rose to move the Motion of which he had given Notice, and he asked the House to observe the precise terms of that Motion. It was merely an empowering Instruction to the Committee, and it was not framed in such terms as would finally dispose of the question. The state of the case was this. The Cardiff Corporation had promoted a Bill in certain clauses of which provision was made for contributing by the Cardiff Corporation £10,000 towards the University College of South Wales. The Committee which had been sitting on the Bill considered themselves not empowered to pass, or not justified in passing, such a clause, as it seemed to involve a general principle which might or might not have the approval of the House. He had not been able to gather that the Committee were opposed to the provision in this particular Bill; but, as he was informed, the Committee thought it desirable these clauses should not be passed by the Committee without an Instruction from the House to deal with them. Now, he hardly knew how to proceed, for this simple reason—that it seemed to him that for the House to refuse to allow a Private Bill Committee to deal with this question at all, to pronounce it unreasonable legislation, would be such ail extraordinary proceeding, such a violent interference with the principle of local self-government, such a deviation from precedent, that he could hardly conceive the House taking that course, though he could perfectly well understand the desire of the Committee to have the opinion of the House on the matter expressed. Stating the case as briefly as he could, the position was this. In 1880 the Government appointed a very influential Committee to consider the state of Higher Education and Intermediate Education in Wales and Monmouthshire. That Committee was presided over by Lord Aberdare; and, after a lengthened and searching investigation, they recommended the establishment, under Government patronage, and with the sanction of Parliament, of a University College for South Wales, to be situated either in Swansea or Cardiff, as might be hereafter determined. The town of Swansea subscribed a considerable sum of money, and undertook to give a most valuable site as the town's contribution if the University College were erected there. Cardiff subscribed a very much larger sum by voluntary effort, and undertook through its Corporate body to give a site for the erection of buildings for the purposes of the College. The scheme of the Committee met with the approval of Government, Cardiff was selected by the arbitrators, and in October, 1883, the College was founded, Professors were appointed, and it now educated 150 students, and the whole proceeding of the University College was founded on the faith of the Town Council providing their volunteered support. It had happened, however, that the only site that was at the disposal of the Corporation for the University College was found to be less satisfactory in Cardiff than the actual site on which the College work had been commenced, and where it was now proceeding; and the University College authorities were very desirous of having a change made in the form of the town's contribution to the College—of having a sum of money substituted for the piece of land. That was the proposal in the Bill of the Corporation—that they should be allowed to substitute £10,000 from the Corporation Funds in lieu of the land promised. This proposal, in one form and another, had been before the town of Cardiff for two years past; and not only so, but a Bill, the very Bill in question, with the clauses providing for the contribution of £10,000, had been, under the requirements of the Borough Funds Act, submitted to the ratepayers at a public meeting, and approved without opposition. When the Bill came before the Private Bill Committee there was not known to be any opposition whatever. It had happened, however, during the consideration of the Bill by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), that some opposition to the clause was raised on the part of Lord Bute, who, as owner of docks and other property, was a large contributor to the rates of the town. Now, he would point out, in regard to this opposition, that in common fairness to the College authorities, the town authorities, to the town itself, and everybody concerned, it should have been raised when the question was referred to the ratepayers in accordance with the Act of Parliament; but on that occasion no voice whatever was raised on behalf of Lord Bute or his agent. This was a strong circumstance, which should operate very much against the present opposition of Lord Bute. And, in the next place, he had his own reasons for believing that this particular clause of the Bill would not have been opposed by Lord Bute if it had not been associated with other powers in the Bill, other town questions which Lord Bute would desire to oppose. Now, he believed the great question which had presented itself to the minds of the Committee, so far as he had been able to gather the facts, was this—whether the grant from the Corporation Funds of a sum of money towards the maintenance of the University College was a legitimate application of those funds; at any rate, he understood the Committee thought it was not an application they should sanction without an expression of opinion by the House. He did not know the minds of the Committee; but he had not heard that, either individually or in the aggregate, they had expressed an opinion against the grant. But he wished to point out that his Motion in no way whatever proposed to override any view the Committee might think proper to take; it simply asked the House to empower the Committee to consider the subject. The terms of the Motion were—

"That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations that they have power to insert in the Cardiff Corporation Bill provisions enabling the said Corporation to contribute the sum of Ten thousand pounds to or for the purposes of the 'University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire.' "

That was what the Committee should have the power to insert in the clause if, in the exercise of their discretion, they thought proper to do so. He hardly thought the Committee would refuse to allow the Corporation the liberty of contributing to the University College of South Wales out of the rates of the town when there was no objection on the part of the ratepayers themselves, though there had been ample oppor- tunity of investigation, and the only opposition now raised was in an unexpected, he might almost say an irregular manner, for it ignored the regular and legal process. Should the objection as now urged prevail, he really did not know what was to become of the considerations by which the House had supported the principles of local government. He could hardly imagine a more extraordinary action than for the House to intervene in this case, where a town was asking for itself to contribute from its own local funds. The University College was to receive under the auspices of the Government £4,000 a-year, for assisting the maintenance of the College. Now, £4,000 at 3 per cent capitalized was a large sum—£130,000—and to say that a College that was to receive the equivalent of £130,000 from the general funds of the country was to receive nothing at all from the funds of the town in which it was advisedly located, after the utmost deliberation, and which town wished to contribute a sum of money, would be an extraordinary interference with local self-government. In saying this, he made no complaint of the action of the Committee, and he apprehended no objection from the Committee itself. The House had a natural regard for precedents, and he should just like to mention that there was a precedent — possibly there were more than one—but there was a precedent bearing most materially on this case. In 1874, the town of Nottingham promoted a Private Bill, authorizing it to erect public buildings, museums, &c., and that Bill became an Act. The town of Nottingham erected out of its funds a University College, with other buildings; but doubts arising whether the Act of 1874 covered the erection of that College, the sum of £10,000 was subscribed by the town to meet the cost of the building, about which a doubt existed. But, in 1878, Nottingham came to the House and asked for authority to contribute that £10,000, and to have authority to grant an annual sum out of the rates for the permanent maintenance of the University College at Nottingham. Now, it would seem to him an incredible thing that the House in 1878 should empower the authorities at Nottingham to make an annual grant in perpetuity for the maintenance of their University College, and in 1884 deny to the town of Cardiff the right to contribute a lump sum in lieu of land promised. He would not detain the House at greater length. He would only add that serious consequences might result from the refusal of the Motion. The College was established and in full working order, and if by the intervention of the House the right of the town to make the promised contribution was denied, the whole established machinery of the College would be upset. Though he thought too well of the people of Cardiff to suppose that even under such an extreme state of things the University College of South Wales would not still remain in Cardiff, he thought the House would be slow to inflict such an injury on the College for which such exertions had been made. He hoped in his remarks he had said nothing of which the Chairman of the Committee, or his Colleagues, could complain, and he earnestly hoped the House would not refuse his very simple Motion.

