in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there was another Bill down on the Paper, entitled the Voters' (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill, the object and provisions of which he believed were nearly identical with that which he was about to bring before the House. In referring to that measure, he wished to assure the House that there was no understanding between him and the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) on the subject, and that the coincidence was a pure accident. The purport of this Bill was to remove some difficulties which now existed, and which prevented persons in Ireland from enjoying the franchise who were entitled under the law. The Bill involved no extension of the franchise, nor did it in any way give the right to the franchise to any class not now entitled by law to possess it. It solely sought to remove difficulties arising from the practice common in some towns of the owner of premises paying the rate, which at present, owing to oversight in the law, prevented persons from getting upon the register. The means by which he sought to effect that purpose was machinery which had been employed to remedy analogous and similar difficulties which at one time stood in the way of persons entitled to the franchise in England, but which had been removed. As a matter of fact, this was a Bill for the assimilation of the law as between Ireland and England. Since the Act passed in the year 1850 regulating the qualification and registration of voters in Ireland, persons in boroughs, cities, and towns occupying rated premises of £8 yearly value had been entitled to vote. By the 2nd section of the Act it was provided that the clerk of the Union should transmit to the town clerk in each borough, city, and town a list of persons rated as owners or occupiers of premises of that value. By the next section the town clerk was required to make out a list of persons entitled to vote, and one of the qualifications necessary to entitle a person to be put upon the register in any particular year was that before the previous July, he should have paid all the poor rates payable on the 1st of January in that year. Persons who by any accident were omitted from the list of voters were given, by the 34th section, the power to make a claim to be put upon the list; but the difficulties in the way of establishing the right were numerous; and under Section 100, the claimant was bound not merely to pay the certified and ascertained amount of taxes due to the 1st January, but he was bound to pay all poor rates due to the time he made his claim, and it might be difficult for him to ascertain the exact amount. That in itself was sufficient to place the claimant at a great disadvantage; but, in addition, he was bound to comply directly with the propriety of formalities and regulations. The claim must be in writing, and signed by the claimant himself, and he was bound, step by step, to prove his claim affirmatively. In 1868 there came the Irish Reform Act, which gave the franchise in towns to all persons who occupied premises of the rated value of over £4, and declared that the occupation of land, &c., rated over that amount should be as effectual to qualify a man to be registered as a voter as was the old £8 franchise, and the introduction of the word "occupation" showed that the case was contemplated of occupiers whose rates were paid by their landlords. Primâ facie, the law stood thus—the occupying tenant was liable for the rates under the Irish law, but if the collector got them from the owner, that was enough under the Act to entitle the occupier to the franchise. In certain towns the arrangement by which the owner paid the rates was very general. In Dublin, in five cases out of six, of a large class of houses, it was the rule for the rates to be paid in the first instance by the owners, when, of course, they were ultimately paid by the occupiers. It was necessary that the rates should be paid in proper time—namely, the 1st of July, or the franchise was gone, and in some cases the landlords would neglect to pay. Usually in Ireland the landlord was of one way of thinking politically, and the occupier another; and though the differences should not often lead to feelings of hostility between them, they made the landlord more or less indifferent to the payment of the rates which would secure the franchise to the occupier. Then, again, the landlord paying the rate was not bound to return the name of the occupier for whom he paid it, nor was the collector bound to ask for it, and thus, in many cases, the occupier did not find his name upon the rate book. Now, about as soon as the occupier discovered that the rate had been neglected to be paid, he could come forward and pay it; but the proper time for paying having passed, he would be reduced to the necessity of making a claim and facing the difficulties of that process. In many cases the occupier would take for granted that the owner had paid, and would only find out when it was too late that the rates were unpaid. The best way to show the effect of this state of things upon the borough franchise in Ireland was to refer to a Return made in 1874, upon the Motion of the senior Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). The Return showed that in the town of Belfast there were 25,704 premises rated at over £4, while there were only 14,990 occupiers registered to vote. In Cork town there were 7,190 premises rated at over £4, and only 3,737 votes. In Limerick there were 3,200 such premises, and 2,161 registered occupiers. And in Dublin the premises rated at over £4 numbered 23,247, and the registered occupiers 11,000, or less than half. The English Reform Act, passed in 1867, abolished, as they all knew, what was known as the "compound householder." In cases where one man was the landlord of a number of small tenements, the local authorities did not care to go to the trouble to collect the rates from all the occupiers, but agreed with the landlord that he should pay the rates, some deduction being made from the amount to compensate him. The Ministry of that day were disposed to give household suffrage; but to limit the effect of the measure they said—"It is not enough to be a householder; we shall insist that in addition the rates must be paid not by the landlord, but by the occupier." From the Opposition side of the House there came a Motion to give the compound householder a vote, notwithstanding that the rates were paid by his landlord; but the attempt was defeated, and the Ministry of the day stuck to the principle that there should be personal payment of rates in order to give a man the right to vote. The opponents of that principle adopted another plan by which they proposed to abolish the compound householder, and compel everybody to pay his rates personally. That was adopted by the Government, and thus the Bill gave what was practically household suffrage. The Government of that day went out of Office, and the Liberal Party came in. Meanwhile, great dissatisfaction had been felt by the local authorities and the ratepayers at the abolition of the compound householder, and, in 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) introduced his Assessed Rates Bill to supply machinery to remedy the defects which had arisen in England with regard to the registration of voters. That machinery he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) now proposed should be applied to Ireland. The Assessed Rates Act restored the power of compounding, and, at the same time, secured to the tenant whose rates were paid by the landlord the right to vote; but then came the danger, which had assumed a serious aspect in Ireland, that as a consequence of the local authority coming into contact only with the owner, the occupier would not find his name upon the rate book, and would lose his vote. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London provided machinery by which the occupier whose rates were paid by his landlord had secured to him that his name should be placed on the register of voters. That Act was the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, and it was meant not merely to meet the case of payment by the owner which arose under the compounding system, but all cases where the owner paid the rates instead of the occupier. If it had been confined to the compound householder, it might have been said that the analogy to the case of Ireland was imperfect; but it went much further, and provided a remedy in all cases where the owner, by agreement, was an occupier, and paid the rates; and when the right of the occupier to appeal upon the list was thereby endangered, Section 7 of the Bill declared that any payment of rates by the occupier, notwithstanding that the amount might be deducted from his rent, and any payment by the owner should be deemed a payment of full rate by the occupier, for the purpose of any qualification for the franchise. By the 8th section, if the owner omitted to pay the rate, the occupier might deduct it from his rent, and Section 9 made the owner liable to a penalty if he failed to give the list of the occupiers to the overseers. The next section provided that notice should be given to the occupier of the rates in arrear, and the 19th, which was the most important, required the overseer to insert the names of all the occupiers in the rate book, which was the foundation of the register of the franchise. Some of the clauses of the Bill were restricted in terms to the compound householders, but these clauses which he proposed to engraft upon the Irish law were perfectly general. He wished by the present Bill to apply the same law to Ireland, and to prevent men whom the law declared to be entitled to the franchise being hindered from getting it in that country through the want of the excellent provisions now contained in the English enactments. He had, therefore, endeavoured in this measure to carry out the principles of the English legislation on that subject. His Bill provided that all poor rates should be deemed to be payable by the actual occupier when made, the immediate lessor, however, where now liable, to continue still to be so; that where the owner omitted to pay the rates, the occupier paying the same should be empowered to deduct the amount from the rent; that every payment of a rate by the occupier, although then deducted, and every payment of a rate by the owner should be a constructive payment by the occupier for the purposes of any rating qualification for the franchise; and that when the rates remained unpaid they should be demanded from the occupiers. Doubts having arisen as to whether occupiers of weekly or monthly tenements should be entitled to vote, the Bill proposed to enact that such persons were not to be excluded from the franchise. It had been said that these questions of electoral reform were regarded with great apathy by the Irish people; but that was due to a want of belief in the readiness of the House of Commons to comply with their just demands, and they had seen that apathy give way when a question arose which excited strong popular feeling. By passing that measure, the House would do something towards allaying those feelings of apathy and distrust. People in that country would not hold meetings on matters of that Kind. They had seen so many Bills thrown out and Petitions rejected, that they did not believe in praying the House for reforms connected with the franchise. Beyond that, he would admit that it was impossible to get up Petitions unless they had a paid and organized body to prepare them. In the case of the constituency he represented, a vacancy occurred, and a candidate of excellent position and ability, and of local connection, was spoken of, and would have been returned, but that a strong voice of popular feeling had sprung into existence, and everybody, voters and non-voters, determined that a man vitally connected with that voice should be returned instead of a member of one of the great English Parties. The hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he referred was, on that occasion, owing to the irresistible force of the popular feeling, returned without opposition; but he had since stood a contest, and been at the head of the poll. It was advisable, on such occasions, to lessen excitement as much as possible, and to encourage strictly constitutional action. That object could be best accomplished by removing the obstacles in the way of hundreds and thousands of men in the towns of Ireland who were legally entitled to be put upon the list of voters, but who were hindered from getting their names upon the register by the difficulties which stood in the way. On very just, reasonable, and constitutional grounds, it was advisable that those difficulties which had been swept away in England should be removed in Ireland also, and, accordingly, he asked the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill which he had brought under their notice.

