedom, of liberal learning, and of high culture. Whatever may be the result—whether it involves a Ministerial resignation or not—I think the issues we are striving for are of infinitely greater moment than any mere temporary or party triumph; and I give this pledge to the House—that I and the promoters of the Bill will continue to do all we can to press this question on for solution, and if possible, to extract from the Government a definite, distinct, and intelligible enunciation of their views. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House do now adjourn.

I rise to second the Motion for adjournment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. I think the House will acquit me of doing so in a factious spirit of opposition to the Government. So far as lay within the scope of my abilities, I have given a loyal and general support to the Government ever since I have had the honour of having a seat in this House. But I think they have placed themselves so clearly in the wrong in their treatment of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, and for which I am also responsible as a Parliamentary godfather, that I think he is quite justified in drawing the attention of the House to it as a conduct which directly invades the right of private Members to aid in the legislation of the country. No one disputes for a moment the right of the Government to give active opposition to any measures which they deem to be bad. If they had mustered their forces and sawn our Bill asunder on the Motion of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, we could not have made a murmur of complaint, though we would lave regretted the capital operation to which a Bill had been subjected that lad received so marked a sanction from he House at its second reading. But that is not the manner in which our efforts at private legislation have been treated. Three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton desired to abolish religious tests and disabilities in Ireland, and although these had been abolished in Scotland and England, he was taunted with the incompleteness of his Resolutions, and the Ministry then rejected them by an issue which was practically equivalent to a Vote of Want of Confidence. He then called to his counsel Members interested in University reform, and gave to a Bill the breadth and completeness which were thought sufficient to meet the objections brought forward by the Government against the more limited aims. He was then met by the Prime Minister, who said that it was now the month of August, and legislation was impossible; but had it been the month of February the duty of the Government would have been clear, either to accept it or bring in a Bill in lieu of it. Well, this Session my hon. Friend takes the very first day available to him, and the House adopts the Bill by a larger majority. The duty of the Government though clear last year, is no longercear this year; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland is instructed to saw off and retain for the Government that very fragment which they rejected in 1870. But this petty operation is made astoundingly important. The whole nation is invited to be a party to a Ministerial crisis. Newspayers in the confidence of the Government make the Liberal party of the country quiver with emotion, and tell us that the days of Liberalism are at an end. The Ministerial confidants muster parties into their places, and we suddenly find our little Bill, which we thought was a humble star of the sixth magnitude, blazing up into a fierce sun which was scorching friends and foes alike. The whole thing looked to myself one of those absurd panics which are based on empty and unsubstantial apprehensions, but the Prime Minister yesterday accepts the whole responsibility for it. He told us that our Bill was so vastly important as to results, that if the House accepted it his Ministry could no longer remain in power. That was a turn of the Government screw that can only be made very rarely and carefully, without a Ministerial machine breaking to pieces. Why was it necessary to turn the screw in this ease? Because the Prime Minister tells us that the Bill involved one of three pledges in regard to Ireland upon which he came into power. We all recollect the famous piece of rhetoric by which the Irish Church, the Irish Land, and Irish Education were made the three branches of the Upas tree which exhales death to all within its range. That unhappy tree is bearing fruit bitter to the Ministry. The fact is, that the higher education in Ireland, as displayed in Trinity College, never was a branch of the tree which exhaled foul vapours of political and religious discord over that distracted country.

The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Bill, and is out of Order.

I at once, Sir, accept your ruling, though, as I was simply replying to the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for his course of action, I believed that I was within the Rules of the House. What, then, was the justification for singling out the promoters of this Bill as the enemies of a Liberal Administration? Here were two private Members on this side of the House, far away from the effulgence of the Treasury Bench, sitting in obscure regions below the gangway, quietly seeking to promote Liberal legislation in a spirit which the Government knows as well as we do that the country approves, and we are, without a note of warning, knocked down by the sledgehammer blow of a Ministerial crisis. If such a system is to be made a precedent, independent legislation is impossible. Suppose that on the 8th May the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) is confronted with this mode of proceeding. My hon. Friend has the audacity to introduce his Permissive Bill in the very front of the Government Licensing Bill. Is he to be met with another Ministerial crisis; or is my hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) who actually has a Licensing Bill of his own? If not, why not? Just because Government feels that the spirit of their party is with them in one case and not in the other. I do not say, if the Prime Minister is convinced that the policy of a Private Bill is utterly foreign to the policy of his Government, that he is not justified in staking the existence of his Government upon it; but I do say that in such case he is bound to give a full explanation to the country why he has taken such an extreme view, and I think it would be at least common charity to give its promoters an opportunity of telling the country why they assume the heavy responsibility of differing from a Government with which some of them at least are in common accord. To delay to the end of the Session a Bill upon which we are told depends the existence of the Ministry, as the Prime Minister practically proposes, is simply for Government to repeat the act which it taunted us last Session with committing, by bringing it on at an impracticable time for legislation. That may suit the policy of the Government; but it cannot be voluntarily adopted by the promoters of the Bill. Whatever may be thought or said in the heat of a factitious excitement such as has now been raised, my own convictions are, that everyone connected with the promotion of the Bill, whether they sit on this or on the other side of the House, or whether they belong to the only ancient educational institution in Ireland, have been animated by the single desire to throw open the benefits of a University famous in its traditions—and which has produced a Berkeley, a Grattan, and a Burke among Protestants, and a Moore and a Shiel among Catholics—to all classes, wholly irrespective of religious beliefs, and in a way which will bring together, by the friendly ties of a united education, men whose varying creeds have a tendency to keep apart. I am bound to say thus much for the honesty of every promoter of this measure, and I deeply regret that the exigencies of parties have induced a Ministry to crush, by the heaviest power of a Government, an attempt at private legislation, which had nothing of party in its origin, and nothing but liberalism in its ends.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is going to make any statement with reference to the speeches that we have just heard from the two hon. Members; but, as I wish to put an important question to him, I trust the House will permit me to interpose in order to put that question before the right hon. Gentleman rises. I think that my hon. Friends and the House have great reason to complain of the course which has been taken in this matter by Her Majesty's Government. It appears to me that course has involved the House in what I may call an "unexampled mess." I am not aware that there has ever before been an occasion in which a Ministry, having announced that it will regard the passage or the defeat of a particular measure in this House as a Vote of Want of Confidence, has deferred the discussion upon that measure to an indefinite and an uncertain day. It appears to me that the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter is alike unprecedented and unjustifiable. Let me recall to the memory of the House what has occurred during the past week. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), after his Bill had undergone various vicissitudes, had it down for Committee for last Tuesday evening, with the prospect of the Order being reached. My hon. Friend, as the House is well aware, had reason to believe that his measure would receive considerable support from hon. Members not only on that but also on this side of the House, and he had a well-founded belief that with such assistance he should be in a position successfully to carry his Bill through Committee. On Thursday my noble Friend the Chief Secretary of State for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) put a Notice on the Paper that it should be an Instruction to the Committee upon the Bill that they should divide the Bill into two parts. Now, what occurred last week? Three divisions were taken in this House last week, upon each of which the Government was in a minority. In the first place, there was the division on Monday in Committee on the Ballot Bill; next there was that on Tuesday, on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) on local taxation, when the Government were left in a minority of 100—on which occasion many Members voted for the Motion, not because they liked it, but because they disapproved of the indications which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as to what he had intended to do on the subject last year; and, thirdly, there was the division on Thursday, when the result was unexampled in the history of Parliament—a Government which had already been defeated on a question, and which had asked the House to reconsider its decision, being again defeated on the same point by a still larger majority. But why am I mentioning these things to the House? I have no difficulty whatever in telling the House frankly and fully why I am doing so—it is because these decisions show that the confidence of the House in Her Majesty's Government has been rudely shaken. The general reliance of the House upon the judgment, the sagacity, the prudence, and the caution of Her Majesty's Government has been rudely shaken. And how were these decisions followed up by the Government? Why, on Monday morning, in one of the newspapers of this City, there appeared a paragraph, or rather an article, the like of which, I venture to say, never appeared in any newspaper before. If the House will allow me to do so, I will read the material parts of it. ["Order!"] I can assure hon. Members that the article in question is germane to the question. Before I sit down I shall endeavour to show why I read it, and why I found upon it the Question I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. It appeared in The Daily News, and is as follows:—

"It is our duty to convey to our readers, and to the Liberal party at large, the important announcement that before the present week has reached its close, Mr. Gladstone's Administration will possibly have been dissolved; that a Conservative Ministry will be preparing to enter upon what may prove to be a long term of office; and that the country will be awaiting a General Election in the late summer or early autumn months. The likelihood of a defeat of the Government on Mr. Fawcett's Dublin University Bill is sufficiently strong to have been taken into grave consideration by Her Majesty's Confidential Advisers in the Cabinet on Saturday."

That is, Her Majesty's "Confidential Advisers," who are sworn to keep the counsels of the Queen. The article goes on to say—

"Mr. Gladstone has publicly intimated his readiness to accept those clauses of the measure which abolish religious tests; and has offered to support the Bill if Mr. Fawcett will separate from them the constructive provisions which reconstitute the governing body of the University of Dublin. This suggestion the Member for Brighton has not felt able to accept. Accordingly, the Marquess of Hartington will move a Resolution embodying it as an Instruction on going into Committee on the Bill. The fate of Lord Hartington's Resolution will, as we think we may positively assert, determine the fate of the Government. Ministers will take its rejection as a distinct Vote of Want of Confidence, and will tender to Her Majesty the resignation of their offices, leaving it to their successors either to administer affairs with the present House of Commons, or to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country."

The House will observe that this article contains two announcements—first, an announcement that it is the intention of the Government to make the question of the Bill of the hon. Member a question of confidence in themselves; and, secondly, an announcement that it is their intention to resign if the vote of this House shall be against them. I understand from some remarks which have fallen from hon. Members below the gangway that it will be said the statements contained in this article are the mere speculations of some unauthorized newspaper writer, for which the Government are not answerable, and for which they ought not to be called upon to answer. But what did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) say yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman said, as appears from the following report of his speech in The Times of to-day:—

"What may have been stated during the last few days is in perfect conformity with what was stated in this House on former occasions, in particular by myself in April, 1870. What may have been said, and quite truly, is this: that a negative put by the House upon the Motion of my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland would, in our judgment, fairly considered, imply that the House was prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Bill as a settlement of a great and important question connected with the Dublin University upon its present general basis, not only as to the Test clauses, but also the reconstructive clauses of the Bill; and in our view the adoption of that Bill would place us in a condition in which it would become totally impossible for us to ask the House with consistency to enable us by legislation to redeem the pledges we had given to the country when we took office at the end of 1868; and if we were placed in that condition, power being taken out of our hands with regard to that subject, we could not with credit to ourselves or satisfaction to the House and the country continue responsible for the conduct of public affairs."