seconded the Motion. The hon. Member, who was indistinctly heard, said, that he had had something to do with the establishment of the College referred to in the Motion of his hon. Friend, and he naturally felt great interest in the proposal which his hon. Friend had made. The Government had appointed a Committee to inquire into the question of Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales. He had the honour of being a Member of that Committee, and among other questions which came before it was that of establishing one or two or more Colleges in Wales. The Committee recommended, among other things, that a College should be established for South Wales, and soon afterwards there arose a keen competition between the towns of Swansea and Cardiff as to the place in which that College should be situated. The question was referred to arbitration—the arbitrators being Lord Carling-ford, Lord Blackburn, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education. His hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) appeared before the arbitrators as an advocate for Swansea, and made a very powerful and exhaustive statement on behalf of that town. Another gentleman rendered the same service for the town of Cardiff, and the arbitrators ultimately decided that the site of the University College should be at Cardiff; being guided partly, he thought, by the fact that the people of Cardiff, when they heard of the probability of a College being established, at once started a subscription, which amounted, he believed, to the sum of £26,000, for the purposes of the College. The Corporation of Cardiff further agreed to grant a site for the erection of the College. The College had now been established, and it had been singularly successful. As his hon. Friend had stated, it had already 150 day students and upwards of 600 night students; and he understood that the number was continually increasing week by week. Indeed, there was every probability of the College becoming a great success, and a blessing to that part of the Principality. He thought it was very much to the honour of the people of Cardiff that they were prepared to make such great sacrifices for so important an object as the promotion of higher education in Wales, and it would be very much to be deplored and deprecated if that House were now to step in and impose an obstacle in the way, throwing, as it were, a wet blanket upon a work which promised to be so eminently successful. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accept the Resolution of his hon. Friend, which was in itself a very moderate one, being simply to enable the Corporation of Cardiff to contribute a sum of £10,000 towards the purposes of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, in lieu of the site they originally promised.

said, that it fell to his lot, as Chairman of the Committee to whom this Bill had been referred, to ask the judgment of the House upon the Motion now made. In the first place, in order to remove any misconception which might prevail in the mind of any person as to the matter, he wished to assure the hon. Member who had made the Motion that the Committee had not the slightest feeling about Lord Bute and his opposition, and he did not appear there in the least degree as the spokesman of any opponent of the Bill. All he asked was that the House should take the matter into consideration upon its real merits and as a matter of public policy. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), who moved the Resolution, had spoken in most moderate terms, and had rightly said that the Committee desired that the House should determine if this was a provision which they ought to consider with a view of inserting it in the Bill. The hon. Member was perfectly right in that statement, and, speaking on behalf of his Colleagues and of himself, he might say that they all thought that the matter was so grave in its bearings that it ought not to be decided solely by a Committee sitting upstairs. He might further say, at the outset, for the information of hon. Gentlemen who did not know anything of the working of this particular Committee, that it had had a good deal of hard work to do, and it seemed likely to have a good deal more in the future. The Committee was appointed in pursuance of Standing Order 173A. He would not read the Order, but he gave the number of it in order that hon. Members who desired might refer to it. The object of that Standing Order was this. It had been found that in many Private Bills enactments were proposed which very largely extended the scope of the general law. It was thought desirable to put a check upon that system, in order that the House might have an opportunity, through a Committee appointed for the special purpose, of saying how far the general law should be departed from. The Committee had had a good deal of work to do. They found that a number of Corporation Bills were being constantly introduced—the number was far larger than might be supposed—enacting all kinds of burdens, which were proposed to be laid upon the ratepayers—not only pecuniary burdens, but burdens affecting almost the daily life of the population of the great towns. In point of fact, attempts were made by means of these Private Bills to introduce into large towns provisions which he ventured to say were never contemplated, and which had never been proposed, by any Public Bill in that House. Whenever changes of this kind were made, they ought to be made in the face of day, and Parliament ought to have a full opportunity of expressing itself upon such questions, and of determining, with full consideration, the alterations which should be made in the law. But, as hon. Members well knew, many things were done in Private Bill Legislation which he was bound to say were done in a very slip-shod way. For instance, some Bills were unopposed, and might contain alterations of the kind referred to, which might have passed unopposed, unless the vigilance of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, or of some of the officers of the House, had detected in them provisions that were largely beyond the powers conferred by the ordinary law of Parliament. And thus Parliament, without knowing anything of these provisions, which, in some cases, were inserted almost behind the back of Parliament, would find most important powers enacted which had never been really discussed before they became law. He had said so much because he thought it was desirable that hon. Members who did not know very much about the working of this Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations should understand the principle upon which the Business before them was conducted. He now came to the particular question involved in the present Bill, and he contended, in the first place, that it was a matter upon which the Committee ought to have the instruction and judgment of the House. Personally, without speaking on behalf of his Colleagues on the Committee—for he wished to guard himself carefully against doing that, although he knew that some Members of the Committee shared his opinion—he thought that this was a most improper and objectionable proposition, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the Motion. He did so on this ground. He had nothing to say against the University College of South Wales. It might be a good institution, but he had no local knowledge with regard to it. It might be doing good work. They had been told that day that it was an institution of very great value, and that it had already begun its work; but he ventured to assert that it was not an institution which ought to be supported out of the local rates. If it was an institution doing good educational work it had a fair claim to come to that House and to the Government of the day—the responsible Advisers of the Crown—for a grant out of the public funds. It would be perfectly justified in making such an application, and let it take its place with the Scotch Universities, the London University, and other similar institutions; but to impose upon the ratepayers an additional charge to those great and excessive burdens almost daily increasing which they now had to bear, was not what he hoped this House would sanction. It was the duty of the House to remember who the ratepayers of the town of Cardiff were. They were not all of them wealthy people, interested in higher education, but many of them were people struggling on the very verge of pauperism—persons upon whom the burden of local rates was already pressing with the utmost severity. The subject of local taxation was one which had been a matter of much controversy in. the House of Commons. It was a subject on which the Government, strong as it was, had not been able to command a majority in that House. Indeed, the feeling was so strong upon the question of the constant increase of local rates that the Government had already this Session been placed in a minority upon it. If that were so, surely they ought to watch with great jealousy any proposition that might have a tendency to increase local burdens, and he contended that the higher education of the people was not one of those objects for which provision ought to be made out of the local rates. Besides, the question of higher education, there was a further supplementary question involved—namely, whether the particular University College proposed to be established was conducted on principles that would commend themselves to all the community of Cardiff. If not, he would ask the House to observe what was virtually being done by accepting a proposition of this kind. They were saddling, by a mere vote of a majority of the ratepayers, upon the minority of the ratepayers an institution of which they might disapprove. If this was to be done in one way in one case it might be done in another way equally in another case, and in matters of education, where conscientious differences of opinion existed, it would be unwise for Parliament to sanction the imposition of such burdens upon the ratepayers. He saw opposite the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the House would have his opinion upon the matter before the debate closed. The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister charged with the representation of the ratepayers, and was supposed to watch over their interests in order to see that no undue burdens were imposed upon them. He would, therefore, be glad to hear, before the debate closed, whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that a burden of this kind was one that ought to be fairly thrown upon their shoulders. But, whatever the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman might be, he, for his part, contended that this was not a proper purpose to which the rates of the Corporation of Cardiff ought to be applied. If the House chose to give the Committee the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), and which, no doubt, was couched in moderate terms, it would be the duty of the Committee to do their best to carry out the wishes of the House, and to take the matter into their serious consideration, although, personally, he should much prefer that the matter should be kept as it was, and that the Corporation Bill should proceed without this power being inserted in it. It was said that a precedent had been established in the case of the Nottingham Corporation. That there might have been a precedent established in that case he did not deny; but if there was only one precedent, it was obvious that the matter could not have frequently commended itself to the judgment of Municipal bodies. If there was only one precedent for a provision of this kind, he thought he might say that it was almost an exceptional proposition. He might further say that the very fact of the Nottingham Corporation having obtained this power from Parliament was an illustration in substantiation of his first remark—that it had been obtained with very little discussion in Parliament, and that, in point of fact, it was one of those things which had slipped through Parliament without being observed, and in the way he had referred to, without real discussion. He knew that Private Business was not attractive to hon. Members, and that it was never discussed at great length; but it must be borne in mind that this was a question of more than ordinary importance, and he did not think there was any subject to which the attention of Parliament ought to be more carefully given than to questions which involved an increase of the local burdens of the ratepayers. Whatever the judgment of the House might be, he trusted that local bodies would in future be more jealous as to the manner in which they imposed burdens upon the rates. He was much obliged for the indulgence of the House, and he felt bound to oppose the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cardiff.