in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, hat he would not occupy the time of the House very long in showing that it ought to be rejected. He would admit that it had been brought forward in a very moderate way; but, nevertheless, it was very difficult to reconcile some of the statements which had been made with his (Mr. Mulholland's) experience. This question had been brought before the House on several previous occasions, and it had appeared in a different form and under a different name. In the first year of this Parliament, for instance, it came up as a part of the Borough Franchise Bill. That Bill was rejected a week ago. He imagined that the object of bringing forward this Bill at the present time was to get the House to commit itself indirectly to the approval of the principles of the Bill which a week since had been rejected. If that Bill had passed, there would then have been some meaning in producing this Bill; but he contended that with the rejection of the Borough Franchise Bill the necessity for this Bill disappeared. The Mover of this Bill had said that it was intended to remove the disqualifications which existed, and which prevented persons so entitled from being on the register; but, in his (Mr. Mulholland's) opinion, the Bill dealt altogether, from the beginning to the end, with persons not entitled to be on the register; and he entirely denied that there were any persons in Ireland entitled to appear on that register who were prevented from being so by any peculiarities of the law of rating, if they so desired. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1868 settled the franchise on its present basis. In both of those Acts, the principle by which the borough franchise was regulated in England and Ireland was exactly the same. In both countries that principle was, that the franchise was only to be extended to those who paid the poor rates directly; but there was a radical difference between the Poor Law system of the two countries. In England, the principle of direct personal rating always lay at the foundation of the Poor Law. In Ireland, on the contrary, the large fringe of semi-pauperism which existed was taken into account, and it was felt that it would be absurd to tax, for the support of others, the large class who were themselves bordering on pauperism. A line was therefore drawn below which the occupier of houses should not only not be liable for poor rates, but the landlord was expressly prohibited from recovering them directly or indirectly; and that line was fixed at £4. The legislation of 1867 and 1868 was followed up by registration enactments, which most effectually provided, by officers appointed for the purpose, for the appearance on the rate book in Ireland of the name of every occupier rated at over £4. He denied that there was in Ireland anything approaching to the English system of composition for rates. The circumstances of the two countries in that respect not being at all analogous, they could have no uniformity—any uniformity would be in the letter only and not in the spirit—were they simply to copy the clauses of an Act suitable for England, but wholly unsuitable for Ireland. If the present Bill were passed, it could only apply to occupiers under £4, who were not entitled to the franchise. The Bill had appeared before the House under four different titles—the Borough Franchise Bill, the Voters (Ireland) Bill, the Town Rating Bill, and now the Rating of Towns Bill. Such attempts at concealment of identity looked, to say the least of it, very suspicious. Why should the title be changed on every occasion but to conceal the real character of the Bill? He hoped the House would not allow the law of rating in Ireland to be unsettled—directly, as was attempted by the Bill of last Wednesday, or indirectly, by the present Bill; but that it would adhere to its determination expressed last week, and reject it, in accordance with the Motion he now made.

said, the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Mulholland) had asserted that there was no demand in Ireland for this Bill, and that no persons were deprived of the franchise in consequence of the existing state of the law. For his own part, he was ignorant of the law of Ireland on the subject; but it certainly appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had made out a primâ facie case, which called for a reply. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had not supplied any answer; and it was to be regretted that he had not left the opposition, in the first instance, to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who would have informed the House what the law in Ireland really was. Neither could it be said that the hon. Member had displayed any correct knowledge as to what was the law in England under Goschen's Act of 1869. That Act was undoubtedly intended to be of general application, but its operation had practically been limited by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of "Cross v. Allsop." In that case, the Act had been held not to be of universal application, but only to apply to the old class of compound householders. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick was, therefore, not right in supposing that the Act of 1869 completely met all the difficulties existing in England, for there were many persons entitled to be on the register in England who were still left out. There was great need for legislation in England to clear up the anomalies that existed on the subject, and if the Government should think it necessary to make any inquiry into the state of things existing in Ireland, he hoped that inquiry would be extended to England also. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had shown that there was a large class of the poorer ratepayers who in England were enfranchised under Goschen's Act who did not get placed on the register in Ireland. That was a matter which deserved consideration, and he regretted that the Bill intended to deal with the subject had been met by mere opposition.

pointed out that the object of the English Act of 1869 was altogether different from that which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) proposed to attain by this Bill. It had been copied from an English Act, passed to remedy certain grievances, and meant to re-introduce a certain state of things which had before existed in England. On the contrary, such a state of things had never existed in Ireland, and the present Bill was altogether a mistake. Its Preamble stated that it frequently happened that persons entitled to the franchise were practically disfranchised by reason of their names not appearing on the rate book, and the 2nd clause found a remedy for this evil. Now, as a matter of fact, the grievance did not exist, and in every borough in Ireland—except Dublin—in accordance with the provisions of the Poor Law, the rate books had a column in which the name of the occupier was inserted. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick thought that a £4 occupier who was liable to pay rates and who did not pay them should, nevertheless, be allowed to have the franchise. The law was the same in all the Parliamentary cities and boroughs of Ireland, except Dublin. The Parliamentary franchise depended on certain conditions, among which were that a person must have been an occupier for twelve months, of promises rated at a value of more than £4, and it seemed to be assumed by those who copied the Bill from the Act for England, that the occupier was not liable for the rates; but the Irish law made every occupier of premises above £4 rateable value liable to be rated and to pay the rates. In Dublin, however, the law was different, for the Act of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 91, provided that, instead of the rate book in Dublin being made out by the Poor Law authorities, it should be made out by the Collector General of Rates, and also that in the case of all premises between £4 and £8 valuation, the lessor should be rated instead of the occupier. It was said that as far as the poor rates were concerned, this provision had been repealed, and consequently all persons now occupying premises rated above £4 ought to be put on the rate book. He believed, however, that the Collector General, with the best intentions, acted on the opinion that he ought not to put on the rate book weekly and monthly tenants. Whether that was the legal course or not, he would not say; but the result undoubtedly was that in Dublin some persons were not mentioned in the rate book whose names ought to appear there. Still, there was a remedy for this state of things, because the persons aggrieved might claim to be rated and registered, and it could not with justice be said that any person was deprived of the franchise. That point was clearly established by the Committee which, during the last few years, had inquired into the subject of Local Taxation and the Government of Towns in Ireland. The real cause why there existed a discrepancy between the number of persons on the register and the number of tenements was that persons who ought to pay rates neglected to do so. He had an authority for the statement in an editorial article in The Freeman's Journal of June, 1875, calling on the Liberal ratepayers to pay their rates in order not to lose the franchise, and complaining of their scandalous neglect in not thus qualifying themselves. The Freeman's Journal was generally accepted as a fair exponent of public opinion in the Liberal Party, and no doubt the reason for the discrepancy was the true one. With regard to the municipal franchise, the state of affairs was much more complicated; because, in Ireland, there were a great number of different franchises. This subject was under the consideration of a Committee which had been sitting for two years. The labours of that Committee would be brought to a close in the course of a very few days; and he believed the majority, if not the whole of its Members, would report in favour of such an adjustment of the laws as would remove the great differences and discrepancies which at present existed in the municipal franchise in Ireland. With regard to all places in Ireland, except Dublin, there was no ground for the assertion that persons entitled to the municipal franchise were deprived of it by any of the alleged grievances which the present Bill sought to remedy. He desired to call attention to the fact that, with the exception of one or two words, the Bill was precisely the same as another measure—the Voters (Ireland) Bill—which it was proposed to bring under the consideration of the House to-day. This, he maintained, was an evasion of the rule which had been laid down by the Speaker, to the effect that if the same Bill were proposed by two hon. Members, and where both hon. Members put down their names in order to obtain a double chance in the ballot at the commencement of the Session, such a proceeding was not fair to other hon. Members, nor in accordance with the Rules of the House. He submitted that that ruling had been evaded in the present instance.

said, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) was appealing to the Chair on a point of Order. The hon. Member, as he understood him, had simply called his (Mr. Speaker's) attention to the fact that there were on the Order Book of the Day two Bills which were identically the same. If the statement of the hon. Member for Carlow were accurate, he was bound to say that the proceeding he had described was irregular; and, whatever course the House might take with reference to the present Bill, the other Bill, if in identical terms, should certainly be withdrawn.

said, that as far as he was aware, there was no Bill which was identical with the measure now under consideration.

said, he had merely drawn attention to the fact that the Bill was substantially the same, with the exception of a few words, as another Bill which stood upon the Paper. He was quite satisfied with the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the matter.

said, he wished to explain. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), regarding the appearance of the two Bills, had very naturally thought that at first sight they raised the supposition that his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) and himself had balloted for the purpose of giving themselves a double chance of bringing on the two Bills. He desired to say that they did nothing of the kind. Until to-day he was not aware that the Bill of the hon. Member for Youghal stood on the Order Book. During the last few minutes the hon. Member for Youghal had denied that his Bill was identical with his own, and that was the best proof that there had been no collusion between them, and that there had been no un-Parliamentary arrangement between his hon. Friend and himself. It was a purely accidental coincidence, at which they were both equally surprised.

said, that what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had stated was perfectly true. When he found that the two measures were nearly identical, he took care that they should both be put down for the same day, so that the House should not be called upon to discuss the same question twice over. Therefore, he and his hon. Friend had done their best to obviate any difficulty which might arise from a certain amount of accidental coincidence. Addressing himself to the Bill now under consideration, undoubtedly it was a Reform Bill in its way, proposing, as it did, to enfranchise large numbers of persons who, if not resident in Ireland, but in England, would enjoy votes; but he contended that it did not attack any principle they were bound to protect. Its object, therefore, must recommend it to the House. If, as had been alleged, it would be practically inoperative because there were no persons who would be enfranchised by its technical provisions, this difficulty might be easily met when the second reading was passed and the Bill got into Committee. He would admit that it was intended to enfranchise a class who were now excluded; but he believed it would be for the interests of the Empire that the class entitled to the franchise should be very considerably enlarged, as it was of advantage to diminish the number of the mob by adding to the number of those entitled to possess civil rights. He denied that those who opposed the Bill were acting in the true interests of the Conservative Party, for it was most desirable to add to the number of those who were interested in the well-being of society. He was not speaking in a Party sense, but in a social and political sense. All persons who had interests at stake in Ireland were Conservative; and, in his opinion, it was the most Conservative principle in the sense in which he spoke, to enlarge the franchise as much as possible, but gradually, and not by taking immense strides any one special time. The Bill was strictly in analogy with the English Reform Bill, and with the Bill of 1869; and, therefore, he would give it his most hearty support.

said, he should not have addressed the House had not a personal reference been made to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who wished to hear from him (Mr. Plunket) a statement as to the law in Ireland on this subject. He had only to say, in reply, that he entirely endorsed the explanation of the Irish law as laid down by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). He must congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) on the clearness with which he had stated his case; but there was one part of it which he had not made out. His hon. and learned Friend had not shown what was the necessity for coming to the House in such hot haste on this subject—and that not with one Bill, but with two Bills almost identical. It could not be maintained that there had been a single Petition, one public meeting, or any strong expression of opinion through the ordinary channels in favour of the Bill. The House deserved some explanation beyond what had been given for these two Bills being on the Paper to-day. On the back of both Bills was the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt); and though he (Mr. Plunket) might acquit the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) of wilfully disregarding the Rules of the House, on the ground alleged by him that he was not aware that the two Bills were the same, or, he supposed, of the contents of either of them, he could not so easily acquit his hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for Limerick. All he could say was that there must be wheels within wheels in the management under which the Irish Members prepared their annual bundle of Bills and placed them in the Order Book of the House; there must be transactions behind the scenes; and there must be a kind of vicarious representation in the fathering of these measures when two Bills were hurled at the head of the House of Commons, identically the same over five or six pages of print, on the same Wednesday. And now a word as to the necessity for the Bill. He did not dispute that, if Parliament had seen fit to sanction household suffrage for Ireland, there would have been a strong case why a Statute affecting rating in Ireland should be passed analogous to the Act of 1869. But the promoters of the Bill had not proved their case. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick was not able to establish any analogy between the case of Ireland, where persons rated under £4 were not entitled to the franchise, and that of England, where there was household suffrage. The whole matter had been considered in 1868, and there were then found sufficient grounds why the franchise in both countries should be placed on a different footing. Not only was the question with which the Bill, so far as it related to the city of Dublin, dealt under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, but a case was pending in the Law Courts in Dublin, in which it would probably receive a legal decision; and he did not think that the House should be called upon to anticipate one way or the other the conclusions which might thus be arrived at. The only object of this Bill was to do that which the House refused to do last Wednesday—namely, to enlarge the borough franchise in Ireland. As no case had been made out for the Bill, he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Downpatrick.

said, it had been stated by an hon. Member on the other side of the House that mis-statements had been made—no doubt, unintentionally—in regard to matters of fact, by hon. Members supporting the Bill. He (Mr. Meldon) must equally protest against the mis-representations which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as to their intentions of promoting the Bill. It was not fair that an Irish Member should stand up and say that the effect of passing a certain measure would be to enlarge the borough franchise, or in any way to carry out the intention of the Borough Franchise Bill which was discussed last Wednesday. He wished it to be distinctly understood that this Bill would not enlarge the franchise to the extent of giving a single man a vote who was not entitled to it at the present moment, and he hoped such a misstatement would not be repeated. That was not the object of the Bill, and the result of passing it would be to leave the law where it was at the present moment. He must admit that if the argument of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) was a sound one, the objections he had urged to the Bill would be very formidable, if not fatal. His statement was that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen's) Bill, of 1869, was intended to apply to the case of the compound householders in Ireland. He (Mr. Meldon) emphatically said that was not so. That Bill was intended to deal with two different classes of ratepayers. It dealt, in the first place, with the compound householder, and was intended to deal with the owners who made agreements with the overseers to pay the rates and get certain allowances for the payment of such rates; but it also was intended to deal with those occupiers who made agreements with the owners that the owners should pay rates. There were no compound householders in Ireland, and they only sought to extend the provisions of the English Acts which applied to other ratepayers outside of the compound householders. They wished to have the law remedied in such a way as to insure that, in cases where the value of the premises was over £4, the occupiers should appear on the rate books. Thus it would only affect those persons whom that law declared to be entitled to the franchise. In the rate books there was a column which ought to be filled up with the name of the occupier; but, as a matter of fact, the Guardians, or those who prepared the rate books, did not see that the column was properly filled up. In a recent election in Dublin for Poor Law Guardians, no less than 300 proxy papers were returned by occupiers who were entitled to the Parliamentary franchise, and every one was rejected, because the name of the persons actually in occupation did not appear on the rate books at all. The measure would not extend the franchise beyond the area of those now entitled to it. It simply provided, by one of its clauses, that the Guardians should be bound to see that the names of the occupiers were inserted in the column provided for the purpose in the existing rate books, under certain penalties as the result of non-compliance with the regulation. Three of the other clauses of the Bill were merely declaratory of what the law in Ireland really was. There was no earthly reason why this act of justice to the whole of Ireland should not be passed, except that a certain class of occupiers in Dublin who were already entitled to the franchise would be admitted to it without inflicting injury upon anyone, and it might be the fears of certain hon. Members who chose to assume that their seats would be endangered. The only other effect of the measure would be to facilitate the collection of rates.

said, that, looking at this measure, the practical effect of its adoption would be to call upon the owners of tenements in every borough and city in Ireland to pay the rates; while, at the same time, the several franchises would thus be given to the occupiers. He did not say the Parliamentary or municipal franchise, but any franchise that might arise as a consequence of paying rates. Surely, if there were any force in the old adage, that taxation and representation ought to go together, this Bill would cut at the very root of such an arrangement. The measure was very much too wide and sweeping in its character, and, if adopted, would, practically, end in the enfranchisement of every single tenant throughout Ireland for every possible purpose, whether he personally paid a single farthing or not, either to the local burdens or to the Imperial Exchequer. Look at the 6th clause of the Bill, which attempted to provide that—

"Every payment of a rate by the occupier, notwithstanding that the amount thereof may be deducted from his rent, as herein provided"—[that is, by the tenant from his landlord]—''and every payment of a rate by the owner, whether he is himself rated or is liable to pay the same, or has agreed with the occupier to pay it, shall be deemed a payment of the rate by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification which, as regards rating, depends upon the payment of the poor rate."