I am not responsible, Sir, for the enormous involution or for the language of that paragraph. Generally, when a man has got a plain meaning to convey, he can manage to say it in plainer language than that. The construction I put upon that paragraph is that it contains an admission of the truth, or, at all events, a ratification, by the right hon. Gentleman of the statement in the newspaper to which I have called attention. I am confirmed in that opinion by the following extract from the same paper of to-day, which shows that it was incorrect to suppose that what I have read was a mere anonymous newspaper paragraph;—

"It was, perhaps, expected by some of those present that Mr. Gladstone was about to throw some doubt over, or involve in some manner of qualification, the statement which we were authorized to make on Monday."

In another sentence of the same paper it is said—"He confirmed, as was inevitable, every word of our announcement." The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is an important one, and it has not been referred to by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. I wish to know if this is the fashion in which the House of Commons is to be treated by the Government when the latter are pleased to make an announcement of their intentions? Are Members of the House of Commons and the country generally to learn for the first time from the columns of a daily newspaper, however respectable, that Her Majesty's Government are going to resign if they are defeated upon a particular question? It appears to me, I confess, that the invariable practice that has hitherto been pursued in these matters is not only right, but that it is the only one which is consistent with respect to Parliament, and, if I may say so, with deference, even to Her Majesty herself. We all know what has been the custom pursued by the right hon. Gentleman hitherto in these matters, because we have had incidentally a good many of these Parliamentary crises and threatened resignations in case measures were passed or were not passed. Why, in the course of the debate upon the measure itself the right hon. Gentleman has intimated—which is the right way of doing it—that he should consider a vote, at the conclusion of that debate, in discord with his own opinion and that of the Government, as a question of confidence upon which they would resign. And though it is true that Ministers have on other occasions communicated to their supporters what course they meant to take with reference to a particular measure, and have indicated that they meant to make that a question upon which they should stand or fall, this has only been done in confidential communication with the body of their supporters in a private room; and I defy any Member of this House to discover a single instance in which there has been an announcement made of this character in the columns of a daily newspaper. I do not know whether the House agrees with me; but I will say such a mode of proceeding is essentially and inherently a wrong course, and is part of a system—I was going to use a strong word, and, perhaps, I had better not—["Go on!"]—well, I was going to say—I do not attribute it to my right hon. Friend personally, because, however we may differ on many things, he is himself the soul of honour and truth—what he thinks truth; but I say there has been about many of these things a system of manœuvring, which, you may depend on it, is repellent to the best feelings of English gentlemen, and does not add to the confidence in Government in the House, and out of the House. I rose to put this Question—By whose authority was the article to which I have referred inserted in the newspaper; was it by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, or with his knowledge and consent; and if not by his authority, by what Member of the Government was it inserted in the paper? That is the Question to which the House of Commons with respect to its own dignity ought to have an answer.

Mr. Speaker, the House will not be surprised when I say that with the feelings which we entertain, and which I have endeavoured heretofore to express, concerning forwarding important Public Business on the Paper, I shall not voluntarily do anything in the remarks I am called on to make which will imply departure from a defensive position, or will tend to widen the field of this debate. I will not follow my hon. Friends who made and seconded the Motion—particularly the Seconder of the Motion (Dr. Lyon Playfair), who made what I must call singularly inaccurate recitals—I will not reply to the criticism of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) on the conduct and proceedings of the Government. In dealing with the speech of my right hon. Friend I will confine myself to answering the Question he has put, and which he is quite entitled to put to mo. At the same time, I think my right hon. Friend was rather severe in his criticism on the unfortunate peculiarity of my style; however just the castigation, it was cruel and crushing—coming with the weight of my right hon. Friend's literary judgment upon my natural infirmity, which, in a long Parliamentary life of 40 years, I have in vain endeavoured to correct. Whether involved or not, I will try to be intelligible upon the present occasion. Following my right hon. Friend in what I thought his somewhat exulting review of the miscarriage and misconduct of the Government, I will endeavour as well as I can—perhaps very imperfectly—to concentrate into distinct and definite charges the speeches which have been made, and to meet these charges with what I think sufficient and appropriate replies. I understand the charges made against us by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), by his Seconder, the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair), and by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie)—not by all of them, but by one or other of them, without making any personal distinction—I understand the charges to have been as follows:—First, we have failed to legislate on the subject of Irish University Education; secondly, we have obstinately and contumaciously refused to declare our policy and our plan before we proceed to legislate; thirdly, we have made a threat of resignation, and by that threat of resignation have reduced the flourishing Bill of my hon. Friend to a state of inanition bordering on extinction; fourthly, that we have done this by surprise—that we reserved on the second reading of the Bill and suppressed the statement of our objections, and that we have conveyed through newspapers to the House of Commons the first knowledge of the view we took on the question; fifth, and lastly, that we declined to give a day for the discussion of this Bill—a course which my right hon. Friend has termed unprecedented, and which the hon. Member for Brighton says shows we are "dismayed and abashed." Now, first, we have not legislated on Irish University Education—that is the sole charge I admit is proved, and I go farther, and say I deeply regret it; but before this unquestionable statement is converted into a crushing accusation—an article of impeachment—I will appeal to the justice and candour of the House, and I leave every Gentleman who sits in it to ask himself the question whether our failure to legislate upon Irish University Education has been owing to a general indisposition upon our part to face the discharge of public duty, or whether it has not been owing to the overwhelming and incessant duties and obligations with respect to other questions which for three years we have endeavoured to the best of our power to discharge. The hon. Member for Brighton, with a strange inconsistency—I put the charge no higher than inconsistency in argument—seemed absolutely in one and the same breath to invoke condemnation on our heads for having failed to settle the question of Irish University Education, while setting forth, at the same time, the multitude of other calls upon the attention of the Government and the House—heavy calls, which he declares, from their number and magnitude, it is totally impossible for them in a short period to meet. We have invited Parliament to give nearly two Sessions of its precious time—in 1869 and 1870—to the discussion of Irish affairs. By that course we threw English, and Scotch, and general legislation into arrear, and now, knowing, as I venture to say my hon. Friend does not know, the difficulty and complexity of University legislation, we have not thought it fit, either last year or in the present year, to make another large demand, such as we could with difficulty limit or define, upon the time of the House, for the purpose of settling this question, weighted as we were by the more urgent demands which we considered it our imperative duty to make. The next charge is that we have not declared our policy before we legislate, but that we have exhibited extraordinary obstinacy in this matter, exposing ourselves to the taunts of the hon. Gentleman about our cowardice, about our secret plans and schemes, and about our multiform crimes and offences, which I will not attempt to exhibit one by one. I admit again the fact that we have declined to state our policy before we legislate, and in that refusal—with the permission, and, I hope, with the approval of the House—we will steadily persevere. That is not the only question on which endeavours were made to draw from us a declaration of our views and plans before endeavouring to carry them into effect. In 1869, while we were engaged in the anxious endeavour to legislate on the Irish Church, we were asked in both Houses to declare our policy with regard to the Irish Land question. Authorities, and great authorities, did not scruple to tell us that if there was robbery in Ireland, if there was agrarian crime, if there was murder in Ireland during the coming autumn and winter, we should be responsible for the commission of these crimes, because they were all due to our contumacious refusal to declare the principles on which we meant to legislate on the Irish Land question. We stood fire on that occasion, and mean to stand fire again. Whatever may be the batteries discharged against us by my two hon. Friends, we are not going to ruin and destroy the schemes that it may be our duty to submit to Parliament by their premature disclosure. We will produce them, but we will ourselves choose the time for producing them, and we will not be content to take the moment which may be preferred either by the hon. Member for Brighton or by the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh. We take that course, Sir, not from any motive of self-restraint or self-love, or adherence to etiquette or practice, but because we know that it is essential to the sound and fair dealing with questions of this kind, advanced on the responsibility of a Government, that these premature exhibitions should not be made, but that the plans should be produced when Government is ready to be responsible for them, and to justify the responsibility of submitting them to the practical judgment of Parliament. Well, the third charge is, that we have brought about this disastrous change in the prospects of my hon. Friend by a threat of resignation. Now, Sir, I do not at all conceal from my hon. Friend or from the House that I am very sensible, as all persons who have ever been responsible for the conduct of public affairs must be sensible, that on this matter there is a real difficulty—a difficulty not to be solved, so far as I know, by any rigid and definite formula). When there is coming on for discussion a legislative measure which the Government regards as having a vital influence on its policy—and the same holds good in many cases with respect to Motions made by Members in this House—if the Government makes no intimation with respect to the effects of that measure—either to its friends, or to Parliament, or to the public, the Government is justly accused of having taken Parliament by surprise. If, on the other hand, the Government, before the question, whatever it may be, comes under distinct and practical consideration, makes known that it considers a particular vote or course with reference to the question to be incompatible with its continuing responsible for public affairs, then it is invariably open to the charge of having attempted to influence Parliament by the use of a menace. It is not for me to say that I know of any method by which these objections, proceeding from opposite quarters, can be effectually met. But what I can say, and what I think I will presently show, is this—that there never was an instance in which we had ever less difficulty in regard to the matter than we have in the case now brought before us. Here the point of the charge consists not merely in the fact that we have endeavoured to influence the fate of the Dublin University Bill by intimating that, in the event of the rejection of the Motion of my noble Friend near me (the Marquess of Hartington), we should be unable to continue to hold the reins of power; but it has been likewise stated, in a variety of forms, that we have done this by surprise. The hon. Member for Brighton declares that on the second reading of the Bill we did not intimate our objection to his measure.

No, no; I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I stated distinctly that he objected to certain clauses; but that from the nature of his remarks, it was impossible to conclude that he would treat the acceptance of them as a Vote of Want of Confidence.