said, he proposed to detain the House with only a very few remarks upon this very important question. He believed that the Committee which had been appointed to deal with questions relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations had had before them a good many precedents of the very worst kind, and it was owing to the existence of those precedents that the Committee themselves had been appointed, in order to prevent in future such precedents from becoming part of the general law of the land. His hon. Friend who had just sat down asked them to pause before they embarked in what appeared to be an extremely perilous course—namely, that of allowing the endowment of University Colleges by empowering a Municipal Corporation to impose burdens upon the ratepayers. He agreed with his hon. Friend that if they sanctioned such a proposition they would be embarking upon a highly dangerous course. He must confess that he had heard with considerable surprise the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) in support of the proposal. He had always been of opinion that his hon. Friend was personally opposed to religious endowments, and this was either a religious endowment or it was not. [Mr. RICHARD: It is not.] In that case it was open to the objection which was taken to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. It was said that Lord Bute's Petition was the only Petition against the Bill. He did not speak on behalf of Lord Bute. He had had no communication with that noble Lord, and he knew nothing about him, except that he was a Roman Catholic Nobleman, who had a large interest in Cardiff, and that in his Petition he had put the matter very fairly. Lord Bute pointed out that the Corporation of Cardiff ought not to be allowed to impose an obligation on the owners of property in the borough of Cardiff, who were sufficiently burdened with rates already. He further pointed out that they had already very largely contributed towards the establishment of the proposed College, and that he himself had subscribed the sum of £10,000. He added that the work ought to be carried on either by private subscription or by a Government grant, and that Parliament ought not to give power to the Corporation of Cardiff to levy additional taxes upon the ratepayers in aid of the College. The noble Lord further alleged that he himself was one of the largest ratepayers in the borough of Cardiff. He (Mr. West) had no wish to enlarge upon the danger of permitting this grant to be made out of local funds, and it was only because the Institution itself had the sympathy of the Members of that House that such a proposition had been made. If it had been made in respect of some other institution, such as a theatre or a racecourse, however much the ratepayers generally might desire to have it, there would be no sympathy with it in the House and it would not be acceded to. In the case of a theatre, no doubt the interests of a large number of persons might be served by establishing one; but would any great public service be rendered by a granting of the money of the ratepayers towards such an object? There was only one other observation he desired to make, and it was this. If the House of Commons agreed to embark in this dangerous course, they would run the risk, not only in Cardiff, but in other places, of inducing people to refrain from subscribing privately towards educational purposes, because they would consider that the contributions ought to come out of the rates. Even in this case, Lord Bute, who was a large subscriber to the school, said that he would not have given the contribution he had made if he had known that the money of the ratepayers was to be devoted to the same object.

said, he was bound to say that he had never been more astonished than when he found that an opposition had been raised to this grant being made by the Corporation of Cardiff to the University College of South Wales. It seemed to him that the Committee had been appointed to prevent jobs from being perpetrated on the part of Corporate bodies; but it would appear that in addition to that duty they were endeavouring to exercise a kind of paternal influence in guiding those who were elected by the ratepayers of the borough of Cardiff as to the way in which they were to manage their own affairs. In point of fact, the Committee were endeavouring to intervene between the ratepayers of Cardiff and that which was undoubtedly regarded on all hands as a most important and valuable Institution. The ratepayers were almost entirely unanimous upon the subject—indeed, he thought he would be justified in saying that they were altogether unanimous. [Mr. WEST: Quite unanimous.] His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was on the Committee, confirmed him in saying that they were quite unanimous. Then, why should this paternal Committee step in and say—"No, Gentlemen; you do not know anything about your own affairs. You shall not grant this money towards the University College of South Wales. We all know you will be immensely benefited by the establishment of this College, and that you all desire it above all other things. You have already pledged yourselves to support it, and by that pledge you have been allowed to locate this College in your midst. We know that it is going to be of the utmost value to you; but we are a paternal Committee, and we therefore step in and say that you shall not grant this sum of £10,000 out of the rates towards it?" Surely that was an extraordinary position to take up. The Representatives of a great borough like Cardiff were surely the best judges of what it was right for them to do. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) said that education was not a proper subject for the application of the rates, and he likened this University College to a theatre or a race-course. He could scarcely understand what his hon. Friend was thinking about. At this time of day, when the country was granting such enormous sums of money for the support of education, were they to put educational grants on the same footing as grants for theatres and race-courses? He confessed that he was lost in wonder and astonishment. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was about the last man he should have expected to come forward in opposition to a grant for educational purposes. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) entertained the hope that the establishment of this College would have the effect of inducing a large number of Welshmen to find their way into the University of Oxford hereafter, and yet one of the Members for that University came forward to say that institutions of this nature ought not, in any way, to be suppported out of local rates. It certainly seemed to him to be a contradiction in terms, and he would venture to appeal to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and to ask him whether, when this question was decided by those to whom it was submitted, of whom his right hon. Friend was one, this grant of £10,000 by the Town Council of Cardiff did not exercise very considerable weight upon the judgment of those by whom the decision was arrived at? In regard to the site of the new College, there was a considerable amount of contention between the towns of Swansea and Cardiff. The Corporation of Cardiff said—"If you will give us the estimable blessing of having this institution in our midst we we will contribute £10,000 towards it;" and he had no doubt that that fact did have considerable weight upon the minds of the arbitrators. The town of Swansea came forward very much in the same way, and said—"We will give you a very fine site for the College, which we consider to be worth very nearly as much." Were the Corporation of Cardiff to be told now, at the last moment, that they were not the best judges of the way in which their own funds ought to be expended, and that it was contrary to public policy for the money of the ratepayers to be applied to educational purposes? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward T. Reed) would take the sense of the House upon the Motion. He could not for one moment believe that the House would refuse to assent to it, and that the Town Council of Cardiff would not be permitted to devote this comparatively small sum of £10,000 towards assisting the great educational work which had been commenced in their midst.

said, he would only detain the House for a few moments. He thought the Resolution which had been submitted raised a very important question. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had let the cat out of the bag. It now appeared that the towns of Cardiff and Swansea had competed against each other, and the Corporation of Cardiff obtained the preference because it promised to pay in aid of the College a sum of £10,000 out of the rates contributed by the ratepayers of the borough, provided that the Institution were established at Cardiff instead of Swansea. He would ask the House to remember what it was they were now called upon to do. They were asked to interfere with and override the decision of a Committee which had been expressly appointed to take note of such exceptional and extraordinary proposals as those inserted in the present Bill.

said, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee had not refused to give effect to the proposal contained in the Bill, but simply asked to have the decision of the House upon it.

said, the explanation of the hon. Member was not strictly correct. A clause originally appeared in the Bill sanctioning the expenditure of this sum of money, and it had been struck out by the Committee.