A provision which might be broadly said to be without limitation. Hon. Members—if he might venture to say so—took an erroneous view of this question, when they said that there was any analogy between the present state of affairs in England and that sought to be initiated by this Bill with regard to Ireland. As he (Mr. Wheelhouse) understood English legislation on this subject, it was, that where there was any occupation whatever conferring the franchise, the person occupying should be called on to pay the rates, if, as the consequence, or, as he might almost term it, the reward, for the payment of the rates, he received the franchise. It had been said that in Dublin 1,000 votes were lost last year, and that the present Bill would remedy this state of things. If the overseers, or county clerks, or officers, did not now do their duty, had they any reason to suppose that they would perform that duty, even though the non-performance was to be followed by a penalty? While he did not believe very much, if at all, in penalties in regard to civil legislation, and especially for such a purpose as this, he would ask, what were the agents of the several parties about to allow of such a large leakage? But, however that might be, surely the Legislature was not to be blamed, because some overseers had not seen fit to do their duty. If such a state of matters did exist, would it be very difficult to obtain, from the Government for the time being in Ireland, some such order as would be issued, under similar circumstances, from the English Local Government Board, compelling the overseers, or others charged with the duty entrusted to them, to carry it out, and to enter the necessary information on the books. Again, they had been told that the Bill was to be of no earthly service in reference to the franchise, and that it would not enfranchise one single individual. If not, why was it brought in, and pressed forward? The truth was, he could not agree with that idea, and he hoped the measure would not be accepted by the House. What was the object the promoters had in view? If, as he apprehended, it was to give any franchise to those who, according to his contention, had no right to receive and exercise it, then it was not merely useless, but it was one which ought not to be allowed to pass. Looking at it from every point of view, it was absolutely incorrect to allege that there was any analogy between the legislation now proposed and that which affected England at this moment. Surely, it could not be at all successfully contended that the Bill had no object whatever in view? If it were thought desirable to remove some anomalies which affected the city of Dublin, that might be done by a short Local Bill; but to attempt to legislate for the whole of Ireland, merely because something might demand a local remedy in the Metropolis, was to ask for far more than was reasonable; and he could not help repeating that, so far as he could see, the main, if not the only, object of this Bill was to confer some franchise, generally, upon those who ought not to have it, and he, therefore, must oppose the measure.

said, he had listened with attention to the observations of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Wheelhouse), but must say that he had heard no argument which, in his opinion, should induce the House to reject the measure. He believed that the Bill would redress a substantial grievance, and enable a number of householders to appear upon the register who, as the law now stood, although really entitled to the franchise, did not enjoy it. By the 1st clause it was proposed that the local Poor Law authorities should be forced, by the imposition of a penalty, to insert the name of every occupier in the rate book; as they were already directed to do. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds said that this duty was either a right thing to enforce, or it was not. If it were a right thing to enforce, as the promoters of this Bill contended, why, he asked, was it not done? Well, the answer was, because there were no adequate or ready means of enforcing the duty. The hon. and learned Member, however, protested against there being any efficacy in a penalty. Now, there he (Mr. Law) ventured to differ altogether from his hon. and learned Friend. Let the House just consider the matter for a moment. By the law, as it now stood in Ireland, and as it did stand in England prior to the Act of 1869, it was the duty of the local Poor Law authorities to insert the name of the occupier in a column of the rate book specially provided for that purpose. It was a duty cast upon the overseers in England, as it was on the Guardians in Ireland; but, like many other duties nominally imposed by the law, there were no ready means of enforcing it. Accordingly, in England, when the occupation franchise became a substantial question after the passing of the Reform Act of 1867, and it was found at the end of the next year that the obligation to fill in the name of the occupier was, in many instances, not performed, the Legislature immediately provided, by the 19th section of the Act of 1869, that a penalty of 40s. for every name omitted should be imposed on the local authorities who did not in this respect perform their duty. Now, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, he (Mr. Law) had great faith in the persuasive efficacy of a penalty like that in making officials do their duty. If, as suggested, it would be of no value in Ireland, why, he (Mr. Law) asked, was such a provision made for England; and that, as he was told, without a dissentient voice? It evidently was thought by Parliament that here, at least, it would be desirable to impose a penalty on such overseers as did not perform their duty; and was it a very extravagant thing on the part of Irish Members to ask that the same means should be tried in Ireland in order to insure that the name of the occupier, which ought to be on the rate book, should appear there? The next clause of the Bill proposed to give certain facilities for the performance of this duty—facilities which were provided in England but not in Ireland—by requiring the owners of houses who paid the rates to furnish the guardians with the names of the occupiers, in order that the rate book might be completed. In other words, the object of the clause was to assist the local authorities towards doing their duty by furnishing them with the means of inserting on the rate book the names which everybody admitted ought to be there. But then the hon. and learned Member for Leeds made a sweeping assertion in regard to the 6th clause, which dealt with the constructive payment of rates. He said this clause would have the effect of giving the franchise to a great number of persons who otherwise would not be entitled to it. If he (Mr. Law) thought that such would be its effect, he would not regard the measure as entitled to the same favourable consideration from the House as he now submitted it was; for hon. Members might not unnaturally think that any extension of the franchise under which they were elected should be proposed as a distinct and substantive measure. But, in the first place, the Preamble of the Bill showed that it proposed to deal only with those already entitled to the franchise, whilst its promoters disclaimed having any such object as the hon. and learned Gentleman would impute to them; and, in the next place, he (Mr. Law) failed to see that the clause in question would have the effect alleged. He ventured, indeed, to doubt whether the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had read the clause, or, at least, whether he had compared it with the clause in the English Act, from which it had been copied. It merely sought to provide that the occupier, who was otherwise qualified to have a vote, should be entitled thereto whether he or his landlord paid the rates. It was taken, in fact, word for word from the 7th clause of the English Act of 1869; and he (Mr. Law) asked, if it were contended that that clause of the English Act had entitled a number of persons to the franchise who would not otherwise be entitled to it? Surely his hon. and learned Friend would not insist that by the operation of that clause the constituency of Leeds, for example, had been spoiled; and, if not, why should he make the corresponding clause of this Bill the ground of this argument for the total rejection of the measure? Again, a further clause proposed to provide that, instead of general notice posted up somewhere in the town and calling on all occupiers to pay their rates, a special notice should be sent to each person as required here by the 28th section of the Representation of the People Act of 1867. One general notice was originally thought sufficient in England, and, accordingly, having been prescribed by the English Registration Act of 1843, a similar provision was inserted in the Irish Registration Act of 1850. In England, however, experience showed that this general notice was insufficient for its purpose; and, therefore, a separate personal notice to each rated occupier was required by the Act of 1867. And now, when it was proposed to make a similar improvement in the law relating to the Registration of Voters in Ireland, by copying the latest provision of the English law on the subject, hon. and hon. and learned Members opposite objected to such a measure. Did it not, then, in effect, come to this—that, whereas in England everything was done to facilitate the enjoyment of the franchise by all those who were really entitled to it, yet, in the case of Ireland, it was sought to withhold all such facilities? Was that, he (Mr. Law) would earnestly ask, a wise, or expedient, or a just course to pursue? He could not, he confessed, see any reasonableness in the objections to the Bill which had been presented to the House. The measure, if passed, would merely enable persons presumably entitled to the franchise to have it, and, as he could not understand why its adoption should be objected to, he should vote for the second reading.

said, that, on the part of the Government, he entirely concurred in the view that no person in the community should desire to interfere with the fair exercise of the franchise by any person entitled to it. He would admit that fully and frankly. No case, however, in his opinion, had been made out by the promoters of the Bill that any substantial inconvenience had existed, or did exist, with regard to those who were justly entitled to the franchise. The principal portions of the Bill were originally contained in the Borough Franchise Bill, to which they were properly germane, and it was somewhat inopportune, as the Borough Franchise Bill had not passed, but had been rejected, now to ask the House to pass a series of clauses which were only suited to a state of things that no longer existed. It seemed to him that by an afterthought, the Bill, passing by altogether the limit of the rating value of £4, provided that all parties in the occupation of any premises of any value, even so low as 5s., were to be assumed to be ratepayers. If the Bill became law, he ventured to think that they would be bound to rate every person who was in the occupation of any premises, no matter what the value might be. The whole argument in reference to the Bill was that which was stated very fairly and forcibly by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), in introducing it—that a variety of these clauses were found in an English Act of Parliament. Was that a complete and conclusive argument? The argument of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) on that point was entitled to very great weight; because he pointed out that the English Act of Parliament, which was referred to in the margin of the Bill, was passed to meet an entirely different set of facts and circumstances. He had failed to hear any real substantial exception taken by way of argument to the proposition of the hon. Member for Downpatrick; and, for the reasons he had referred to, he was unable to assent to the second reading of the Bill. So far as the Bill dealt with the existing franchise, no case had been made out; and so far as it referred to a franchise which had been rejected, the Bill was entirely unnecessary.