I beg to observe that the objection taken was not to certain clauses of the Bill; it was to the whole Bill, with the exception of the provisions that relate to tests; it was to the main portion of the Bill; and I stated distinctly to the hon. Member and to the House, not merely that we were opponents of these clauses, but that it was impossible for us to acquiesce in their passing. Is this a new matter? Where is the memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton? In the last part of his speech he forgot the first part of his speech, for in the first part of his speech he charged us with developing by surprise, and for the first time, the threat of resignation in connection with this Bill; and when in the latter part of his speech he came to that complacent review which he instituted of his own course during the last five years, and of the many mishaps which he has met with in his patriotic labours, as he described the fate of his measure, he said—"Twice it has been defeated by threats of resignation." And there is the answer from the mouth of my hon. Friend himself to the statement, that it is now for the first time that we have conveyed to the world that it was impossible for us to remain honourably in charge of public affairs, if the House of Commons were to settle the question of University Education in Ireland in a manner incompatible with the pledges which we gave to the country at the time we took office. In saying thus much, I have answered in part, and I will now answer more specifically, the Question put to me by my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bouverie). He complains that the intimation was given for the first time through a newspaper (The Daily News) on Monday morning that the Dublin University Bill was a Bill which would involve the fate of the Government. My main answer is this—that it was not then given for the first time; that it had been declared in the place most appropriate for such a declaration; that I had myself, on the part of the Government, distinctly and unequivocally declared it on the first occasion when we were called upon by my hon. Friend—in the midst of our struggles on the Irish Land Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] My hon. Friend then thought it fair and just to call upon us to grapple with Dublin University Education; and upon that occasion I declared to him—as he has himself borne witness—that it was a question which would involve the existence of the Government. Those who recollect the vote of the House upon that occasion will, I am sure, bear me out in the statement I make. I perceive an expression of astonishment, if not a sneer, at a phrase which has just fallen from me incidentally—"in the midst of our struggles on the Irish Land Bill." I suppose the hon. Members who gave that expression estimate very lightly the labour of passing a measure like the Irish Land Bill. I do not want to enter further into the discussion of that question; but I am not prepared to withdraw the expression I used. My right hon. Friend had read extracts from an article in the newspaper, and he has asked whether that article was authorized by me, whether it was authorized by any Member of the Government; and, if so, by whom? Sir, that article was not authorized by me; I am not aware that it was authorized by any Member of the Government; I am not aware that that article was seen by any Member of the Government. I had no direct communication with anyone connected with the Press in relation to this matter. I had no indirect communication with anyone relating to the Press in the sense of any message passing from me to any person connected with the Press. But this is a fact, which I stated yesterday, and which I state again. I made no secret of our retaining those very impressions and convictions with regard to the subject of higher education in Ireland, which in my place at this box I declared in April, 1870; and those friends to whom I mentioned freely the fact of our retaining these convictions were placed by me under no limitation whatever. I will venture to say this. Since the time when this question came under review if I had chanced to meet with any gentleman connected with the Press, I should have made no more reserve in conversation with him than I made in conversation with any other friend; and when the right hon. Gentleman reads that article, and appears to ask me whether I recognise the expressions it contains, I say, on the contrary, I prefer to fall back upon that intolerably long and involved sentence which I delivered yesterday, and which he has quoted in his critical remarks to-day. That is my declaration and profession; that is a frank and ingenuous account of the language I have held on this subject, and by which I wish to be bound, and I still remain under this extraordinary perversity of judgment. Bad as may be my method of expressing myself, I am disposed to adhere to my language in cases of this kind rather than to adopt the language he has quoted. I hope I have given my right hon. Friend a frank reply on that subject. ["Oh!"] I shall be glad to supply anything that may be wanting. I have only one more point on which to touch. The hon. Member for Brighton complains that we will not give him a day for the discussion of his Bill, and he says he wishes to be reasonable. First of all he eulogizes the hon. and learned Members for the University of Edinburgh and the University of Dublin; and really, all things considered, it is not so very surprising that we, as a Liberal Government, are not at once charmed and inveigled by the names of the two hon. and learned Members who represent the University of Dublin. I have great respect for the character and talents of those two hon. and learned Gentlemen; but neither to them, nor to the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh, are we prepared to make over the responsibility of the Government. It is not a question of their superior qualification to deal with this matter on which the hon. Member for Brighton so warmly descants; but it is this—we have bound ourselves by certain obligations, contracted in the face of day, and in every form of public declaration to the country, and we cannot shuffle off these obligations by placing them on the shoulders of others. My hon. Friend says he will be reasonable with us, and he will make a proposal, which is, that I shall name for him a day. I am to name a day when his Bill is to come on, and it is to be a day which is to give a reasonable chance of its passing in the present Session. I am bound to say it appears to me my hon. Friend has paid no attention to the contents of his own Bill. Incompetent as he may think me, I have had some experience in University legislation; I had charge of the Oxford University Bill of 1854, which was the basis and model for the Cambridge Bill of 1856. We have always endeavoured to impress on my hon. Friend—but, up to the present time, with a total want of success—that this business of University legislation, quite apart from politics, is a matter of extreme complexity in detail; and that complexity in detail, which occupied us, if I recollect rightly, something like 20 nights in Committee on the Oxford University Bill, is rather increased than diminished in the case of Dublin, from the peculiar circumstances of that University, where the arrangements, property, government, and discipline of the University and the College are lodged in one and the same body. Under these circumstances, what a modest demand it is the hon. Gentleman makes to the Government! Only name me a day when I may have a reasonable prospect of passing my Bill into law! The objections of the majority of the Irish Members are not to be thought of for a moment. If they raise a debate, and that debate lasts four or five hours, he says—"I will meet them by proclaiming to the country that I have been talked out." My hon. Friend has the boldness to proclaim to Parliament, as a grievance and a wrong, that last year, when his Bill came on for a second reading on a Wednesday, the debate on this important and complex question occupied some four or five hours; and because it was made the subject of this discussion, he proclaims to the country that he is the victim of a conspiracy to talk out his measure. Let us consider the moderation of my hon. Friend's request. He asks me to give him that which I have not got myself. Have I a reasonable prospect of passing through, during the Session, all the Bills that the Government themselves have introduced? Is it not a matter of constant pressure upon us? I do not complain of it; but are we not constantly being asked on what day we will proceed with the Scotch Education Bill, the Public Health Bill, the Licensing and other Bills? And then, at a time when I am absolutely disabled from naming any day whatever for any one of the great cardinal measures which the Government pledged itself to in the Speech from the Throne, my hon. Friend demands that I shall name a day for Committee upon his Bill, and in making that demand accompanies it with a glowing eulogy upon himself for his reasonableness in making it. I have made to him the very best offer I could. As far as the policy of his Bill is concerned, I think there will be a considerable amount of public advantage in taking the definitive judgment of the House, because I agree with him that there is a great deal of uncertainty and underground play in this matter. Therefore I have told him that as soon as those measures which we are bound to consider as of primary importance are out of our bands, with reference to the great bulk of the labour and of any risk connected with them, I shall be most happy; and I confidently hope, within the working portion of the Session, to give him an opportunity of bringing forward that question. This, I think, is as fair an offer as I can make. [A laugh.] I think the hon. Gentleman who laughs at me is not, perhaps, so much accustomed to take the measure of Public Business and of the time it requires in this House as, unhappily, I have been. I do not think it is in my power to go further. Some minor charges have been brought against us; but there is only one of them which I am disposed to admit. It has been said that in the year 1870 I objected to a Bill for the removal of tests in the University of Dublin, and that this year I have agreed to it. That is quite true; but why have we agreed to it this year? We have done so from two motives—first of all, because we felt so much regret at being unable to deal with the whole question ourselves, and so much respect for the labours of my hon. Friends who bring in this Bill that we were willing, if possible, to strain a point in order to settle the question. Consequently, we agreed to the severance of the measure into two portions; but if my hon. Friend asked me the question, I have no doubt I could reply to him that if only it were in our power to deal with the entire subject at once that would be by far the best mode of proceeding. I have tried to go over the charges brought against me by my hon. Friend. If he thinks fit to put them in any other shape, we shall be ready to meet them; but I contend that our course from first to last has been dictated by a love of honour, an adherence to sound policy, and a thorough conformity with Parliamentary usage.

I cannot allow this debate to close without making some observations on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I shall not complain of his refusal to place the consideration of the Dublin University Bill in priority to those measures which he himself has introduced into this House. Nor do I complain of his having put down, in the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, an Amendment dividing the Bill into two. My complaint is that a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with party politics has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the means of consolidating his divided party, and has been taken out of the region of calm consideration, and removed into the heated atmosphere of party politics. There never was introduced into this House a Bill which had less of party character about it, or one in regard to which party leaders and persons connected with party had been less consulted. The Bill was framed last year by two Professors in Universities and by the heads of the Dublin University—academical people dealing with an academical subject for academical purposes. Whose names are on the back of the Bill? There are those two Professors, both Members for Universities, my noble Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton), who is known for the moderation of his views, and the name of my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket) is there, because he has in a remarkably conspicuous manner devoted himself to the furtherance of united education in Ireland. My name is not on the Bill, nor is the name of any person on this bench or of any political leader to be found there, simply because it was desired to keep the Bill out of the atmosphere of politics. The two Liberals were chosen in order that no man who was not wilfully determined to mistake and misunderstand could believe that the Bill was brought forward from any party considerations. What is the character of the Bill? It is a limited Bill for a limited purpose. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the introduction of this Bill takes out of the hands of the Government the management of the great Irish Education Question. Now, I utterly deny that. The Bill is introduced to abolish tests, and superadded to that is a provision altering the governing body to a certain extent, and giving it an elective character. The provisions of the Bill were such as calm and reasonable persons might consider without any of the vehemence which had been imported into the discussion of the question. The intention of the framers of the Bill was primarily to carry the repeal of the tests, and next, to improve the governing body. I do not complain that the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland has put on the Paper Notice of an Instruction dividing the Bill. What I object to is this—Amendments were put down indicative of the opinions of individuals. One of those Amendments proposed to alter the number of the members of the governing body, and another was placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), a Gentleman distinguished in his profession and also by his collegiate career, who is of opinion that a second college, not exclusively Roman Catholic, might be engrafted on the University of Dublin.

rose to Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought, was addressing himself to matters which could not with propriety be discussed on the Motion for Adjournment.

said, he had already intimated that the provisions of the Bill could not he discussed on the Question of Adjournment now before the House.