said, it appeared that his information was perfectly correct, and that this was an appeal to the House to interfere with and override, by an Instruction to the Committee as to what their duty was, a decision at which they had already arrived. The House must remember that very large and exceptional powers had been deliberately placed in the hands of this Committee. He was himself Chairman of the Committee two years ago, and he knew, therefore, how arduous and responsible the duties were which were imposed upon that Committee. He thought that in the exercise of their responsibility the Committee were perfectly justified in striking out this particular clause, and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) might fairly complain of this attempt on the part of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies in that House to interfere with the pro- gress of a Private Bill and with the conduct of the Committee in regard to it. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that this would not be an interference on the part of the House with the business of the Committee, but that it was merely an Instruction which would permit the Committee to do a certain thing. Now, the House knew very well what an Instruction to a Committee meant. If the House passed this Instruction, it would be tantamount to a direction to the Committee that the purpose for which the Instruction was passed should be carried out. It must be borne in mind that the Committee in question was not an ordinary Private Bill Committee of the House. On the contrary, it was a Hybrid Committee, which had been placed in charge of the general interests of the public, and of the House, and of the ratepayers of the whole of the United Kingdom. He was certain, therefore, that if the House sanctioned this Instruction, they would inflict a heavy blow against the interests of the ratepayers generally, and that it would be almost impossible for any amount of labour on the part of the Committee itself to recover the effect of that blow. It was said that the contribution of this sum of money towards the University College would be of great advantage to the town of Cardiff itself. He dared say that that would be so; but there might be a good many other things that would also be of advantage to the town of Cardiff—improved railway communication, for instance. Only last year a very important railway proposal was brought before a Private Bill Committee, and if the Committee had been armed with the excessive powers which the Instruction of the hon. Member for Cardiff was intended to give they might have authorized three important towns to carry out an undertaking, which they were quite prepared to carry out, by contributing a sum of £70,000 out of the rates, for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of improved railway communication. The towns in question were situated at some distance from each other, and an improved railway communication would, no doubt, be of advantage to each; but the Committee thought it their duty to strike out of the Bill those clauses which would have enabled that undertaking to be completed, and he thought they were perfectly right in doing so. In the case of the town of Halifax, also, another Committee refused to allow a contribution to be made in this way out of the rates of the borough. Allusion had been made to the Nottingham Bill. His own opinion was that the Nottingham Bill was one of the most flagrant instances of an abuse of Private Bill Legislation ever assented to by the House of Commons. It was a Bill which held over for an excessive number of years the repayment of a loan until it amounted to something like a perpetual annuity charged upon the rates of the town. In the present case, the Town Council of Cardiff were asked to obtain an advantage for themselves by mortgaging the rates of the town. He could hardly conceive a more improper proposal. The ratepayers of Cardiff were not more interested in this College than the whole of the ratepayers of South Wales. It was merely a struggle to get the College established in Cardiff instead of somewhere else. Town Councils and Corporations were not supposed to be possessed of infinite wisdom, and they were not always entrusted by the Legislature with the right of scattering broadcast the money contributed by the ratepayers. If they were now to introduce a new system, where was it to end? What was to become of the Borough Funds Act which now stood between the public and Corporate bodies in order to prevent excessive demands from being made upon the rates in aid of extraordinary projects which might be promoted by particular individuals? He trusted that the House would not permit this Instruction to be passed, but that it would firmly set its foot down upon every proposal of such a character.

said, he would not occupy the attention of the House for more than two or three minutes; but he wished to state what the question really was. It was a question of establishing in a condition of efficiency a University College in South Wales. As far as local feeling was concerned, the whole of Wales was of one mind. All of the Welsh Members on both sides of the House were in favour not only of the College, but of the present Bill, He had been surprised to hear the observation which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), although he had been quite prepared for the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee whose decision was the subject of the present Motion, because he remembered very distinctly that that hon. Gentleman had been from the first a most consistent opponent of the scheme for establishing Colleges in Wales.

asked if the hon. and learned Member referred to him?

said, that he did.

said, he was bound to say that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member were entirely inaccurate.

said, he was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his opposition to the scheme. His recollection went back to the year 1879, and to the debate which took place in that House in reference to the establishment of Colleges in Wales on that occasion. He mentioned that circumstance in justification of the observations he had made. He was glad, however, to hear that the hon. Gentleman was no longer an opponent of this College. The hon. Gentleman said that they were establishing a dangerous precedent. Now, it was a precedent that was very unlikely to occur frequently, because it was a very unusual thing for a College of this nature to be established at all, and he believed there was no danger that many other towns would be called upon to follow the precedent. Not only were the ratepayers of Cardiff in favour of the present Bill, but it was universally supported by the Welsh people—at all events, in that part of the Principality; and he trusted that the House would give the Committee another opportunity of considering the question.

wished to say a word, because he thought that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) were altogether beside the question. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) was in favour of the College, and if he were a landowner in the locality he would be very glad to subscribe to it; but the question was whether it was a proper object for a contribution from the rates. The expenditure of the rates of a town was regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act and the Borough Funds Act, or the Provision for Health of Towns Act; and it was clearly provided by those Acts what objects were to be furthered by the application of the rates of the inhabitants. The Committee to whom it was proposed to give this Instruction were specially appointed in order to prevent any clause being inserted in a Private Bill that would override the general law, unless there were some special reasons for doing so, and, in the event of such special reasons existing, that they should then report them to the House. He thought it was quite clear that the borough rates should not be applied to the endowment of Colleges. In the case of public baths, wash-houses, public libraries, and so forth, a general law had been passed enabling the expenditure to be paid out of the rates; but in regard to the endowment of Colleges no such general law had been passed, and the present proposal amounted to an infringement of the general law. The hon. and learned Member said it was very hard that the Corporation of Cardiff should not be allowed to do as they liked; but the Municipal Corporations Act was passed specially in order to prevent them from expending the money of the ratepayers as they liked. He had no doubt that the Corporation were unanimous as far as they could be, and probably a good many of the people of the town were consenting parties; but the population of Cardiff now amounted to 120,000, and he should like to know how many of the inhabitants were present at the meeting which sanctioned the present application? He was informed that the number present did not exceed 4,000, so that it was quite impossible to say that the meeting represented the feeling of the ratepayers of Cardiff. The House must bear in mind, before they consented to give this Instruction to the Committee, that the Committee itself had been appointed under a special Standing Order to guard jealously all expenditure out of the rates in aid of projects that were in excess of the general law. This was, practically, a test case; and if this precedent were now established, he was afraid they would find something of the same kind in every future Bill that might be introduced by a public Corporation. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had mentioned the precedent of the Nottingham Bill, and if the House consented to legislate exceptionally for particular localities, they would find increased demands made upon them year by year by different Corporations. Other towns, jealous of the privileges conceded to Cardiff, would endeavour to do something of the same kind for themselves. He, therefore, thought this was a matter which ought to be carefully and jealously watched by the House; and he trusted the present Instruction would not be adopted. Of course, if the House said that it ought to be adopted, the Committee would do it; but, without a special Instruction from the House, the Committee had no power to do it.

said, he was unable to accept the statement of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down—that the general law, as at present framed, prevented the application of the money of the ratepayers in this matter. He could only say that the Conservative Corporation of Liverpool had recently given more than double the amount the Corporation proposed to give for purposes that were somewhat similar. No objection had been raised to their action, and he did not see why what the Corporation of Liverpool did the Corporation of Cardiff should not be able to do. He was quite sure that both the Corporation of Liverpool and the Corporation of Cardiff were doing a good stroke of business for the ratepayers.

said, that he was a Member of the Committee, and he desired to express an opinion upon the very important principle involved in the Motion. As a Member of the Committee, he was prepared cheerfully to carry out any order that might be given by the House; but, as far as his own private opinion went, he felt that it would be a mistake to pass this Instruction, and for this reason—that it would raise the whole question of local taxation. Although the ratepayers were ready to provide elementary education, and they were bound to do so, they nevertheless very much objected—and he thought justly objected—to be called upon to provide higher education. There was another point which deserved mention. Anyone who looked into the question would be astonished to see the extraordinary amount of indebtedness of the Local Authorities which had grown up within the last generation. Nowadays the towns were vieing with each other in the grandeur of their new streets, in the magnificence of their Town Halls and their school boards, public buildings, and other improvements. It was now proposed that the ratepayers should provide funds for establishing Universities. He thought it was necessary to impose some limit upon this kind of expenditure; and, although the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that the town of Cardiff had decided upon spending this money, he would ask what was the use of coming to Parliament for any money at all if such questions were to be decided locally? Another point was that hereafter the ratepayers might be called upon—he did not say more in regard to Cardiff than any other place—to provide for religious education, which would certainly give rise to a considerable amount of bickering and difficulty.