said, that in no circumstance would the Bill have the effect which had been so erroneously attributed to it—of unduly extending the franchise. Its only effect would be to remedy a great and patent injustice, for there were many cases in which rates were paid by landlords in respect of holdings between £4 and £8 in value, and occupiers were entitled to appear on the rate book; but their names were omitted through the negligence of the rate collector, and all the Bill would do would be to impose on the collector a penalty for the neglect of duty. In Belfast alone, only about three-fifths of the persons in the borough entitled to vote were to be found on the register. If those persons were placed on it, the opposite side of the House need have no dread, as he had no doubt that Belfast then, as now, would continue to return two Conservatives.

said, it had been stated that the object of the Bill was to give the franchise to those persons who had been unjustly deprived of it. If the class it was proposed to admit were the only class excluded, he should think that a very excellent case; but there were inequalities in other directions, and it was forgotten that an intelligent class of people, who owned very considerable property in towns, as owners had no votes unless they were resident occupiers, and it would be an anomaly to leave them without the franchise while enfranchising the improvident occupiers who did not pay their own rates. He regarded it as a very dangerous thing to confer too much power upon an unintelligent and improvident, though it might be an industrious, class of people. The Bill attached a penalty to an owner's refusal to furnish a list of occupiers, and he was afraid the penalty would be incurred in view of a Parliamentary Election, and thus lead to disputed Returns. At a time when Communism was so rife in the United States, Russia, and Germany, the House ought to hesitate before it admitted to the franchise in Ireland the class possessing the least intelligence, least property, and the least ability. The Bill was open to objection in other directions, and he trusted the House would not give it a second reading. He could not support a Bill which would confer on a class who could not afford to pay taxes the right of exercising the franchise.

supported the Bill, remarking that the cardinal principle of the Bill of 1868 was that every possible facility should be given to enable electors to be placed on the register with as little trouble as possible. The executive officials had failed to carry out that Act, and the present Bill was to give facilities for the carrying out of the intentions of the Legislature when they passed the Bill of 1868. Either a man was entitled to be on the register, or he was not. If he had a title to the franchise, it was very requisite that he should be placed on the register with as little inconvenience as possible. At every registration there were many Party contests, owing to the neglect of officers to furnish complete lists, the persons whose names were omitted having to establish their claims at their own expense. In this respect, the machinery of the Reform Bill was not self-acting, as it was intended to be, and the objections of the last speaker to an extension of the franchise did not apply to the Bill, because it would affect only those whom Parliament had intended to enjoy the existing franchise.

refuted the statements of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), who had hinted, as his great reason for opposing the Bill, that he feared a spreading of Communistic principles amongst the people. The hon. Member for Tyrone had over and over again in that House struck against his own country—he would not say his own people, because they were not his people—but he never struck at them more keenly than he had done now—

I rise to Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to say of another hon. Member—"He has often struck against his own country—I will not say his own people?"

went on to say that Ireland needed no defence against charges of Communism and revolution, as there was no country in the world which had evinced a greater spirit of hostility to anything like Continental Communism than Ireland. The National Members in that House were very often met by the remark—"Oh, we intend to give you local government." This was a Bill which aimed at local government in the direction of an extension of the franchise, yet Parliament evinced no desire to give it a second reading.

said, that before the House was called upon to make an alteration in the law, the necessity for that alteration ought to be clearly proved; but he felt justified in saying that no proof had been given of there being any strong feeling in Ireland in favour of a measure of this kind. It had been said that the Act known as Goschen's Act, passed in 1869, conferred upon occupiers in England privileges from which similar occupiers in Ireland were debarred. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) stated, as his reason for supporting the Bill, that he was desirous to concede to Ireland the privileges accorded to England; and it seemed that this argument did no doubt influence a great number of hon. Members on the other side of the House, so that week after week they had Bills brought on ostensibly with the object of assimilating the law of Ireland to that in England. No doubt, that was a plausible ground on which to obtain the support of hon. Gentlemen representing Liberal constituencies in England. He knew, indeed, that many hon. Members opposite had intimated their intention to support all Irish measures framed in that spirit; but he thought it would be only right to consider whether the circumstances of the two countries were identical in respect to the matter with regard to which it was proposed to legislate. It was customary on other occasions to say that Ireland was so different a country from England that legislation must proceed with the two countries in quite different directions. Irish Members were constantly telling the House that it was unfair and unstatesmanlike to judge Irish questions from an English point of view. They were constantly informing the House that Irish matters must be judged from a standpoint of their own. If that were so, then before Irish Members could come to that House and ask them to extend to Ireland the legislation for England, they must show the House, as had been pointed out by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, that the state of circumstances in the two countries was the same. Now, it seemed to him that the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), showed that this was not so in the present case. His hon. Friend had stated that there was no substantial grievance, and that no person in Ireland was debarred from the franchise by the state of the law applicable to rating. Now, he (Mr. Lowther) did not want to open up the compound householder question, because he agreed with hon. Members in deprecating obstruction to the acquisition of the franchise by what he had, in 1867, in this House ventured to stigmatize as the miserable ventured technicalities of rating. He had always said that if a voter were entitled to the franchise, he should have his right in full, and should not be shut out by a side-wind. He did not go back from that; and if hon. Gentlemen could prove that ratepayers entitled to the franchise were debarred by technicalities, that might make out a case for the Bill which had not hitherto been done. Clause 6 of the Bill certainly went far beyond its avowed object. He certainly hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) would be prepared with some answer to the case that had been made on that point; but he (Mr. Lowther) thought that he was justified in saying that the law in Ireland in regard to rating was essentially different to that in England, and that the circumstances which rendered it necessary to pass the English Act of 1869 did not exist in Ireland. Therefore, the somewhat plausible pretext argued in favour of the Bill, that they ought to extend to Ireland the law already existing in England, did not hold good. He hoped the House would not be led into another of these Reform Bills for Ireland—of which they had already had too many samples. They had disposed last week of what might be called the head of this question—the main measure. They had determined that the question of Parliamentary Reform, as far as Ireland was concerned, was not ripe for discussion, and he therefore hoped that the House would not assent to the Bill.

in reply, said, that the object of the Bill was not an alteration of the law, so as to extend the franchise in Ireland, but to give the vote to those who were at present entitled to it, but who were now prevented from obtaining it by the law of rating; and what the right hon. Gentleman said virtually was, that Irish voters should not be enabled to exercise the franchise nominally conferred upon them by the Act of 1869. He must say that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be dictated by a regard to what the Government considered a wise economy of the time of the House than by a regard for the merits of the Bill. The Returns which he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had cited proved conclusively that persons at present entitled to the franchise in Ireland were excluded by the law of rating as it stood at present, the number in Dublin alone being 1,500. The first three clauses were absolutely requisite to give the same facilities for the acquisition of the franchise in Ireland as existed in England; but he should not object to the omission of the 4th and 5th clauses.

Mr. Speaker, I have a Petition to present from certain Ministers of the Church of England, and of various Denominations in Portsmouth, calling attention to statements made in the Report of the police charged with carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts in that town, and the surrounding district. The Petitioners allege that the police have stated in their Report that only 11 prostitutes under the age of 17 are to be found in those places, and that there is only a gross total of 530 of all ages plying their avocation therein. To that statement the Petitioners desire to give their unqualified denial, and to state that, in their view, the Contagious Diseases Acts have a debasing and hardening effect on the women who are submitted to their operation, and they pray that the House will forthwith repeal those Acts.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House—

Before the hon. Baronet addresses the House, perhaps I may be allowed to interpose by presenting a somewhat remarkable series of Petitions, with which I have been entrusted, on the subject of this Bill. These Petitions, Sir, are exactly 100 in number, and in them are embodied the views of gentlemen of all kinds of professions. They are signed by 446 clergymen resident in London, by the Cardinal Archbishop, and 116 of the Roman Catholic clergy; by 109 resident members of the Colleges in Oxford, by the Provost and Fellows of Eton, by Professors and others at Cambridge, by 303 barristers-at-law, by medical officers of health, by surgeons, and by other professional men in the country; and their prayer is, that the law may be so amended that a wilful communication of contagious disease may be met by penal consequences.