I say that this threat of treating the matter as one of Want of Confidence was never made until the Government were brought face to face with the Amendments which would have developed their policy. The threat was intended to stifle discussion among their own followers. When threats of resignation or dissolution are introduced upon a private Member's Bill, I say that the state of the House itself cannot be very sound. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government are not going to disclose their principles or their policy until they produce a Bill; but if he holds that view, why did he write the letter which appears in to-day's newspapers to the Nonconformists of Bradford? In that letter the right hon. Gentleman declares his policy for the first time. I decline to ask to have this Bill brought on now; I decline to enter upon a discussion of its merits. I am not going to submit it to an irresponsible Dictator and an obedient majority. I shall keep back the discussion for better times; and, in the meantime, I shall appeal to that public opinion which, in England no less than in Ireland, is sweeping away a Government that retains office without dignity or self-respect.

said, that the Prime Minister had taunted his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) with having forgotten the warning he had received in 1870 as to the intentions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that then he had made the question one of confidence; but the Motion to which he referred was simply one for the abolition of tests in Trinity College; whereas the present Bill had a double object, not only the abolition of tests, but the establishment of a new constitution for the University. In 1870 the abolition of tests was treated as a question of confidence, and the warning, if it had any application, must apply to that question. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman was willing to accept the abolition of tests, and referred the threat of no confidence to an entirely different subject. He would ask, therefore, how the warning of 1870 could be held as applying to the present occasion? The right hon. Gentleman attacked his hon. Friend for asking for an early day; but there was nothing unreasonable in the application. He greatly regretted the decision of the Government in refusing; for, let it be remembered that his hon. Friend was not asking to interfere with the Ballot Bill, or the Scotch Education measure, but merely asking for a day before the 15th June, and that day the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not pledge himself to give. If the House was at present in a position of embarrassment it was the fault of the Government. He regretted the state of things very much, because he thought it would have a bad effect on their position in the eyes of the country if it were thought that Government had the slightest hesitation in discussing the Bill. Under any circumstances, it could hardly have come on on Tuesday evening. There were three Notices of Motions, which were sure to keep them until half-past 12, and there was the case of Mr. Tribe, and one or two other remanets. He had never expected that the Bill would come on, and he thought that the Minister had unnecessarily propounded a very dangerous principle. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that if a private Member attempted to legislate upon any subject on which the Government was pledged to legislate, such an attempt amounted to a want of confidence in the Government. Such a principle would interfere with the privileges of private Members, and would often prevent progress in legislation. Let the House think over all the great measures of recent years, except the Irish Church and Land Bills, and they would find that in every case the real work of fighting for the principle of those measures had been done by private Members, and that legislation had been attempted again and again by private Members long after the Government of the day had promised to deal with the subject. The question of University reform in Ireland was not brought forward by his hon. Friend in any spirit of hostility to this Government. It was brought forward in 1867, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. It was brought forward again in 1868, and was then felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite a very embarrassing question. In 1869 it was brought forward when the Liberal party were in power, yet it was not treated as a vote of confidence. In 1870 the governing body of Trinity College concurred in a measure of re form, and there appeared a prospect of passing it. For the first time it was treated as a question of confidence. In 1871 the subject was talked out; in 1872 it was again treated as a want of confidence. As a plain man, he was unable to understand the principle on which the Government had acted in treating the question this year as one of confidence and in another year discussing it on its merits. The Prime Minister had told them that if he gave way to the hon. Member for Brighton, he should be establishing an evil precedent; but he (Mr. Morrison) thought the evil precedent was the one which had just been set by the Government. He hoped that the present would be the last time they would see such a method of stifling discussion adopted, especially as regarded the principle of a Bill. The Government had put the party in a great difficulty by making the question one of confidence. If the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing of confidence, it would have been extremely unlikely the Bill could come on for weeks, as every week left its own remanets. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would reconsider their answer, as every one on both sides of the House must feel that it was not expedient for the public interests that there should be a grave political crisis whilst our relations with America were in so delicate a state. Within a few days that cause of embarrassment would be disposed of in one way or another. He would sit down, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his answer, as he felt certain, from what he knew of the feeling out-of-doors, that the best thing they could possibly do would be to face this question as soon as they could, and get over it without delay.

said, that the scene which they had witnessed that night might be described in the language of dramatists as "a mighty pretty quarrel as it stands." He had no wish to interfere with the neutrality which had been observed on his side of the House. He thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) was somewhat unreasonable when he complained of the First Minister for not having conveyed his answer yesterday in curt and unambiguous language. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) laid very great stress upon the enormous labour he had undergone in passing the Irish Land Bill; but he did not say whether those labours were added to by any feeling of compunction. But he (Mr. Bentinck) wished chiefly to express his satisfaction that the complaints he had so often made as to the difficulties encountered by private Members were at last inspiring some interest. For years he had struggled against determined attempts to circumscribe the privileges of private Members, and he was glad to see that some hon. Gentlemen were now beginning to find out the inconveniences of that arrangement. If private Members did not defend their rights and insist on being placed in the position they used to occupy, their time in this House would be utterly wasted, and they might tell their constituents that they were of no use here.

said, he could not concur with the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) that the Government would change its course of proceeding here. A Return had been just published which would fill the country with awe and alarm, for it showed that while this House was spending valuable time in discussing comparatively unimportant measures, neglecting such Bills as the Mines Regulation Bill, 10,666 miners had lost their lives through accident during the last 10 years. After the last Session of Parliament, the House was severely criticized for not taking up practical measures. There were now a great many practical measures before the House, and their constituents and the country would blame hon. Members if they were thus to spend their time in useless discussions on matters of less importance.

said, he would yield to no man in his desire to remove all religious disabilities from University education; but he never recollected a more barefaced and mischievous attempt to force the hand of the Government and obstruct the Business of the House than that which was now made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). More than that, it was in the highest degree illogical. Could anything be more illogical than that the Government should be asked to postpone for 20 nights or more legislation which they believed to be useful, in order to make way for legislation which they held to be mischievous? He maintained that the hon. Member had as good a chance of forwarding his Bill as any other private Member, if not a better one. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had also got a Bill in hand, and he considered its passing as important as that of the hon. Member for Brighton; but he wondered what would be said if he were to go to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and say—"I insist that you give me a night for my Bill; if you refuse, I shall treat it as a question of Want of Confidence, and will move the adjournment of the House." He would tell the House the reason for the alliance between hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Brighton; or, at all events, what would be its result. The result of this Motion would be simply to obstruct the Ballot Bill, and that was the cause of this unnatural, this unholy—he had almost said this incestuous—alliance. If this Motion came from the other side of the House—from the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), for instance—it would be intelligible; but he could not understand what was the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. He would ask his hon. Friend to pause for a moment and put this question to himself—what sort of a settlement of the University question would be got from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), or of the Ballot Bill from the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy)? But if his hon. Friend was anxious to find a refuge in the bosom of the Conservative party, if he was tired of playing the part of a political Ishmael whose hand was against every man and every man's hand against him, let him, with the courage which he undoubtedly possessed, cross the floor of the House, and exchange for the rank of a Leader of the Opposition, the far more ignoble position of a catspaw.

The hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House, and he has a right to speak.

said, the House would naturally think that he ought to make some slight allusion to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan), whose example, however, he would not imitate in the use of strong language.

rose to Order. He had the greatest respect for the hon. Professor who was just now addressing the House; but he must ask the Speaker whether it was competent for any hon. Member—Professor or otherwise—to address the House again after having moved the adjournment.

said, according to the practice of the House it is competent for an hon. Member who has moved the adjournment of the House, as an original Motion, to reply. He had already stated that the hon. Member for Brighton was in possession of the House, and he was entitled to proceed with his observations.

said, he was only going to say a word or two in reply to the personal attack which the House would expect him to notice. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh and himself had been such intimate friends for so many years that he would try to avoid, under the excitement of the moment, saying one word which he might afterwards regret. He was quite sure when his hon. and learned Friend read next morning the many strong things which he had said about him and the motives which he had attributed to him he would regret it. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN said, he had no intention of attributing unworthy motives to the hon. Gentleman.] He (Mr. Fawcett) would, of course, accept the explanation offered; but his hon. and learned Friend had made use of a very extraordinary expression, for he said that between some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House and himself (Mr. Fawcett) there was an incestuous intercourse. He wanted his hon. and learned Friend to ponder for a moment, and ask himself what was the elegant phraseology in which he described the intercourse between the Government and the Members of the Opposition two years ago. ["Question!"] He was going now to explain distinctly to the House what he intended to do. The Prime Minister had not correctly explained the request which he and his Friends had made. He would state that request again, because they would repeat it. They never had the slightest idea of asking for a Government night until the Government had met the measure he had in hand by raising the excitement of a Ministerial crisis about it. He would, during the next week, do his very utmost to bring the question on again; but as the Government had not to-night given him a distinct answer as to whether they would give a Government night or not—["Question!"] The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was very fond of crying "Question!" but the House would naturally like to be informed on the subject. As he felt that the Government had completely spoilt his chance by this Vote of Confidence, he should do his best next week as a private Member to press the Bill forward, and after consulting with his hon. Friends, if the Government still persisted, he would take an opportunity of again urging them on the subject.

said, that on yesterday the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) seemed to him to have pursued an irregular course, having spoken twice in the same debate upon the second reading of the Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself had moved. He confessed he often felt how desirable it would be, if possible, to curtail the discussions in the House; and, therefore, he should be glad if what he and other hon. Members understood to be the decision of previous Speakers should be upheld. He understood that if an hon. Member moved the second reading of a Bill, and spoke in doing so, and was followed by another hon. Member, who moved the rejection of the measure in the recognized form—namely, by postponing the second reading to that day six months—the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading had no right to speak again upon the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. It was essential that the Members of the House should know the rule which governed debates on the second reading of a Bill. He would therefore put the Question of which he had given Notice to the right hon. Gentleman. It was in these terms—Whether it is regular, and according to the established order and custom of debate in this House, that when a Member has moved the second reading of a Bill, and has spoken thereon, such Member should be held entitled to speak again in the debate, which he has thus begun, after another Member has, according to the recognized form of moving the rejection of Bills, moved that the said Bill "be read on that day six months," and in doing so has spoken? Or, to put the Question in another form, Whether a Member having moved the second reading of a Bill, and having spoken thereon, is, in case such Motion be opposed in the usual form, to be held entitled to speak a second time in the debate thus originated?