said, he had not been aware when he come down to the House that this question was about to be brought before it, and until he heard himself appealed to by his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) he had not intended to take part in the debate. What he knew of the matter was that when Lord Carlingford, Lord Blackburn, and himself were appointed arbitrators to decide whether the site for the new College should he fixed in Cardiff or Swansea, both of those towns offered a site worth £10,000, and the decision of the arbitrators was in favour of Cardiff. Ultimately, the South Wales University College was established on the site of the old Infirmary, which was preferred to the site offered by the Corporation of Cardiff; and then the Corporation, in order to keep their engagement with South Wales, Swansea, and the University College, came to the House of Commons and asked to be allowed to rate themselves to the extent of £10,000, the value of the site. Those he believed to be the facts of the case. At any rate, they were the facts which came before him. He might say further that no new precedent was proposed to be established. It was quite true that the Borough Funds Act was in existence; but the Borough Funds Act simply provided that expenditure of this kind should not be undertaken without the consent of the ratepayers. It did not matter whether the whole of the 120,000 inhabitants of the borough were present at the meeting, or only 4,000 or 400. One man alone could raise an objection; and, as a matter of fact, he believed that at the public meeting convened on this question some of the clauses of the Bill were modified, after which the Bill passed without further opposition. Liverpool had recently voted £20,000 for a University College, and the town of Nottingham came to the House of Commons in the last Parliament and obtained powers, in a very extensive Local Government Bill, for establishing a Free Library, an Art Museum, and a University College. Further than that, he believed that Birmingham was at that moment building an Art Gallery and furnishing it under its powers of rating.

Yes; with unlimited powers.

said, that several other towns were following a similar course and doing the same thing. The town of Cardiff was bound to enjoy very great advantages under this scheme. Already there were a large number of day students who came from a distance, and in addition there were about 700 night students, who were receiving some technical education under this scheme. These were no small advantages for a town like Cardiff, and it was a matter of the highest importance that these facilities should be afforded. If hon. Members would turn to the Report of the Commissioners on Technical Education they would see how strongly they recommended that Corporations should exercise their powers of rating for the encouragement of education of this kind. Already some of the chief towns in England were exercising the right of spending their own funds for educational purposes; and as the Corporation of Cardiff, supported by the population whom they represented, wished to expend their own funds for such purposes, he thought the House would do well not to stand in the way by overriding the desire of the locality.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for Education as well as the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone) had pointed out that Liverpool and other towns were already exercising their right to expend the funds of the ratepayers in this manner. If that were so, those hon. Members had given the strongest possible reason against the introduction of this clause into the Cardiff Bill. The real fact of the matter, however, was that the question came before the House because the Corporation of Cardiff know perfectly well that they had no power to expend this money without the assent of Parliament. The question submitted to the House appeared to him to be a most serious and important one—namely, whether the policy which had prevailed of late years as to what was to be done with rates raised by a compulsory process, as defined by Act of Parliament, was to be departed from when there happened to be a chance majority for the time being? The fact that a Museum and Free Libraries had been established in Nottingham did not affect the particular question now before the House, because in the case of Nottingham the expenditure was not incurred until after legislation had taken place in regard to it.

wished to point out that all he had said was, that an Art Gallery Museum, a Free Library, and a University College had been established under the rating powers of the Corporation.

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to speak much more generally. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had explained the matter, it did not appear to be the very best precedent to follow. Everyone who knew anything about the history of Municipal Corporations and the legislation which had been applied to them of late years, knew that one of the principal objections to the exercise of the powers of such Corporations was that from time to time they got money from the ratepayers and applied it to purposes that were beyond the objects for which local self-government had been conferred upon Corporate Bodies. It had, therefore, been thought right to impose certain restrictions upon the powers of Municipal Corporations, and Parliament had deliberately enacted restrictions. The question was, whether in a Corporation Bill, the principal object of which was to im- prove the supply of water, powers ought to be introduced to enable the Corporation of Cardiff to redeem a promise which it was admitted they had no right to make? The Corporation of Cardiff had no right whatever to promise a contribution of £10,000 out of the rates of the borough towards the establishment of a University College.

What was promised was a site.

said, that was quite true; but when the site the Corporation offered to give was not selected, they promised a contribution in money of £10,000, and they had distinctly no right to make any promise of the kind. The College declined to move out of their present quarters in order to occupy the site selected by the Corporation, and therefore the Corporation asked Parliament to sanction their contribution of this sum of money. No doubt there were many people in Cardiff who would have lodging-houses to let, and who could easily raise an agitation upon a question of this nature; but the point was, whether Parliament should not interpose its authority in order to prevent the ratepayers from being offered up as a sacrifice in such interesting transactions as those which the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) and the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) had described? There had been a race between the two towns of Cardiff and Swansea, and now that Cardiff had won the ratepayers of Cardiff were called upon to bear the expense. He sincerely hoped that the House would refuse to pass the Instruction.

said, that as Monmouthshire had been referred to in the course of the debate, he rose for the purpose of cordially supporting the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed). He thought that the question was purely one for the ratepayers. He understood from hon. Member's opposite that all they desired was to protect the ratepayers. His own impression was that the ratepayers were fully competent to protect their own interests; and if hon. Members opposite would devote their time to the consideration of larger and more Imperial interests, it would be more for the advantage of the ratepayers generally. When the University College was fully established at Cardiff, it would necessarily attract a large number of people who would have to live in the town, and thus the town would be materially benefited. In addition, the sons and daughters of the poorer ratepayers would be able to obtain the educational advantages offered by the new College at a cheap rate, and others would be prevented from expending considerable sums of money in obtaining higher education elsewhere. Therefore he trusted that the House would support the proposal of the hon. Member for Cardiff. Something had been said to the effect that the Marquess of Bute would not have subscribed so large a sum if he had known that the Corporation of Cardiff intended to contribute anything towards the establishment of the new College. It was a well-known fact that the Corporation promised to give a site long before the Marquess of Bute sent in his subscription; therefore that argument fell to the ground. Reference had been made to the Borough Funds Act. That Act was passed in order to prevent Municipal Corporations from spending the money of the ratepayers improperly. In this instance, there was not a single ratepayer in Cardiff, with the exception, perhaps, of the Marquess of Bute, who was opposed to this contribution; and he thought the House might well allow the people of the town to be the best judges of what would be advantageous for themselves.

said, that in the course of the remarks of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) he (Sir Edward J. Reed) had made a correction, and he wished to say that he had made it in perfectly good faith. He had been assured that when the Committee presided over by the hon. Gentleman took action with regard to the clause contained in the Bill of the Corporation of Cardiff, it was quite understood that the matter should be left open for the consideration of the House itself, and that the Committee would be guided by the decision come to by the House.

said, he had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; and he thought he was in Order in making that Motion now.

The regular course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then for the hon. Member to bring forward his Motion.

said, he hoped that before the Bill was read a second time some explanation would be given on behalf of the Local Government Board of what was intended to be done with it. It was a Bill which provided for pouring an enormous quantity of sewage, amounting, he believed, to 10,000,000gallons daily, into the Thames at Kew; and after all the expense which had been incurred in endeavouring to keep the River clear and pure, he hoped the House would hear something about the Bill before they consented to read it a second time.

trusted that the House would not take its opinion of the Bill from what the hon. Member had said. The object of the Bill was not to pour sewage into the Thames, but to prevent sewage being poured into the River. He, however, asked the House not to discuss the Bill at this stage, because an understanding had already been arrived at. It was intended to adopt the proposal which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff); and he hoped, upon that understanding, the House would consent to read the Bill a second time.

said, he would only explain that the Motion which he now begged to move was in the shape of a compromise, which had been accepted by the Government, and which, he thought, would be satisfactory both to the promoters and to the oppo- nents of the Bill. His proposal was to refer the measure to a Select Committee in the nature of a Hybrid Committee, with power to hear the evidence of certain persons who would not otherwise have a locus standi. He thought he should best consult the convenience of the House by simply moving the Motion; but he ought to state that there had been one or two verbal alterations made in it since it had been placed on the Paper, and he begged to move it in its amended form.

moved, in page 2, to omit the 1st subsection, which provides that subject to the saving for existing voters—

"A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rent-charge except the owner of the whole of the tithe rent-charge of a rectory or vicarage."