I can assure the House that it was not from any want of interest in the subject, or lack of conviction as to the objectionable nature of the Acts we are now to discuss, that I refrained last year from bringing the matter under the attention of the House. The attention of those outside the House is steadily increasing with regard to the subject. I am aware that it has been stated that it is easy to manufacture Petitions; but it is evident that the Petition which I have had the honour to present from nearly 114,000 women, does to a great extent testify to the increasing interest taken in the subject, not only by the lower classes in the country, but by those who are in a position above them. The Petition is signed by such ladies as Miss Florence Nightingale, Mrs. Grote, and Mrs. Butler; and, although it may be the fashion of this House to sneer at those women who have deliberately put themselves in a position very painful often to themselves and their relatives, I am bound to say that I consider the extreme necessity of repealing the Acts justifies the line of conduct they have taken. I feel now, that as time is limited, it is impossible for us to expect a full discussion or a division on this question, so that I must ask the House to bear with me at the outset whilst I briefly refer to the last Returns which have been obtained from the Government with regard to the working of the Acts in the several places where they are at present in operation. I had the honour last year of moving for a Return showing the number of cases of disease in Her Majesty's ships and vessels stationed at certain of the Home ports. That Return I have obtained, and if the House will give me its attention for a few minutes, I think I shall be able to show that, as far as concerns the complement of men, a fair comparison can be obtained between ships in the same port, but that it is impossible to say that the Contagious Diseases Acts have produced the effect claimed for them. As to the comparison instituted in this Return between ships in the ports where the Acts are in operation and ships in the ports where they are not, the comparison is not such as any statistician, or any man acquainted with figures, would dream of accepting, because the conclusions are not founded upon any proper method of taking Returns such as we desire. I am ready to state all these facts, if it is necessary, before another Commission or Select Committee; and I will undertake to say that no statistician in Europe, looking at the figures side by side, would ever admit that they bear the interpretation which the Government officials have put upon them. I know there are many hon. Gentlemen in this House who say—"If you could convince us that those Acts are doing no good, we might be disposed to listen to your arguments;" but I do not base my arguments entirely upon Returns. I believe there are greater arguments to be adduced with regard to this question; but to repeat them at this hour would be, I conceive, trifling with the temper of the House, and, therefore, I must confine myself within as brief a compass as possible. With regard to these Returns I may state that the Government selected their own ports. They did not take the ports which might have been taken, but they took the ports of Dartmouth—with its steady-going Britannia—Plymouth, Portsmouth, Queenstown, and Southampton, as their typical cases; and they compare with Dartmouth and Southampton places like Greenock, Hull, Dublin, Leith, and Liverpool; and I think that everybody will at once see that such a comparison is not founded upon anything like a strict equality of circumstances. Let me take the place of Plymouth alone; and I think I shall be able to show the House, in a few sentences, that, as in the case of different regiments to be found in the Government service at Aldershot, so in the large ports in the Kingdom are there circumstances attaching to each particular vessel, which indicate the existence of the disease year after year, and which the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts does not affect. I will take two ships which, for a time, belonged to the same port. They had the same complement of men, and, in other respects, might be fairly compared. Now, I can show the House that, since 1860 down to the present time, there were continuous circumstances affecting these vessels, which can leave no doubt whatever in the mind of any reasonable man that very much depends upon character, that the disease cannot be looked for like any other ordinary disease that lurks in the hold of the ship, but that the cause of its existence is to be found in the character of the men, as much in the sailors on board a ship as in the soldiers belonging to any regiment in Her Majesty's Service. Now, I will take the Returns as far as Plymouth is concerned. In 1860 there were two ships there, the Royal Adelaide and Wellington, their complement of men was almost the same—namely, 515 and 565; but disease in the Royal Adelaide was 78, in the Wellington 30. Then I will take the year 1861, and the ships Royal Adelaide and Impregnable. The Royal Adelaide had a complement of 600, and the Impregnable a complement of 615. The Royal Adelaide was distinguished for the number of her men who were diseased; the number amounted to 96, while those on the Impregnable were only 30. Then I will take 1862, and I find that the cases belonging to the Impregnable were reduced to 8, whilst those of the Royal Adelaide were no fewer than 226. This shows how disease was of a continuous character on board that unfortunate ship. Then I will take 1863, and the ship Canopus. Compared with the Royal Adelaide, the Canopus had a less complement of men, and yet the number of her men who were invalided by disease was 132, and the Implacable, which had the same complement as the Royal Adelaide, had but 5 men diseased, and the Royal Adelaide 114 men in that condition.

stated, that it was his intention to follow the course which he had previously taken on similar occasions, and forthwith put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw?"—The House proceeded to a Division, whereupon Mr. Speaker called upon Mr. Arthur Moore to name a second Teller for the Ayes.—The honourable Member having stated that he was unable to do so, Mr. Speaker declared that the Noes had it.

I now venture to compare, from the figures for the year 1864, the Cambridge and Indus. The Cambridge was a ship with a smaller complement of men, but yet disease in the Cambridge was as 98 compared with 102 in the Indus, a ship with 40 per cent more men. Before and after the Acts were put in force at Plymouth, the disease in the Royal Adelaide decreased from 114 in 1863 to 41 in 1864 (before the Acts), down to 12 in 1868 (after the Acts); but increased again in 1869 to 36, in 1870 to 144, in 1871 to 248, with 30 per cent larger complement of men, and with 90 per cent more disease. I might go through a series of years, and give the House other comparisons with regard to ships. There is no inflexible law, and you never can depend upon any ships having other than a varying character, owing to the character of their crews; but, in these particular Returns, certain vessels are selected as under the Acts which are really out of the category of those which have disorderly and immoral crews. There is one ship which has notoriously a crew of married men; it is the Victoria and Albert, and is taken alongside of the Asia, and Duke of Wellington, and it certainly is most improper that this ship should be selected by reasonable men as a typical ship. I might say the same of the Britannia, quartered in 1870 at Dartmouth, with its regular complement of trained men, which could not be affected by the same circumstances that affect the average of disease in other places. If we are to have Returns such as these, I would rather argue the question before the Statistical Society than before the House of Commons. I know there are some hon. Members who accept all these Returns as facts; as records and tables drawn up by gentlemen in whom implicit confidence should be placed; but I maintain that, although the authenticity of the figures cannot be disputed, in some respects they do not show any connection between the Acts and the absence or presence of disease, or prove conclusively that the operations of the Acts are to be relied upon as sure to produce good sanitary results. With regard to the Army Return, which was delivered this morning, I have also a word to say. There has not been much time to analyze it. I have had some little opportunity of perusing it, but not so much as I should have liked. From what I have seen of it, I must say that it will not bear examination. The stations brought under the Acts, and certain stations not under the Acts, are compared, but not station with station; so that it is impossible to obtain anything like an authoritative percentage from the figures. I know that this is a dry matter, and not of a kind to be brought before the House at this hour of the Sitting, but a great deal of unpleasant feeling has been aroused in the towns where the Acts are in operation, and my object in speaking of the Return just now is, to show to the House that the figures so entirely mix up one station with another of an entirely different character, that it is impossible, on the face of it, to accept the figures for one moment as correct. For instance, in the Army Report, all the stations under the Acts are taken, but only some stations not under the Acts are selected for comparison with them, and if the average amount of disease at all stations is really reckoned, the Government statistics are wrong to the extent of 25 per cent. So much for their statistical value! Then, I wish to mention to the House that the Army doctors themselves have admitted in former Returns—namely, in their Reports of 1873 and of 1875 and 1876, this important fact, which makes those Returns of no value whatever. They admitted that, in 1873, during Mr. Cardwell's time, a new Army Warrant was issued—which punished men for being diseased, and thus induced them to conceal it—under which a state of things sprang up such as invalidated all statistics of disease from that time. I maintain that these Returns are too apt to mislead, as, being stamped with the sign of officialism, they are really taken and accepted as correct by people living in the country. I am ready to lay these figures before a Select Committee of this House, and I will pin my faith to this—that they are not reliable as Government statistics, and they will be disproved at some future period. There is an impression amongst the Members of this House, owing to the weight and strength which is accorded to a Government Return, that the Home Office statistics also are most reliable—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I beg to ask if it is competent for a Member to move that the Ladies' Gallery be cleared?