According to the uniform practice of the House, when a Member submits an original Motion to the House, he is entitled to a reply. That is not so with regard to an Order of the Day. When an Order of the Day is moved by a Member, he is not entitled to a reply. But if an Amendment is moved upon that Order, he is entitled to speak to such Amendment. That has always been the uniform practice of the House, and that was the course taken the previous day by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). The right hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Order of the Day, upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Sir Thomas Chambers) moved an Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was then in his right in speaking upon the Amendment.

moved to insert a new clause ("Definition and punishment of personation"), taken from the Corrupt Practices Bill.

said, he thought the latter part of the clause was worse than useless, because it provided that if in the course of a scrutiny on the trial of an Election Petition it should be proved that persons who had tendered votes for one of the candidates had been guilty of personation, one vote should be struck off the number of votes for such candidate in respect of every person proved to have been so personated. That would have been intelligible if it had not been previously provided that if a candidate or his agent were guilty of procuring persons to personate voters he should be incapable of sitting in the House.

explained that no candidate was allowed to take his seat in case of a disputed election unless it was shown that he had obtained a majority of votes, and the cancellation of votes which had been given by personators was proceeded with not with reference to the candidate guilty of procuring a personation of voters, but simply to ascertain whether the other candidate who claimed the seat really obtained a majority of votes.

suggested that a voter who had a qualification in different parishes ought to be required to state in respect of which qualification he intended to vote, as otherwise the voter might vote in respect of one of his qualifications, and some other persons might vote in respect of his other qualifications.

said, the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman deserved consideration. But this Bill would greatly improve the law with respect to personation. Under the present law, a man was not guilty of personation who voted twice, but this Bill made it personation to vote twice.

said, he thought some plan might be devised by which a voter should be required to state in respect of which qualification he intended to vote, with the view of preventing personation.

proposed to raise the question how personated votes should be dealt with when the schedule was discussed.

moved, in line 11, the insertion after "personation," of the words—

"Or, of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation by any person."

said, he did not think the words necessary, for wherever a misdemeanour existed the attempt was also a misdemeanour, and the hon. Member's object of making the punishment hard labour would be met by inserting them in the subsequent part of the clause. He should not, however, object to their insertion here.

moved, in line 9, that the word "felony" should be substituted for "misdemeanour" in the clause. His object was to make personation a felony in England, and in Scotland a high crime and misdemeanour, which meant felony, and that a suitable punishment should be attached to the higher offence of not more than five years' penal servitude or less than two years' imprisonment with hard labour. It would be for the Committee to deal first with the character of the offence, and the amount of punishment to be awarded afterwards. He agreed with hon. Members opposite that under this Bill there would be greater facilities for personation than at present existed, because there would be a greater temptation to a man to commit the offence of personation, when he knew that his vote being once given could not be recalled, and therefore great care should be taken to prevent the possibility of the voting paper ever reaching the ballot box. An adequate punishment ought to be imposed to deter the committal of the offence. Personation was almost the brother crime of forgery, which was a felony, and which received the highest punishment known to the law, save loss of life. Personation was a crime of premeditation. There was no excuse for it. It was, in fact, an offence against the commonwealth. It might rob an innocent voter of his vote, and cause a constituency to be represented by a candidate they would not choose. Their principal object should be to deter a man from committing the offence, and when they stamped a man with being a felon who was found to commit the offence they would be the more likely to attain their object. A policeman or any other person had a right to apprehend a man on the spot for committing a felony; but he could not do so in the case of a misdemeanour, and if this offence were made a felony, a policeman or any private individual could at once interfere and prevent the committal of the offence.

said, he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. The Committee the other night expressed an opinion against extreme punishment. If, however, a severe sentence only could deter the committal of the offence, why not attach to it capital punishment at once? There was a great distinction between forgery and personation, and he thought it was quite sufficient to make it a misdemeanour.

remarked that personation was already in some cases, as in that of the ownership of stock, a felony, and that the present kind of personation was a more serious one, as it might decide the election. Moreover, as personation by a candidate or his agents would void an election, it might be practised by a candidate's opponents for the very purpose, the term "agent" being one difficult of definition.

said, it did not follow that if the Committee accepted the definition of the offence, they should agree to the amount of punishment it was proposed to attach to it. He agreed that it was desirable to alter the definition of the offence, and principally because, as it had been stated, it would allow of the immediate arrest of the offender. That would be a very valuable remedy, because many men who were known to the police might not otherwise hesitate to commit the offence; but the knowledge that they might be tapped on the shoulder and taken off would no doubt deter them. Another reason for adopting the word "felony" was that it had a nasty sound, and people did not like to be called felons.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. The Committee appeared to have lost sight of the fact that this was intended to be a protective measure, instead of which they were constructing misdemeanours by the dozen, and now they were attempting to construct a felony. The offence could be equally as well punished by retaining the word "misdemeanour," and punishing the offence with two years' imprisonment with hard labour. He agreed with the proposals of the Bill up to the penal clauses; but since they had been under discussion he had been in a state of perpetual mental irritation, which increased every day from the fact of their multiplying penalties and threatening voters in every possible way. The Bill, as introduced, was tolerably mild and satisfactory; but since its introduction fanatical admirers of secret voting had proposed Amendments which were at once accepted by the Government, and which had completely altered the character of the Bill. The proposal before the Committee was not brought forward by the Government, and it passed his comprehension to know why the occupants of the Treasury bench should accept it with so much avidity. It was not 10 minutes since the Vice President of the Council moved the clause, and he wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not stick to his own proposal.

did not rise to oppose the Amendment, but said no severer condemnation had been passed upon the Bill as a whole than was contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who said that the measure gave facilities and inducements for personation, and as a means of meeting the case, proposed that the offence should be stigmatized as a felony. He hoped that would be understood by the Committee and the country.

said, he should support the Amendment, for he had no sympathy with the man who committed personation. The Committee were not now discussing the question of punishment, but simply the name by which the offence of personation should be known, and felony was not, in his opinion, too strong a term.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that he could not admit that personation was a parallel offence to those other offences that were designated misdemeanours in the Bill. It was exceedingly difficult to prove a conviction under the present law. The only time when it would be possible to bring home the offence to the offender would be in the few moments of time during which the would-be personator asked for his voting paper and attempted to fill it up. It was of great importance that there should be power to apprehend him then and there.

said, he could not admit the validity of the objections which the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) had taken to the course of the Government. He prepared the clause under discussion; but it was his duty to adopt any suggestions which in his view would improve the proposal of the Government. In that view, the grounds put forward on behalf of the Amendment were well worthy of consideration, and he thought the Government would be very much to blame if they did not consider whether there would be some advantage in changing the character of the offence, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and if they found that, by so doing, it would be easier to detect the offender, it was their duty to adopt the change. He was not aware of the effect of the difference of the use of the two words when the Bill was drawn, and now that their attention was drawn to it, they would be blamed if they did not attend to it. Therefore, he regarded the proposal as an improvement, and asked the Committee to adopt it. He could not accept the interpretation put upon the Bill by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He thought that as in the past so in the future, personation would be an offence, and all the Government desired was that it should be punished. On the whole, he thought the Bill would render the commission of the offence less easy than it had been up to the present time.

objected to the use of the ugly word felony, and suggested that, without altering the verbal description of the offence of personation, power of immediate arrest should be given in cases where personation was attempted.

said, he was of opinion that a strong reason for supporting the Amendment was, that the use of the word felony would have a deterrent effect.

said, he did not see why personation should not be described as felony, because to personate a voter was to deprive him of what most men regarded as a valuable possession.

said, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that the men guilty of personation deserved a severe punishment. They were generally employed at a high rate; they ran the risk; they were unknown, and were selected as being unknown, and sometimes voted 10, or even 40 times.

objected to changing a misdemeanour into a felony, and considered it an extreme proposal on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman in his desire to make elections pure. He protested against making the offence a felony instead of a misdemeanour, for felony brought disgrace not only on the man, but on his family; and if this offence were made a misdemeanour it would be quite sufficient.

said, he must protest most emphatically against it being henceforward said that the penal clauses came from the Opposition side of the House, and would absolve himself from all responsibility for such a state of things.

said, he was of opinion that no sufficient security against personation was provided by the Bill, and would, therefore, gladly avail himself of the opportunity of voting for the Amendment.

maintained that there was a wide distinction between personation for the purpose of obtaining money, as in the case of dividends, and personation for the purpose of obtaining a vote; and the two offences ought not to be treated as of the same gravity.

said, he must object to the Amendment on the ground that, while in practice it would not increase the punishment for personation, any private person, if the Amendment were adopted, would be able to seize a man whom he had reasonable cause to suspect of being guilty of personation. Was that a wise power to confer upon heated partizans during the excitement of an election?

said, it appeared to him that the House was in a state of bewilderment with respect to the Bill. Sides were completely transposed. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had long been charged with being oppressors of the people; but now hon. Gentlemen on the other side were trying to induce the Committee to sanction a system of Star Chamber legislation. The people generally did not look on political offences of this kind as serious offences, but looked upon matters connected with elections as a joke. He trusted the House, therefore, would not sanction this kind of penal legislation, and could hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill could, in the hopeless prospect before him, expect to spur his almost dead progeny into a state of animation.

said, he could support the Amendment without fear of being charged with inconsistency. This Amendment would not create any new offence, but would only increase the punishment of a crime from which all honourable men revolted. Forgery committed with a view to acquire money, however small the amount, was treated as felony, without regard to the feelings of those related to the person who committed the offence. The Committee should do all in its power to prevent this crime, and one reason in favour of stamping it as a felony was that it would render the apprehension of the guilty more easy.

said, he was of opinion that with regard to the question under notice, the punishment attached to the commission of a misdemeanour was sufficient, and that more persons would be punished for personation if it were regarded as a misdemeanour than if it were made a felony. At election times people were occasionally not very particular as to the charges they made against each other; and it should be remembered that a person accused of felony was laid hold of by the police and treated in a manner somewhat sharper than if it was a case of misdemeanour; therefore, he should, for one, be quite satisfied to leave the offence as a misdemeanour, which carried two years' imprisonment—a pretty severe punishment; and he was inclined to believe that by that means they would punish more offenders, because they would find more persons disposed to help them, than if they made it felony.

said, that if the Committee meant to punish, the best punishment would be that which was the most efficacious. With that in view, he was in favour of certainty of conviction rather than of severity of punishment. It was, however, extremely difficult to combine certainty of conviction and severity of punishment; and if he had to choose between the two in cases like this, he should, with Paley and Mackintosh, prefer a milder punishment, with certainty of conviction, to a heavier punishment, with uncertainty of conviction.

said, he must object to the proposed addition to the list of felonies, which was essentially different from any other felony that he could call to mind. Any candid person must admit that in the tumult and excitement of a contested election there would be a considerable liability to mistake the identity of a man who was suspected of being about to commit personation. He did not think it would be wise to convert that measure, which was intended for a very different purpose, into a Bill of severe pains and penalties.

said, the object in view was not to catch as many criminals as possible, but to deter as many persons as possible from the commission of crime; and he was satisfied that if the offence were made a felony, it would have a far more deterrent effect in Scotland than if it were left as a misdemeanour.

said, he was of opinion that, as their present legislation was experimental, the safest course would be to enact the more lenient penalty. If experience proved it to be insufficient for the purpose its severity could hereafter be easily increased.

said, he felt certain that they would have great difficulties to encounter in connection with the measure; and that if they pursued a policy of pains and penalties they would render the Bill most unpopular with the country, and one quite impossible to be applied, to the present state of society. He hoped, therefore, they would abstain from a division, and that the general feeling of the Committee would be to support the proposition as originally made by the Government.