He wished to ask for some reason why the owners of rent charges were to be disfranchised? It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in one of the speeches he had made on the Bill that property qualifications were to be retained; and a few days ago the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, speaking at Bury, confirmed that view of the Prime Minister, and stated that for the present, at least, the property qualification should remain. That being so, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wished to know why the owners of rent-charges were to be disfranchised? This really was a point of very great importance. He also wished to draw attention to the marginal note upon the clause, where what he must call the slang term of "fagot vote" was used. Could there be found in any great Act of Parliament a slang term used such as was used here—"Restriction on fagot votes?" The Government had been asked more than once to explain what a fagot vote was, but no satisfactory answer had been given to that inquiry. A fagot vote, as was well known among those who used the term, was a case where the registered voter had paid no consideration whatever for his qualification. It was to all intents and purposes a fictitious vote, and applied to any qualification. But he was utterly at a loss to understand why the owner of a rent-charge —a bonâ fide owner — should be disqualified. He would ask the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to this point. In his opening speech on the Bill the Prime Minister spoke of incorporeal hereditaments, and said—

"We strike at incorporeal hereditaments where there is no reversion to the person who takes the benefit."

But, if that were so, how did it affect the owner of a freehold ground-rent? And what was the substantial difference between the owner of a freehold ground-rent and a rent-charge? It might be said, "the one has a reversion in the land, and the other has not;" but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not hold that view himself. Yet the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, while it disqualified and disfranchised the owner of a rent-charge, at the same time allowed the owner of a freehold ground-rent to remain upon the Register where there was an infinitesimal reversion at the end of 999 years, or even of 99 years, for a 99 years' lease in London was looked upon pretty nearly as a freehold. They had never heard, either from the Prime Minister or from the learned Attorney General, any intelligible principle to show why the rent-charge should be disqualified. He ought to be a voter just in the same way as anyone who held a feu in Scotland, or anyone who held a head-rent in an Irish county, for he could devise his title by will in all these cases. According to the Government clause as it stood in the Bill, the owner of the feu in Scotland or of the head-rent in Ireland would still continue on the Register. Why, then, in the name of all that was sensible, if the owner of the head-rent or of the feu was to remain upon the Register, why was a new purchaser to be disqualified? The clause as it stood was most unfair, for it applied only to such owners as derived their interest by descent or marriage; and while they were to be retained on the Register, and supposed to be capable bonâ fide citizens, any individual who bought at the market price was to be disqualified. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle the Government had arrived at their decision in the matter, and therefore he felt bound to move his Amendment, He could not understand why a rent-charge should be regarded as only giving a fictitious vote, when it might represent £1,000, or, in some cases, many thousands a-year. There was no particular machinery attaching to a rent-charge which made it easy to multiply votes. This extraordinary bugbear of fictitious votes, or fagot votes, was a very singular argument to come from the mouths of Her Majesty's Government, who were now engaged in extending so-called household suffrage to counties, and who were putting an instrument into the hands of any man who chose to use it to create any number of fictitious votes by what was called the service franchise. By means of the service franchise anyone could easily add 100 or 200, or indeed any number, of voters to the Register. All he had to do was to take a house, pay rent for it himself, let every room out separately, and give to every tenant a key of the street door, and all the tenants would then become voters. Under such a condition of things it would not be necessary to resort to rent-charges, or to sub-division of freeholds, when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had placed such an instrument in the hands of anyone who desired to create fictitious votes. The real fact of the matter was this, that these owners of property were likely to vote against the Liberal Party, while the so-called householders would probably vote for them. He asked, then, that Her Majesty's Government should give some reason for the course they were adopting in this matter, and to afford them that opportunity he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.

wished, before the hon. and learned Attorney General answered the question which had been addressed to him, to ask for some explanation as to what limits were intended to be placed by the Government upon the proposals contained in the Bill. He did not find in the Interpretation Clause any interpretation of the phrase "rent-charge." Now, there were rent-charges and rent-charges—there was the rent-charge which was bonâ fide purchased by an individual with the view of securing it to him, and which passed at his death to his legatees and executors. That was such a piece of property as had been understood to give a man a vote just as well as if he were a 40s. freeholder in the ordinary sense of the word. He had in view the case of a gentleman, a friend of his, who had purchased for some small sum a rent-charge to qualify him for a vote for the county. Upon his death it went to his son, and that son was now a registered voter. Was that son now to be disfranchised under this clause? If so, it would be most unjust, for the man had just as much a freehold in it as anyone else could have in anything else.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks for the view of the Government on this point. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that whenever a pecuniary interest is obtained, however dissociated that interest may be from anything except the possession of a certain amount of money, there the vote is perfectly legitimate, and there is no reason for disfranchisement. However, I will say this, that we cannot undertake to maintain a property qualification if that doctrine is held and is to be applied in the unlimited manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has stated it. It is an ancient part of the electoral system of this country, no doubt; but I did not at all state, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) seemed to think I had stated—I did not at all state, in making our proposals on the introduction of the Bill, that we proposed to retain the property qualification, I cannot undertake to say that it is to be eternal; there is no utterance on the part of the Government to that effect. But if it is to be retained it ought to be associated, in our opinion, as a rule with something more than a merely pecuniary interest of a very limited amount, for if you allow that wherever a pecuniary interest can be obtained to an extremely limited amount, quite dissociated from every natural interest—from every moral and social interest—then we must consider what is the effect On a country like this where there is a very largo class of rich men with vast disposable funds—we must consider what may be the effect of laying open to their operations such a property as a rent-charge. This is not a theoretical question. There are many cases. I could quote many cases in other counties too. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is conversant with one particular case where an appropriated rent-charge of £90 was made to qualify 41 voters, without such voters having any residence or natural connection with the place in which they were registered. The Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all that objectionable system should be retained. We join issue on that point. We are quite willing that the property connection should be retained, but by property connection we mean something more than the mere possession of a sum of money. Let me take a case, no doubt undesirable in itself, but, at the same time, not so bad as the case of a subdivided rent-charge. Let me take the case of a particular plot of ground. There is something done in regard to the management and disposal of that particular plot of ground, and it is turned to account in some way besides the mere receiving of a sum of money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says why not prohibit the special division of votes in reference to a plot of ground of that kind? I hope he will not drive us to answer the question, because he might be more likely to compel us to extend our proposal than to limit it. We have endeavoured to take a very Liberal, and, at the same time, a most Conservative, view of this question of property qualification; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is discreet, I think he will do well to accept our proposal. We wish it to be understood that this kind of property vote—if it may be so called—which is merely a pecuniary interest, dissociated from every other interest, and capable of indefinite multiplication by a peculiar description of machinery, is not the kind of vote we wish to maintain.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to one point in his remarks. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between a rent-charge of a personal character and a rent-charge which devolved upon an individual by inheritance, or in various other ways. He hoped the question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman would receive an answer before the matter was disposed of.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had objected to the qualification by rent-charge, because the rent-charge was not, in his opinion, sufficiently identified with property. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) imagined that the rent-charge-was liable to Income Tax, and if the tax collector could trace the property, he did not see why the difficulty of tracing it should be insuperable to those who were charged with the due and proper registration of voters. But he held that it was quite possible to avoid any abuse, or, otherwise, how were abuses avoided under the Income Tax? He had adhered to the present provisions of the law for this reason—that he felt with the Italians, that no one should be entitled to vote unless he had proved that he had contributed something towards the taxation of the country. That was the principle of the Italian Constitution, and was the Italian system of enfranchisement, and he had not heard that in Italy any difficulty had been experienced in tracing the qualification. Then, why should they have any difficulty here? And when they were about to enfranchise under another section of the Bill—namely, the service franchise—persons who were not identified with property except by service, which was a qualification terminable at the will of another, surely a Bill which went as far as that towards manhood suffrage should attach value to a property qualification, inasmuch as property was a source of taxation. He held that the old principle was a just one—namely, that the payment of taxes should be the first qualification for those who were to vote for the election of those who were to be the imposers of taxes. He held that the old principle of the English Constitution was perfectly fair and just; and inasmuch as they had seen it preserved in the most recent Constitution which had been adopted in Europe, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who proposed to retain this property and taxable qualification, was perfectly justified in doing so.