That is a matter for the House itself to decide; the Gallery is open for ladies, and they are admitted by the order of Members of the House. If any Members of this House have given orders for the admission of ladies to the Gallery, I am not at liberty to interfere with those orders without the consent of the House itself. I wish to point out that the course I have formerly taken, when this question has been brought on, has been to desire the attendant to intimate to ladies who may present themselves for admission, that a discussion of a delicate question is likely to take place, and to put it to them whether they desired to remain or not. I was not aware, indeed, I did not believe, that this Bill would come on today. Had I thought so, I should have taken that course on the present occasion. ["Move!"]

I beg to move that the Ladies' Gallery be cleared.

I ask, Sir, if it is competent for an hon. Member to move that when another Motion is before the House?

The hon. Member proposes by his Motion to set aside one of the Regulations of the House, and I should not be justified in putting a Motion of that character to the House without Notice.

The House will observe—

I beg, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that there are Strangers in the House.

However desirable this interruption may be in the minds of some hon. Members, there is little time—

I must point out to the hon. Member for Clonmel that he has already taken that course; the decision of the House has been distinctly declared; and in taking that course a second time he is, I think, trifling with the House.

It is not my custom to trifle with the dignity of the House at any time, much less is it my wish to do so on the present occasion; but I feel—

I must remind the hon. Member that he is not in Order.

Sir, I am anxious to say a few words on the subject of the Home Office Returns. The Home Office Returns for years past have been framed on a well-known form. They show that the Metropolitan Police are employed at stations under the Act, and that marvellous power is given to them by the law. I find, to my astonishment, that, year after year, the Metropolitan Police—admirable as they are in keeping order in London—are employed by the State in towns and municipal boroughs, to do that which municipal authorities can do without their aid. We are told that in some of those towns the efforts of the police have been so effectual that they have succeeded in "doing away with numbers of houses of ill-fame" by virtue of the Acts! It would seem from the Reports that the police were competent, not only to suppress brothels, but to reclaim unfortunate women who have strayed from virtue into vice. There are many towns in this Kingdom, especially in the North of England, which protest against these Acts. I am bound to say that their very introduction was a direct interference with the powers and privileges of municipal authorities, and no step has been taken more objectionable than that of allowing the central police to administer the law where there is already local government, administered by and responsible to local authority. The idea of the police being made the special guardians of public morality is of itself so absurd, and the result of their efforts so often contradicted by the officers of the Rescue Society itself, that I need not trouble you with any more remarks upon it at this time. With regard to the diminution of brothels, important evidence was given before the Irish Sunday Closing Committee, last year. It came out that, in the City of Glasgow, where they had no Metropolitan Police, the authorities had succeeded in reducing the number of houses of ill-fame from 204 in the year 1874, to 38 or thereabouts in 1876. Therefore, the argument that the Metropolitan Police alone are doing the work, ought to disappear. With respect to the number of women who are reclaimed and go back to their friends, I should like to know how the police can tell that they go back? How can any man in his senses accept such a statement as that? Many of these women go about with regiments, and how can the police tell always where they live? It is likely enough that, in many cases, women take themselves off, disgusted with the operations of the Act, to another part of the world, and that when they are missed it is assumed by the police that they have gone back to their friends. I think such statistics as are here given ought to be left out of the Government Returns, as they are calculated to mislead from the weight of the authority that is given to them. Then, with regard to another remarkable body of statistics which have been brought forward, showing that in some large towns and cities there was a considerable amount of disease in consequence of their not being protected districts—a larger amount than was to be found in places which were protected. I will give you an instance. There are several regiments quartered in London, comprising sometimes as many as 7,000 men. I will take the Horse and Foot Guards. It is not for me to say which of these regiments does or does not consort with the less degraded class of women; but it is a fact that there is always more disease among the Foot Guards than there is in the Household Cavalry, taking man for man, quartered at the same stations. The Returns of the averages of disease per 1,000 men of the Household Cavalry was only 48 per 1,000, while among the Foot Guards it was 162 per 1,000, from 1867 to 1872 inclusive. Therefore, I say that, as in the case of ships, so it is with the Army. The surgeons at Aldershot affirm that disease varies in certain regiments, so in London one of the regiments may have 20 men diseased, whilst another has 80. This is not an isolated typical case of one particular year, but it goes on year after year; for it is the character of the men, or the accident of consorting with the lower order of women, that really influences these Returns. Now, I want to say a few words to my Friends above the Gangway, who are difficult to convince. They go down to Plymouth or Devonport, or the nice little Cathedral City of Winchester, or Chatham, and Rochester, and are told by those who advocate the Acts that they are doing a great deal of good. I will ask any hon. Gentleman to go to Paris—as I myself did a fortnight ago—and judge for himself from what he will see there. In the most outwardly respectable City on the face of the earth, they will find none of that solicitation which more or less prevails in a free City like London, and yet there is more vice and more disease. Go to Hamburg and Stockholm, where this system of legalized prostitution has been carried on for many years, and you will find that the amount of disease is infinitely greater than in a place like London which is unprotected. There were many medical men examined before the Royal Commission; and, considering the statements that they made, I am only astonished that the Commissioners had the courage to make the recommendations that they did. I want to point out that the Royal Commissioners sat eight years ago, and that, since they reported on the matter, nothing, or next to nothing, has been done in the direction that I am now advocating. There was some distinct recommendations which nobody could overlook, and made, too, by Gentlemen who are still Members of this House, and whom the House would like to hear. These recommendations are towards the end of the Report, and the first recommendation amongst many was this—"That the periodical examination of public women be discontinued." We are now in the year 1878. That Report was addressed to this House and to this country, and I am bound to say that, considering our own Friends were in Office for some time after that Report was issued, and considering that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in power all these years, I think it is not creditable to either Government that there should not have been some notice taken of that recommendation. I know that in the time of the Liberal Government there was a Bill introduced; but, through lack of time or some other cause, it was found impossible to proceed with it. But, at all events, things do not grow better by being kept on too long; and if this is a disagreeable subject, and distasteful to the Conservative Government, I would recommend them, while there is yet time, to grant a further inquiry; because a further inquiry I am convinced there ought to be. Now, as to this charge of fanaticism that has been brought against us. I have been connected myself with many practical works, and I do not think that I have been a fanatic. I have a very great regard for the exact sciences, and especially for figures, and I am not easily influenced by varnished statements calculated to mislead. I will say no more about myself; but I will rely upon four or five typical men who gave evidence before the Royal Commission in favour of the repeal of these Acts. I will take a man like John Stuart Mill, or Professor Maurice. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, then, I will take the evidence of an honoured man like Mr. Henley. Mr. Henley was one of those old-fashioned Gentlemen who are rather out of date. In the House of Commons there used to be a great many men of that kind 25 years ago; but I am afraid that they may soon become as extinct as the dodo. But between the years 1870 and 1876, that right hon. Gentleman never lost an opportunity of denouncing these Acts. I will not trouble the House with extracts at this time of the day; but one comes to my mind which I will give to the House. In speaking of these Acts, and, speaking of the relative positions of the men and the women, he says—

"It is long since I looked into any matter of heathen ethics (the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong), but I do not think 'that in any system of heathen ethics' you can find that those who tempt are less blameable than those who are tempted."