, who had given Notice of an Amendment making the offence of personation punishable by penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years, said that, perceiving that it was the feeling of the Committee that such a penalty was too great, he would defer to that feeling, and with the leave of the Committee would withdraw his Amendment.

proposed, after the words "hard labour," to insert the words—

"And shall be incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament during the seven years next after the date of his being found guilty of such offence."

The object he had in view in proposing this addition to the previous punishment was that he thought personation quite as great an offence as bribery, and therefore one to be equally punished by civil disqualification.

said, he must object to the Amendment. If it were adopted, John Jones, after personating Thomas Smith, and undergoing two years' imprisonment for the offence, might offer himself as a candidate for an independent ballot borough, and the Returning Officer would tell him that at present he was ineligible, but that after the lapse of seven years he would be thoroughly whitewashed, and might be a most admirable representative. He did not wish to ridicule the proposal, but such would be its effect; and were he able to be a hard worker in this matter, he could detect other extraordinary oversights in some of the propositions submitted to the Committee.

said, he was sure that nobody acquainted with his hon. and learned Friend would think that he intended to be ludicrous on this or any other subject. His hon. and learned Friend had shown that the Amendment was impracticable, and the Government could not support it. Whatever criminal penalties might attach to personation, a Parliamentary disability ought not to follow the decision of any tribunal but an election tribunal, certainly not the verdict of a common jury, which, with all respect to such a body, might not be one which everybody would acquiesce in. A Parliamentary disability might be imposed by an Election Judge, but it ought not to be the result of the finding of any other tribunal.

said, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that the person who procured or abetted personation ought to be punished.

said, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the person procuring personation would be placed in a most disagreeable position before the end of the Bill was reached.

said, he had been convinced by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Devonport that the Amendment was objectionable. It was absurd to suppose that a person who personated or abetted personation would ever be a candidate.

said, that he wished to substitute for this clause one similar to that which he had proposed last year, which enacted that in the case of bribery being proved against the successful candidate the seat should go to the one next highest on the poll, provided that he had received the votes of one-third of the electors. If in any borough, alongside of two strong parties, there was a third party capable of turning the election and open to bribery, it was important that there should be some means of effectually punishing such bribery. Under this clause, however, an unsuccessful candidate who petitioned against his opponent on the ground of bribery might strike off a few votes from his opponent's score, but would not be secure of gaining the seat. At present a Petition on the ground of bribery was a bad speculation, and the clause would do nothing to mend that defect in the law. His object was to make it unprofitable to bribe, whereas under this clause the penalties attaching to the offence would not be such as always to prevent its being committed. If, however, it was known that the effect of bribing for a candidate would be, not only to eject him from his seat, but also to confer it upon the other candidate, they might be sure that purity in elections would be very generally observed.

said, it was now a bad speculation for a candidate to bribe, because he lost his seat if he were found out. His hon. and learned Friend said that if his suggestion were adopted, it would be a better speculation for a candidate to be pure. Undoubtedly it would, but at this cost—that the Act of Parliament would, under these circumstances, make the minority return a Member instead of the majority. Thus if one candidate polled 1,000 votes, and he bribed one or two voters, a candidate who had polled only 400 votes would be returned. Such a result would not be desirable, and the result of the remedy would be too dear a price to pay for the additional security.

said, that the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Reading appeared to think only of the convenience of the two political parties at an election, and to lose sight altogether of the constituency itself. At Wexford that day an election had taken place, in which one of the candidates had polled over 100 votes, another over 20, and the third had polled none. Now, would it be right to afford an opportunity in such an instance to secure the seat to the candidate in the minority if a single bribed vote could be proved against the winning Member?

said, that he proposed to make it necessary that the unsuccessful candidate should have secured one-third of the votes.

said, that was very well, but in many of the larger constituencies one-third of the voters would not represent much more than the cypher did in a constituency like that of Wexford.

moved, in line 2, to leave out "some other," in order to insert "any," so that it might be provided that, where a candidate on the trial of an Election Petition, claiming the seat for any person—

"Is proved to have been guilty, by himself or by any person on his behalf, of bribery, treating, or undue influence in respect of any person who voted at such Election, there shall, on a scrutiny, be struck off from the number of votes appearing to have been given to such candidate, one vote for every person who voted at such Election and is proved to have been bribed, treated, or unduly influenced by such candidate or by any person on his behalf."

said, he must ask for some explanation as to the intention the right hon. Gentleman had in framing the clause. For his part he strongly objected to the provision, because it was calculated to create bad votes, and when the proper time arrived he should be disposed to take the sense of the Committee on this clumsy expedient of the Government.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, it would no doubt have been the duty of some Member of the Government to explain the clause, had it been brought forward in the usual way. The clause, however, was taken from the Corrupt Practices Bill. The hon. Gentleman might properly raise his question upon it when the Motion was made for adding the clause to the present measure.

proposed, in line 4, after the word "Election" to insert these words—

"Or any person retained or employed for reward by or on behalf of such candidate for all or any of the purposes of such Election, as agent, clerk, messenger, or in any other employment, is proved to have voted at such Election."

The object of the clause was, in fact, to give a scrutiny to a certain extent, and what he wanted to do was this—if it were proved that an agent for a candidate had voted, a vote should be struck off from the poll of the person whose agent he was, the great probability being that the man would vote for the candidate who had employed him. But the candidate would prevent his agent from voting if he knew that if the agent voted he should lose a vote.

said, the Committee ought to be told what would be the real effect of this clause upon the whole character of the Bill. It seemed to him to propose a rough kind of justice, for it might so happen that one of the purest votes given at the election might be struck off.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend could hardly have been serious in moving this Amendment. Supposing there was a messenger or agent who considered that he had not been very well treated, all he would have to do would be to go to the poll, vote for the candidate who was opposed to his employer, and the result would be that a vote would be struck off his employer's poll. In that way a candidate, who was quite innocent, would be mulcted in two votes.

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he appeared to have forgotten that any person employed by a candidate was not allowed to record his vote. If he did, he was guilty of a misdemeanour.

said, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to him the extreme of absurdity, because having shut out all scrutiny and all means of ascertaining what had been done, Parliament now took upon itself to guess at what had been done. The whole gist of the Bill was, that we were never to find out how a man had voted, and was Parliament on that account to take upon itself to decide that in a particular instance a man had voted in a particular way? It was clear, in the case of a person of this class receiving reward for services rendered at the election, that by his choosing to vote against his employer, he practically gave two votes to his employer's opponent. They could not tell how he voted, and so, assuming that he voted in a particular way, they decided against the candidate who was innocent. He objected to this question being treated as a Member's question, when it was essentially one for the constituency; and, practically, the effect would be to give a man two votes who should have only one.

said, it was very easy to tell your opponents that what was proposed was the height of absurdity, and no case was so inherently bad as that when abuse was resorted to in lieu of argument. That was not only the current opinion in the profession to which he belonged, but he could also testify the fact from his own experience. Let the Committee examine the statement that two votes would be given to the wrong man. If a man was untrustworthy, whose fault was it? That of the man who employed him. The whole theory of election law depended upon this maxim—that a man was responsible for the acts of his agents. He was responsible because he selected those agents. He was not the less responsible because he not only selected but paid those agents. Therefore, if the agents were so treacherous that they voted against the candidate who employed them, as assumed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that showed very bad judgment on the part of the candidate who employed them. But he (the Solicitor General) had yet to learn that the general maxim of the law, which said that a man who did something by the hand of another was responsible for the act of that other, was to be broken in upon in the case of an election. In the case supposed—namely, that of a paid agent voting against his employer, not two votes, but one vote was struck from the poll of his employer.

said, this clause was inconsistent with the theory of the Ballot Bill. It proceeded on the supposition that the person bribed would keep faith with the man who bribed him, while the Ballot was based on the principle that when the voter was protected by secrecy he would record his suffrage independently.

said, that on each occasion on which he had supported the Government against Amendments in this Bill he had been defeated by the Government itself accepting Amendments, and not only accepting Amendments, but denouncing in most unmeasured terms those who were faithful to the Bill. In the beginning of the evening it was a misdemeanour to personate voters; but his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton suggested that, instead of a misdemeanour, it should be a felony, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) at once discovered that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would be a great improvement of the Bill, and when the Friends of the Bill demanded that the right hon. Gentleman should adhere to the Bill, he went into the lobby and voted against them. And now as to the clause immediately before the Committee, his hon. and learned Friend suggested another Amendment. Not only was that Amendment at once accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General got up and spoke with some warmth in favour of that Amendment, as if it had been originally inserted in the Bill, and denounced those hon. Gentlemen who refused to follow his hon. and learned Friend in making a change in the Government Bill. The principle of the Ballot Bill was entire secrecy; but the principle the Government were now endeavouring to establish was either a violation of that secrecy, or a constructive violation of it. A Permissive Ballot Bill was, in his opinion, a fully justifiable and good measure; but to bolster up that Ballot Bill by one penal clause after another was essentially un-English, and contrary to the principle on which the Government originally said they intended to proceed, and on which the Bill was allowed to be read a second time. The clauses were penal enough already, and to make them more penal was not worthy of the House, and that course would be denounced by the country.

said, he thought his noble Friend misunderstood the position of the Committee, and the reason why this clause was proposed to be inserted in the Bill. This clause was one of two clauses in the Corrupt Practices Bill, which both sides of the House—and especially the opposite side of the House—wished to be incorporated in the Bill when it reached the Committee. The Corrupt Practices Bill was as much a Government Bill as the Ballot Bill. The clause now under discussion was almost precisely similar to the 23rd clause, which was passed in the Ballot Bill of last year, and to which his noble Friend did not object, and of which he believed he approved.

said, that the clause as it stood seemed to him to be the height of absurdity, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had stated on the subject.

said, that the contingency of a treacherous agent was a very unlikely one. His Amendment was designed to prevent the colourable employment as agents of a large number of voters who would virtually be bribed, and to secure that the agents should be few in number and high-minded men. Without it there would be a danger of numerous Petitions, and of innocent Members being unseated for the acts of persons whose proceedings they never sanctioned.

said, what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. James) convinced him that there was no safety in the Bill at all. If there were no means of ascertaining how the electors voted, there was no necessity for Election Petitions at all. It was the duty of the Government to frame a clause to verify the votes. He wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill how he intended, when an Election Petition was presented against the return of a candidate, to prove whether there had been any guilt or not connected with the election? He saw nothing in the Bill to bring guilt home to anyone.