said, he thought that some modification might be made in the sub-section without getting rid of it altogether. He thought it might be made perfectly clear that fagot voting, or fictitious voting, in the proper sense of the word, should be put an end to; and also that species of new fagot voting, which the Prime Minister had described as the creation of rent-charges for the purpose of conferring a vote. The right hon. Gentleman complained that in regard to that class of voters they did not even reside on the property from which their rent-charges were drawn, and it would in some cases be a difficulty for them to do so. But, while admitting the desirability of preventing this new kind of fagot voting, he thought it would be possible to give votes to the bonâ fide rent-chargers who had obtained their rent-charges by inheritance, descent, marriage settlement, or some other properly acquired interest. For instance, he might mention the case of copyholds and fee-farm-rents acquired from the Crown. Enfranchisement was about to be very much extended throughout the country, and a great number of persons would find themselves in the possession of rent-charges created by the Commissioners under the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. He presumed that when the Prime Minister had considered the case of those individuals, which probably he had nut done hitherto, because the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill had not been permanently passed, he would find that a great number of cases would arise in which the persons enjoying property of this description would be entitled to a vote. He certainly thought a distinction ought to be drawn between the purchase of a bonâ fide estate and an estate cut up for the purpose of multiplying votes. This would apply to the case of lay rectories and vicarages which sometimes came into the market and might, undoubtedly, be made into a machine for the multiplication of votes. He could quite sympathize with the desire of the Prime Minister to prevent property of this description from being employed for the multiplication of votes; but he thought the case was very unlikely to occur in future, and although it was undoubtedly desirable that rectories and vicarages should not be purchased for the purpose of conferring votes, still it would not be just or right to abolish all votes for rectories except one single vote for each, because, as was perfectly well known by everyone who had been in the habit of dealing with ecclesiastical estates, they were sometimes not altogether composed of the rent-charges arising in the same parish. He himself was acquainted with a case in Shropshire where the rectory was divided into three or four portions, and there were chapelries and separate portions of the tithes which in ancient times had belonged to the monasteries. His own opinion was that each separate estate forming a portion of a rectory or vicarage ought to have a vote if occupied singly, and he could not help thinking that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would turn his attention to the question, he would see that there was considerable force in the arguments he had ventured to put forward.

said, the Attorney General would know very well that copyhold land formerly gave no vote, and it would only give a vote now when it was of a certain value. In a large district of the county in which he resided the property was copyhold, and all the tithes were appropriated to copyhold land. It was now provided that a copyhold should be of £5 annual value before the holder obtained a vote; but there were a variety of small copyholders in regard to which the tithe rent-charge was a certain element in regard to estimating the value. He thought there should be some words inserted in the Bill to provide that where the copyholder was also holder of the land from which the tithe rent-charge was derived he should have a vote; but he was afraid that as the Bill was at present drawn that privilege was not conceded. A person would get a vote as copyholder and tithe rent-charger to the extent of £5 annual value; but if he had no vote in respect of the tithe rent-charge itself, a large number of persons would be practically disfranchised.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not answered the objection which he had taken in regard to the anomaly of allowing this ancient qualification to remain, oven when the land had been practically disposed of, because the position of a reversioner who hold a freehold ground-rent which would revert to him on the completion of a lease for 999 years could not be said to have a very large interest in the property, and he could not see why such a holder should be preferred to a rent-charger. He considered it most unfair that while one had a vote the other should be disfranchised. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his observations upon that point, nor, also, the observations he had made with regard to the injustice with which innocent purchasers were dealt. Under the circumstances, he conceived that the only object of the right hon. Gentleman was a political object, and that he desired to get rid of a certain number of voters. Indeed, the measure appeared to him to be entirely a political move from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken in saying that n rent-charge was not associated with the land. The rent was distinctly a charge upon land, and, in the event of its not being paid, the charger had a right to enter upon the land and distrain. The right hon. Gentleman now raised a new point as to whether the Bill was a Conservative measure or not. He (Mr. Cavendish Bcntinck) certainly did not feel that it was a Conservative Bill; and, most assuredly, if it were a Conservative Bill, it would not have been pressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and so energetically supported by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House. He contended that this clause was a disfranchising clause, and that, like the whole of the Bill, its object was to gain a Party advantage.

protested against the manner in which the Bill had been drafted. He objected not only to the wording of this section, but to the marginal note at the side of it. They all knew perfectly well that the marginal note did not form part of the clause; but, at the same time, he thought it extremely wrong, and positively indecent, for those who drew up the Bill and for those who supported it to introduce such a note as this "restriction on fagot votes." Those words were misleading:, and had no business to be there at all. The draftsman could not have been led to the expedient of using these words from the want of any better, because he had chosen as a prefix to the section other words which were not of an objectionable character. He thought similar words might well have been employed in the marginal note; and before the clause was passed he would take the opportunity of asking the Chairman what could be done to get rid of this abominable expression, which could have been inserted only for political purposes. It was a phrase which had no legal weight whatever. ["Question!"] He contended that he had a perfect right to discuss this point.

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was discussing the marginal note, and not the Amendment before the Committee.

said, that he was discussing both at the same time, as the hon. Member would have discovered if he had only the sense to see it. The point he desired the Committee to consider was the words used to describe the clause; and he wanted to know how far such words as these were justified in a Reform Act? He contended that every rent-charge was not naturally a fagot vote; and he thought the error into which the Government had fallen, was in effect that there was no distinction whatever between what was usually called a fagot vote, and what was really an important rent-charge. He thought this had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself.

I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that this is not the time for objecting to the marginal note; but the proper time will be upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he had already left that point. He was now addressing his remarks to the words "rent-charge" in line 6, and he was pointing out that in the statement of the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman had confused a trumpery interest in land, which might be called a fagot vote, and a genuine and important rent-charge. Did the Prime Minister mean to tell the Committee that a man who had a rent-charge of £1,000 a-year, and who had had to pay for it— probably 30 years' purchase—was not a capable citizen? Hon. Members were voting for the Bill because it was proposed to enfranchise capable citizens, and he would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he was of opinion that a man who was worth £30,000 was not a capable citizen? Whether a capable citizen or not, he was to be disfranchised, and the reason appeared to be that he was a man who was not very likely to hold opinions in accordance with those of the Prime Minister. He did not know whether it was altogether fair for the Prime Minister to turn round to the Attorney General, and appeal to him whether he was not acquainted with a particular case in which fagot votes had been created. He did not doubt for a moment that a property worth £90 a-year might be cut into 41 votes, and perhaps three or four more, if proper ingenuity had been exercised. He believed that the Attorney General himself had lately acquired a vote for one-half or one-third of a property in some county or other. That, however, was not a fair way of putting the matter. There were other rent-charges besides those, and what he wished to see was some modification of the section which would enable those who had a bonâ fide and important interest in property to exercise the franchise. They might make it £15 or £10, or any amount they liked, and that would be far more reasonable than the disfranchisement of the owners of every description of rent-charge. Where was the line to be drawn? The copyholder of the annual value of £5 was to have a vote, and under the Chandos Clause £50 was the limit imposed. All the arguments which had been adduced about the owners of these rent-charges not being connected with the county for which the voting was to take place were all arguments put forward in order to prevent votes from being given to persons who were legitimately entitled to them. As a protest against the wholesale disfranchisement effected by the clause, and on the ground that it would prevent people with property from ever obtaining political influence, he should vote against the clause.