That is the opinion of many of us today. If you are to carry out the system to its legitimate conclusion, you have no alternative left but to allow the medical men to examine all the men as well as all the women. It is not only a question between the men and the women, but it is rapidly becoming a question in this country and outside this country, whether it is not a case of the rich against the poor? In this particular case, the working-classes of this country are beginning to find out that these Acts are specially levelled against women of their own class—that their class supplies the unfortunate women who are the subjects of this legislation. It is nonsense talking about legislation if, in legislating for women, you leave out the magnificently attired women who drive their carriages in the protected towns, while you compel the wretched girls on the streets to be subjected to these Acts. Why, the police in Paris state that the higher class is the most dangerous in the whole of France; that, so far from this being the class that men can associate with without suffering any physical harm, it is by far the most dangerous class. The head of the police there, who has full arbitrary power over the poor girls in the streets, is always lamenting not having power over that more dangerous class, the clandestine class. This high official is always lamenting the diminution of women on the register. They used to claim a great deal of praise for increasing the number; for he argued, of course—"If I had all these women on the register, I could cure them." He wished—Caligula like, who desired that all his people had but one neck that he might destroy them with a single blow—he wished that he could, by a complete register, abolish the evil wholesale. M. Lecour gives the number of prostitutes as 30,000, and out of these 27,000 escape his clutches. As to the effects of these Acts upon the diminution of disease, I know that one particular disease has been lessened by the introduction of the Acts. [Ironical cheers.] I grant you that; I never denied it or disputed it. And what is that disease? Does any hon. Gentleman know, who has ironically cheered my admission? It is "not" the dangerous class of disease. It is a class of disease which may be easily cured, and which leaves no hereditary taint behind it; and I will vouch for the accuracy of this fact—that the hereditary disease has increased 4·6 per cent since the Acts came into operation; and I maintain, moreover, that there was a greater diminution of this hereditary disease, as it is called, before the Acts came into operation than there has been since. There was one thing I noticed with reference to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Henley, and that was that, after leaving this House, he was presented with a testimonial from gentlemen in his own county. But one of the leading Conservative papers—and there are some who still uphold the good old Tory tradition of Tory papers—praised Mr. Henley because he never was in favour of compulsory legislation, and never did anything to interfere with the liberty of the subject; and it went on to say that he was opposed on this ground to the Contagious Diseases Act, thinking it right that this question, which is a moral question, should be dealt with by moral means and by Christian charity. In fact, he was "a popular Tory of the old stamp." I leave that to the consideration of the popular Tories of the old or of the new stamp. But I trust that the words and the witness of an old man with one foot in the grave, whose labours in this House have been manifold, will be held worthy of some attention from this House. Then we have Mr. John Stuart Mill, who may not, perhaps, be considered a great statesman, and Mr. Maurice, with his Broad Church views. If these were not statesmen, at all events I must claim for Mr. Henley some small reputation in that respect. But I will take the case of a woman—a woman who, 20 years ago, devoted her life and sacrificed her health for the good of the soldiers of England. That woman was Florence Nightingale. She was in charge of the Government hospitals in the Crimea, sent out by Lord Herbert. She has been in charge of soldiers, and knew soldiers well, and yet she was the first to sign that roll of Petitions against the Acts; and she said that she felt sure that the system of Government regulation of vice and examination of women is contrary not only to the rights of woman, but to the general liberty of the State. She has seen hundreds of people cured under her own hands. She is not one of those who think that it is improper to sign the Petitions, or who are too squeamish to have this matter discussed. Now, I will take another typical name, the President of the Royal College of Physicians. You may quote instances against me; but do not run away with the impression that we have no supporters, that we are all fanatics; for there are several hundreds of medical men in this country, and in every town in England, who hold that the examination of these wretched women cannot be depended on as a certain test whether they are diseased or not. I believe no medical man is absolutely certain on the subject; and one of the highest physicians in the country has recorded it as his belief that, in 33 per cent of examinations, the examiner, who often—aye, usually—examines very rapidly, would fail to detect the more serious disorders; and, therefore, the State is in this peculiar position—that it gives its seal and imprimatur to this system of periodical examination, which can only be relied upon, at the most, in two out of three cases, and which the Royal Commission has recommended should be discontinued. The examination says to the women—not called "the Queen's Women" now, as they used to be—"You are safe; you may go." But hear what Dr. Routh says—

"Not only are these examinations outrageous, because made under compulsion, but very often useless, because they do not ensure the safety of any man who may afterwards consort with these women."

I say this—that by the operation of these Acts some disease has been checked. It is impossible to have the examinations and re-examinations without being able to do some good. I always granted that. And more than that, I say that it is desirable, and in the highest degree essential for the health of this country, that there should be infinitely more done for the treatment of this disease. I agree with the recommendation of one of the medical men examined on the Royal Commission, that there ought to be Lock wards in every hospital in the Kingdom. This thing will be always better done under the voluntary system than under the State system. But some people are impressed with the idea that nothing can be done without the assistance of the State; that you must have the State to find religion for you, and in some countries the State finds theatres, and they think that the State must be everything and do everything. Time alone will solve this problem. But of this I am satisfied—that year by year will bring conviction to the minds of those who are still undecided, and I trust will confirm those who are already convinced, that it is impossible to maintain these Acts in the face of the public feeling of the country which, whether right or wrong, has pronounced—and I believe rightly pronounced—that these Acts have not been proved to be of any appreciable sanitary value; but that they have outraged the sense of decency, of equity, and of freedom in the minds of thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen. With these few words, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

seconded the Motion.

I am sorry that the hon. Member has brought this most painful subject before the House. It is certainly one of the most painful subjects that could be discussed in the British House of Commons. I am very far indeed from depreciating or in any way calling in question the motives of the hon. Baronet, or of those who take a very deep interest in this question. I am sure that they do it from the deepest sense of duty, and from the consciousness that they are dealing with a matter that it is their duty to deal with. But I cannot help feeling myself that they take but a very partial view of the question, and it is one which, from its nature, they are not able carefully to study for themselves. I say that they are not able for themselves carefully and thoroughly to study it. But it has been my duty, occupying the position which I fill, to visit some of the hospitals in which these poor creatures, who are the subjects of this Bill, are incarcerated. I have been to Portsmouth and Devonport, and I have taken care to walk through the wards of the hospital with those who had the management, and to examine, as far as possible, into the practical operation of the Acts which are now under review. Well, Sir, I own in going down there in the first instance I was inclined—and I believe most hon. Gentlemen would be inclined—to favour the view which the hon. Baronet himself proposes to the House. But upon experience and examination, I came to the conclusion that these Acts are beneficial to public morality, beneficial to the persons who are intimately affected by them, and beneficial to the State. Some regard must be paid to the testimony of the clergymen, magistrates, and officers who are themselves engaged in carrying out, most tenderly, I think, and most carefully, these Acts, as they affect the women who are now the subject of this debate. If the hon. Baronet will take the trouble to visit these hospitals, to enter into a personal communication with the clergymen, who themselves are acquainted with the operation of the Acts—not those who remain outside, and merely speak in general terms of this matter—and see the patients in the hospitals, and examine the Returns, I think that I can say that he will come to a different conclusion from that which he has now stated to the House. The time is very short, and therefore I am obliged to compress my observations within a very limited space indeed. But I cannot help referring to one set of questions placed in the hands of clergymen, and very largely distributed by a body which is not often referred to in this House; but, at the same time, I think it must be admitted, whatever the views of hon. Gentlemen, that at least the object they have in view must be the preservation of morality—I speak of Convocation. Convocation printed certain questions which they sent around to clergymen and persons who, in their judgment, could give an answer to them which could be relied upon as to the operation of these Acts. I hold now in my hands the replies given to those questions by Mr. Grant, the Vicar of Portsmouth, who is, I believe, known to many hon. Gentlemen in this House. He is a gentleman who has devoted himself to the duties of his position, and who is at least capable of giving strong and trustworthy answers to any questions put to him. He is chairman of the committee of the hospital at Portsmouth, and it is known to the House that the Admiralty do not administer these Acts by their own officers, and the medical officers are appointed by the local authorities; and it is not too much to say that they have discharged their duty with zeal and care. The first question which was asked of Mr. Grant was—

"What is your opinion of the result of the Contagious Diseases Acts in increasing or diminishing prostitution?"

The answer is—

"In diminution of prostitution; for whilst in 1865 there were 789 prostitutes on the register of Portsmouth, there were in December 31st, 1876, 476."

[Ironical cheers.] Well, I see hon. Gentlemen notice that statement as one which they perhaps think is not quite to be relied upon. This is not a statement of a mere statistical fact by Mr. Grant; but it is a statement out of the abundant local information which he possesses as to the condition of the town of which he is Vicar, and which may be relied upon. It is scarcely to be conceived that Mr. Grant would make a statement of this kind without he conscientiously believed it to be true. The next question is as to the amount of disease. The answer is—

"It diminishes the amount of disease in a remarkable manner. Whereas in 1875 the ratio of disease, upon their examination, was 70˙56 per cent, it has been gradually reduced, until in December, 1876, the ratio was 4˙84."

So that you have a smaller number of prostitutes in this abominable trade, and you have, in that smaller number, a vast deal less of ratio of disease. These are answers which are at least of some value, coming from the source which they do. The other questions are—

"Q. What do you consider has caused these results?—A. The general working of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Q. Has the number of brothels been increased or decreased?—A. The operation of these Acts has reduced the brothels by one-half. In 1865 there were 263, and in 1876 there were 133. Q. Have any police regulations been in favour of this result?—A. There are no special police regulations beyond those which obtain, I believe, in all towns. The result has been entirely due to the general working of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Q. What is your opinion as to the effect—"

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.