, in reply, said, that if a man not entitled to vote was seen to vote by the Returning Officer or any person in the booth, he would be subject to the present punishment, and a Petition would lie against the election on that account.

said, he agreed that persons voting who were not entitled to do so should be punished. Why, however, should any one else be punished? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General appeared to think treachery impossible, but the whole Bill was founded on the supposition of treachery. There never was formed such an opportunity for bribing as under the clause; and by it, it would be a most judicious investment to bribe the clerks and messengers employed by one's opponent, for if six persons employed by A voted for B, six votes would be struck off A's poll, thus gaining 12 votes for B. Cases of treachery had, however, come before Committees of that House. In one instance, a candidate told his committee it was time for them to vote, whereupon they all went and voted for the other candidate, and so turned the election. The Bill would enable them to act thus without being found out, and it was now further proposed to punish a candidate who might be quite innocent by guessing at what had occurred. The punishment would also be inflicted on the constituency, which had a right to be represented by the candidate with the majority of good votes. The Bill, moreover, shut out a scrutiny—the present means of ascertaining who had the real majority—and it was proposed to make a guess that, under certain circumstances, a vote was given in a particular way. Now, in one of the American States—Ohio, he believed—evidence might be offered to show how it was likely a man would vote, the jury deciding whether he had actually done so, but here the matter was to be decided without evidence at all; and questions upon which there was no knowledge, and on which, according to the principles of the Bill, there ought to be none, were to be decided, and a constituency was to be insulted by a Member being imposed on it who had not a legitimate majority.

wished to ask his right hon. Friend—whose extreme courtesy in answering his perhaps warm speech he gratefully acknowledged— whether the Amendment of the hon. and earned Gentleman the Member for Taunton formed part of a clause taken Torn the Corrupt Practices Bill, in accordance with the general understanding to which he had referred? If the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman formed no part of the clause of that Bill, he (Viscount Bury) thought he had not misapprehended the question, and had not entirely merited his right hon. Friend's rebuke.

said, he was glad his noble Friend had put the Question, as he did not wish a false impression to prevail. The words now proposed were not in the Corrupt Practices Bill, nor were they in the Bill of last year. He had understood his noble Friend's criticisms to be directed at the principle of the whole clause, and the discussion had appeared to him to be drifting—as not unfrequently happened—from the actual Amendment to the principle of the whole clause. If he had been wrong in so understanding his noble Friend he must apologize to him.

explained that he had objected not to the whole clause, but to the readiness with which the Government accepted the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton.

said, he thought they ought to adhere to the old law—that a person who was employed as agent for the purpose of the election was not an agent beyond the purpose for which he was employed. He hoped they would not sanction an Amendment which would allow a person who committed a fraud on his employer to vitiate the whole election.

said, he must firmly contend that a man was responsible for the acts of his agents. The present proposal would deter candidates from employing voters, which was very often done from impure motives. If this Amendment did no more than prevent the employment of voters it would do much to promote purity of election.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, if it was his intention to deal with the subject of agency in Parliamentary elections? If so, he (Mr. Bentinck) hoped he would take care that a clause was inserted clearly defining what was and what was not agency.

, in reply, said, he had that day been considering the definition of agents under the Bill, and believed that it was sufficiently defined in a subsequent clause; but if not clearly done he would undertake that before the Bill went through Committee it should properly define who were agents.

rose to move the following clause:—

(Limit of the Act.)

"This Act shall remain in force from and after its passing and during the twelve whole calendar months next following the first General Election that shall take place under the provisions of the said Act, and shall then expire."

The hon. and gallant Member said, that no one who had watched the progress of the Bill in Committee could fail to perceive that it had not received from the Government that careful consideration which a measure of such importance deserved. It was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it himself could not deny that he had been unable to fix the amount of the penalties. The term of two years' imprisonment originally proposed as a punishment for certain offences had been reduced to three months, at the suggestion of an hon. Gentleman who sat below the gangway; whereas, in another part of the Bill, three months' imprisonment had been increased to six months, on the proposal of an hon. Member who unfortunately sat on the Opposition side of the House. By its vote the other night, the House had expressed its opinion in favour of permissive secrecy, and therefore he thought he was justified in asking that the country should give the measure one trial before it was finally accepted. If it failed to do that which its supporters believed it would accomplish, we might revert to the old method of open voting, and do away with this miserable secret system. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the clause of which Notice had been given.

said, the hon. and gallant Member seemed to think the Bill ought only to be in force for a year because, in his judgment, the Ballot would be permissive. The Government, however, were of opinion that the Bill ordered the voting to be conducted with secrecy; and that, notwithstanding the rejection of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), which would have subjected to a certain punishment electors who displayed their votes, there remained in Clause 4 the strongest possible enactments for insuring secrecy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also argued that the Bill should be in force only for a year because certain alterations had been made in it during its passage through Committee; but surely that circumstance could not be seriously adduced as a reason for giving only a temporary existence to the measure. Moreover, as a matter of fact, very few alterations had been made in the Bill, considering its magnitude and importance. He, therefore, felt sure the Committee would not, by agreeing to the clause, pledge the next Session or the next Parliament to the certainty of having to discuss another Ballot Bill.

, in rising to move the insertion of a new clause providing that the expenses of elections be charged upon the rates of the localities in which the elections are held, said, he thought it was unfortunate that the clause should be discussed as a question of admitting working men to Parliament, for the principle of the clause, involving as it did the question as to who should bear the legitimate expenses incurred by any person in obtaining a seat in that House, was so important, and he also thought was so just, that it was desirable to pass it, even though under its operation no single working man was elected to Parliament. Moreover, the House, in order to remove what might be considered a reasonable prejudice of working men that they were at present prevented from attaining that desired end, ought to show that it wished to erect no insuperable barrier to any man, be he rich or poor, in obtaining a seat in Parliament. The great majority by which the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) to charge the expense of elections upon the Consolidated Fund was rejected showed that the majority of those who wished the candidates to be relieved from the payment desired that the payment should be made from the rates; and, therefore, all those hon. Members should be in a position now to support the proposal he laid before the Committee. Though he had voted against the hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes) the other night on the question of local taxation, he acknowledged the importance of that question; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire that, in the course of the last debate on this subject, he said the Conservative party would oppose any proposal to lay fresh burdens upon local rates; but the right hon. Gentleman could not oppose the present clause consistently with the fact that but for the assistance of the Conservative party the Education Act, which imposed a somewhat considerable expense upon the local rates all over the kingdom, would not have been passed. He could not expect that anything he might say would induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to change their opinion, and he feared that the result of the division on his clause would show that there was very little truth in the rumour that there existed a peculiar connection between hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself. If, however, a number of those hon. Gentlemen would come over and support him, he could bear with equanimity and composure a repetition of the taunt which had been directed against him. The principal opponents of his clause were the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James); but with regard to some of those Gentlemen, what did they witness only a week ago? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford stood up like a penitent, and repudiated the assistance he had derived from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, whom he described as his "guide, philosopher, and friend." He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Oxford would remember the unfortunate guidance, and that he would again treat the House to a similar act of repentance. The opponents of the Bill based much of their opposition to his proposal on the statement that it would be unpopular with the constituencies, because it would increase the number of candidates, and so add to the cost; but he knew, as the result of his own observation and calculation, that it would not increase the rates by an eighth of a farthing in the pound, and would not cause the occupant of a £10 house to pay more than three-halfpence once in two years. Moreover, putting the question broadly, he did not think there was any assembly of Englishmen but would admit the unfairness of taxing a Member of Parliament for the privilege of serving his country and his constituents who had imposed a considerable amount of local duty upon him. He could not accept the view that the placing the cost of elections upon the rates would increase the number of candidates, for at present any candidate, even though he had no chance of success, was looked upon as a benefactor by those among whom his candidature would cause money to be spent; but if the ratepayers had themselves to bear the cost, they would concentrate their energies in opposition to the candidature of men who might involve them in costly and unnecessary contests. He believed, further, that no proposal had ever been brought before Parliament which had been received with greater unanimity by the public Press than had the one he now asked the Committee to agree to. Every organ of the public Press in London, with the single exception of The Morning Post—and the exception was an instructive one—had urged Parliament to accept the principle of his clause. Whether, however, the House accepted or rejected his proposal, he should not quarrel with the decision. If the verdict was for rejection, he should persevere with it year after year—as he intended to do with another question to which it was not necessary further to refer—and when public opinion had so far re-acted upon Parliament as to induce it to accept his proposal, he hoped hon. Members would not be found to charge him with having turned his back upon his principles. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice.

said, that as claimed by his Hon. Friend, he must admit the importance of the clause proposed; but he feared that a majority of the House would not be in favour of its adoption, and he deeply regretted the fact. If, however, the principle advocated by his hon. Friend was not accepted then, a comparatively short time would elapse before the hopes of his hon. Friend would be realized; for he (Mr. W. E. Forster) believed public opinion was tending to the conclusion that it was the duty of the constituencies to bear the expense of returning their representatives to Parliament. But his chief argument was this—that there never was a time when it was more important, more expedient, or more wise, that we should do out utmost to induce every man and class of men who had strong political feelings to take their part in the constitutional government of this country. Important questions were coming before us, questions in which many of our fellow-subjects took a deep interest, on which they might be mistaken, but which affected the most important interests of the community, such as the position of labourers and capitalists, of those who held property and those who did not; and nothing could be of greater consequence than that those who had views on those subjects should not be discouraged from taking a part in their discussion. We should earnestly wish that those men should be on the floor of the House to hear the arguments which might be advanced against their views; and he believed that the present provision, which threw the legal expenses of election on the candidates, did operate to prevent them from coming into the House of Commons. It would be said that this was only a small part of the legitimate expenses. That was true, but a man, for instance, who was a member of a trades' union would be enabled to avoid a good many expenses, such as advertising, which other candidates would have to pay. He earnestly desired that such men should be in the House, and he would give his cordial support to the clause; indeed, he thought it was a mistake to oppose their entrance.

said, he had voted for this proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton six years ago, and although it might be said that he ought to wear a white sheet in consequence, he saw no reason to repent of what he had done. But there were reasons why he could not record his vote for the clause to-night. Ever since he had been a Member of the House he had given a consistent vote, and six years ago, when he voted with the hon. Member for Brighton, he anticipated that the burdens of local taxation, which pressed so heavily on the taxpayers, would soon be removed. In that expectation he was disappointed, and, therefore, he threw on the Government, who had failed in reducing the inequalities of local taxation of which he complained as well as in other matters, the responsibility for the vote which he would give to-night.

said, this was a very important question, and it was not right that it should be hustled through the Committee. There were three important points involved in this proposal—the main question, the question of rates, and the question of justice. He felt confident that this was a clause which the House ought not to pass, and equally so that there was not the slightest chance of its being carried. He did not quite understand whether the Government were going to support the clause. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly we are.] The House could not have forgotten what had occurred a few nights ago. He (Mr. Magniac) supported the Government the other night against the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), who attacked a special point of local taxation. What was the main argument of the Government in opposition to the Motion of the hon. Baronet? The strongest point urged by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was, that if the Resolution of the hon. Baronet were carried, the Government would not be in a position to touch local taxation; and yet here the Government were supporting the hon. Member for Brighton in his proposal to add to the rates which already existed. Moreover, the adoption of the clause would contravene the principles which the House had agreed to; for while in the present case it was not even proposed to divide this rate between the owner and occupier, yet one of the great stumbling-blocks in the way of the Education Act was, that the occupier had to pay the whole of the rate. Did the Committee suppose that if this new proposal were carried, there would be no grievance for boroughs and counties? After the election, when the collector went round collecting their half-pence, pence, and shillings from the poor people for the expenses of the candidate to whom they were probably opposed, did the Committee think there would be no discontent? It might do very well in large boroughs, such as that which the hon. Member for Brighton represented, where the constituents were almost all of one way of thinking; but in the smaller boroughs, where parties were pretty evenly balanced, they were going, if this clause passed, to compel a very large minority to pay the expenses of the man to whom they were opposed. Did any one mean to say that that would be satisfactory to the country? Was it to be supposed that there was a magistrate in the kingdom who would send a man to prison for refusing to pay the rate? The consequence would be that the law would be broken. As to the 2nd clause forming a part of the scheme of the hon. Member for Brighton—

said, that as that clause was not then the subject of discussion, the hon. Gentleman was out of Order in dealing with it.

said, he must submit to the Chairman that the clause to which the hon. Member was referring was subsidiary to that actually before the Committee, and that it was impossible to ascertain the true import of the clause moved unless the whole scheme was discussed.

said, the clause under consideration had reference to the payment of election expenses out of the rates, but the hon. Member was proceeding to read and argue on the following clause when he stopped him.

contended that the first clause dealt with the payment of expenses generally, and that the second dealt with providing funds for that purpose, when there was more than one county rate. The two formed part of the same scheme, and it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss the two clauses, because it was impossible to see the full bearing of the first unless the second were referred to.

contended that that was a new doctrine, and that while the hon. Member would be in Order if he referred generally to the character of the Plan, he would not be in order in building an argument on the words of the 2nd clause.

said, he would call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Brighton had in his argument entered generally into his whole scheme, and in order to follow him it was absolutely necessary to discuss the whole scheme. The Committee, therefore, had under its consideration the general scope of the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, and if the ruling of the Chairman were supported it would be impossible to have the discussion.

said, that if the hon. Member for Brighton had made any allusion to the 2nd clause it had entirely escaped his notice.

said, he wished to ask a Question—namely, whether the clause had been divided into parts; and, if so, which part was under he consideration of the Committee? ["Order, order!"]

said, the question before the Committee was the whole of the first clause, moved by the hon. Member for Brighton for the payment of election expenses, and if the hon. Member for St. Ives had confined himself to that, he should not have interfered on the point of Order.

said, he must again appeal to the Chairman to state to the Committee the point upon which he had stopped the hon. Member.

said, upon the point that there was no question before the Committee for dividing the clause.

said, that it was impossible to discuss the clause without touching upon the following one. He would, however, point out that the fact that the 2nd clause gave compulsory powers to the justices showed how impossible it would be to carry out the scheme. Upon the question generally he submitted that the amount which would be added by the scheme to the rates was not a matter for consideration. The church rate grievance was evidence of that. He did not wish to pay the expenses of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he presumed they had the same feeling with regard to his.

said, he had voted for the principle embodied in this Amendment when moved by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), and had since seen no reason for changing his opinions. He did not sympathize with the objection that the scheme would produce a multiplicity of candidates, and, at the same time, thought it was utterly wrong in principle to preserve the the representation in the hands of the wealthy. It was equally wrong in principle, either that the candidate should be obliged to pay the expenses himself, or that he should depend upon others for the payment of them. He concurred, however, in the opinion that whenever the public expenses of elections were made a charge upon the locality, it would be right and proper for the different candidates to give some pecuniary guarantee for the bonâ fide nature of their candidature, that they intended to go to the poll, and that they had a resonable chance of success. As to the second objection—namely, the burden that would be thrown on the rates, it was for that reason that he had opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, and supported the clause on that subject in the Government Bill of last year. But since that time the situation had entirely changed. It was more than a week ago that the House decided by a very large majority that the present incidence of local taxation was unjust; and it seemed to him quite clear that the result of that vote would be that the existing Government, or any Government which was in power, would have to take up—and he trusted that this Parliament itself would take up—that question, and remedy some of the grievances under which the local ratepayers undoubtedly suffered. Thinking that those grievance would be so remedied, he would, for the sake of the principle it involved, support by his vote the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton.

said, he must oppose the clause, because it would encourage candidates coming forward in large numbers for their own gratification merely. As to the clause admitting working men, he believed that the poor candidates who had stood for that House and had not succeeded in obtaining seats, owed their exclusion to no difficulty on the score of money, but to the unwillingness of the electors of their own class to return them. He also objected to imposing that additional burden on the ratepayers.

said, he was astounded that the Government, in the face of the decision come to the other night on the subject of local taxation, should now give their assent to a clause proposed by an hon. Member below the gangway for throwing new charges on the already overburdened rates. He could not understand how a Minister could reconcile such a course of conduct with the respect due to a solemn decision of the House.

said, that when this proposal was made last year, he voted against it. To-night, however, he intended to vote for it. Since the Prorogation he had consulted his constituents, and found that this proposal had their universal assent. He would for that reason, and also because his own convictions on the subject had entirely changed, now give it his support.

said, that the logical conclusion from the arguments urged in favour of that clause must be the payment of Members. The expense of getting elected to that House was not to be compared to the expense of sitting there; and how could a working man who could not pay the cost of the hustings afford to maintain himself while acting as a Member of that House? Moreover, the ratepayers most strongly objected to defray the expenses of candidates, and would tell them that if they wanted to get into Parliament they must pay them themselves, or, if the would not do so, that there were plenty other candidates who would.

said, it was with regret he found that the Government themselves had not brought forward such a clause as a part of their Bill, as it was the logical corollary of the abolition of the property qualification for Members And, further, the present state of the law on that subject was most unsatisfactory.

said, after the result of the division, he would at once withdraw the other clauses of which he had given Notice.

proposed a new clause, providing for the use of voting papers for sick, infirm, or disabled voters unable to go to the poll. It was a great hardship that a person should be deprived of his vote from a circumstance over which he had no control, and if voting papers were proper for University elections, it must be right to use them in cases of this kind. These papers would be a great safeguard; to allow their use would be an act of justice; and the proposition therefore deserved the consideration of the House.

said, it had been already decided not to adopt the principle of voting papers, and the wording of this clause would present special difficulties, because a description of the voter being required, the secrecy of the Ballot would be entirely destroyed. He admitted that the cases in question were arguments in favour of voting-papers, but the Committee had come to the conclusion that the principle of personal voting must be adhered to.

said, he thought the subject too important to be discussed at so late an hour (20 minutes to 1 o'clock), and would move that the Chairman report Progress.

expressed a hope that the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed.

then moved, That the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

said, he had no wish to prolong the discussion, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw the Motion he had just made he would consent to report Progress.

said, that he had been already 13 hours engaged in public work, and had to be on a Committee at 12 o'clock again. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the discussion they had had to-night.

asked whether the rule with respect to Opposed Business not being proceeded with after half-past 12 did not extend to this debate—because he observed upon the Paper a Notice of an Amendment to the Amendment which had been proposed by the Lord Advocate. It seemed to him, therefore, that the rule as to Opposed Business applied.

I must call attention to the rule in question, which is to this effect—that except with regard to Money Bills, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion can be proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock, if opposed, where Notice of opposition has been previously given. No Notice of an Amendment had been given when, on Tuesday last, the Motion was first made; and this being the resumption of an adjourned debate, it is quite in order to continue the discussion.

asked Her Majesty's Government if they would consent to withdraw their Amendment, and introduce the words he would suggest to the House? The Resolution would simply stand as he had moved it, and he would only add one or two words to make the inquiry applicable to the institutions he desired—namely, "which have not been reported on by the Commission on the Universities of Scotland Acts."

said, he would undertake, upon the part of the Government, to withdraw the Amendments moved by the hon. and learned Lord Advocate.

said, he was afraid hon. Members did not take into account that certain words had been struck out of the Motion—namely, the words "the maintenance of education of young persons." If the words proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were put in the Resolution it would be quite intelligible; but unless these words were put in it would be nonsense.

suggested that the most convenient course to take would be for the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) to withdraw his Motion, and substitute for it a fresh Motion, in such a form as would obviate the objections that had been urged to the present Resolution.

said, he would adopt the suggestion.

asked the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to this Bill?

was not prepared at that moment to say whether the Corrupt Practices Bill would be proceeded with after the Ballot Bill was out of Committee. The opinion of the Government at present was certainly favourable to proceeding with the Scotch Education Bill first.