I should like to point out to the Committee that the Government have not given any answer to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton), which I consider to have considerable bearing on the question before us. The suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) is to leave out the whole of the sub-section, because the sub-section will have the effect of not only doing that which the Government wish to do—namely, of preventing fagot voting; but it will go beyond that, and will prevent any vote from being given by any bonâ fide rent-charger whatever. There have been certain cases mentioned in which such a prohibition would amount to a very serious disfranchisement and a very unreasonable disfranchisement—cases in which rent-charges have been created for perfectly legitimate objects, without having any regard to the vote at all. I could mention myself, from my own personal knowledge, several cases in which the owners of estates have given up the property and taken a rent-charge for life—a rent-charge of £100 or £200 a-year. That has been done without the slightest view of conferring electoral privileges; but, at the same time, according to this Bill, if the owner had no other property than that rent-charge he would lose the vote, although the property itself really conferred it upon him before. I want to know whether the Government will consider the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, and agree to some modification of the clause, so that while fagot votes are prevented, rent-charges created under ordinary and legitimate circumstances will afford a vote to the possessor? My own opinion is that the two descriptions of rent-charges should be kept perfectly distinct and separate—one being made for the simple purpose of conferring a vote, while the other is made for entirely different purposes. If the Government would give a satisfactory answer to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, I am satisfied that the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would be contented with an arrangement on that basis, and would not desire to press his Amendment. Our only desire is to attain the object I have pointed out, and I think that it would be attained by accepting the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend.

said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) would do more than the hon. and learned Member de-sirecl, for, if it were adopted, the only way of preventing a rent-charger from having a vote would be by proving that it was the intention of the person holding and the person succeeding to the rent-charge to create a vote. Thus it would be necessary to prove the state of men's minds, and clearly, if he accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton), he would be allowing all rent-chargers to enjoy the qualification. In this clause they were only going back to a provision enacted as far back as the Reign of William III., which prevented the conveyance of land and tenements in any corporate town, &c., for the purpose of multiplying votes, and which also prohibited devices for splitting up property for the mere purpose of enabling votes to be given in the election of a Member of Parliament. The words contained in the present clause would have the same effect; but if the Committee accepted the Amend- ment of his hon. and learned Friend, they would really allow the principle of a rent-charge to remain as a qualification. The Government had been strongly urged to abolish all property qualification as distinguished from occupation, and to proceed upon the principle of one man, one vote. They had not, however, gone to that length, but they had come to the conclusion that where a man had a large stake in the country it was desirable that he should be represented in the locality in which his interest was situated. Therefore, they had given way to the extent of allowing property to be represented; but they had come to the conclusion that that property should be really property— that it should be property having a real interest in the locality, and that it should not be property perfectly distinct from, the locality, which might be held by a non-resident having no interest whatever in the management of the property or in the locality from which he received his rent-charge. A rent-charger might have no special interest in the locality in which the property was situated, and in such cases the Government intended to prevent in future such a course as the creation of fictitious votes from being held in contemplation. The reason why they disqualified incorporeal hereditaments was that it was found that incorporeal hereditaments were the most convenient form in which fictitious votes could be created. It was difficult for a man to give a false qualification if he was himself required to be in possession of the property; but it was very easy to give a rent-charge of 40s. a-year, which might be paid or not. Therefore, what the Government said was that where the interest was clear and real the owner should be represented, but not where he was simply possessed of an incorporeal hereditament. It was believed that the adoption of this principle would, in future, prevent a practice which everyone admitted to be a great evil—namely, the creation of fagot votes.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to withdraw his proposal?

No.

said, it would be a pity if they were not able to come to some understanding upon this question, especially after the amount of courteous feeling the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had displayed in considering beforehand what would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). With a view of bridging over the difference between what might be called fagot votes and the mere 40s. qualification, he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General if he would object, afterthe word "rent-charge" were adopted, to insert words to provide that the rent-charge itself should not be less than £100 per annum? His (Mr. War-ton's) object was to draw a distinction which he thought ought to be drawn. A rent charge of £100 per annum, would represent a considerable amount of money, and would not be a mere matter of form. He contended that a person who was possessed of a rent-charge of £100 a-year was a person of considerable importance, especially when they took into consideration the low scale upon which they were admitting other voters. He hoped the Government would take time for reflection, and that they would not say in the end that a person of that condition was not entitled to a vote, or that he had obtained a rent-charge of that description without intending it to be real and bonâ fide property.

asked the Chairman whether he would now be in Order in moving the Amendment he had suggested?

Not yet.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said nothing about the case he (Mr. Elton) had put to him, of a person who by accident became possessed of a small rent-charge on ecclesiastical property—that was to say, a person who became the owner of a small portion of a tithe rent-charge. He thought there ought to be no difficulty with regard to that point, and he trusted that the Government would accept his suggestion.

said, he was sorry that he could not accept it.

rose to Order. He believed that there was no Question before the Committee.

then formally moved an Amendment in the same clause, with the object of providing that a man should not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rent-charge

"Created or sub-divided for the purpose of conferring a qualification as a voter on any person, or in respect of the ownership of any tithe rent-charge."

moved, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "of not less than £100 per annum." The effect of that Amendment would be that persons having a rent-charge of £100 a-year and upwards would be qualified to vote, and surely persons in that position were of sufficient importance to be regarded as capable citizens and to enjoy the franchise. It was not the case of a person qualifying in order to obtain a vote, but it was the case of a person who must have a substantial interest, because a person who was the owner of a rent-charge of £100 a-year would have been called upon to pay £2,000 or £3,000 for it. It was not the case of a man who possessed a rent-charge of £2 or £3 a-year for which he had paid nothing whatever. He thought it was only fair, if they were to give a vote to the owners of these rent-charges, that they should require a certain income to be derived from the rent-charges, and therefore he proposed to fix the limit at £100 per annum. For his own part, he would prefer to fix a much lower limit, because he was of opinion that persons possessing a rent-charge of much less value than £100 a-year would have a sufficient interest in the property of the locality to justify them in enjoying a vote.

I feel that it is not in the power of the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. We have no wish to recognize in the prospective arrangements of the country those purely money qualifications which have no connection with the different places or districts which are to be represented. Of course, we are perfectly aware that there is a great deal of property in this country of this character, such property, for instance, as the Funds, and a great mass of other property upon which people who have invested in it receive an interest for the capital invested; but, at the same time, that description of property is not represented because it has no genuine connection with the particular place or district to be represented. In the same way, there is no genuine connection in the case to which the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member applies, and it would certainly enable a rent-charge to be acquired for the mere purpose of obtaining a vote. As my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has already shown to the Committee, if we admit the principle of a rent-charge at all, we must open the door to the acquisition of fictitious votes. The main objection which the Government entertained to the proposal on which the Committee have just voted, applies also to this Amendment, and the Government have no choice but to oppose it.

moved to strike out, before the word "vicarage," in line 7, the word "or."

moved to insert, after the word "vicarage," in line 7, the words—

"Chapelry or benefice to which an appointment of tithes rent-charge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes."

assented to the Amendment.

said, he wished now to raise a point on the 2nd sub-section of the clause. That sub-section ran thus—

"Where two or more men are owners either as joint tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any laud or tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if his interest is sufficient to confer on him a qualification as a voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be entitled (in the like eases and subject to the like conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election."

He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the Government in regard to this sub-section. He proposed to move formally to omit the word "where," at the beginning of the subsection, in order to raise n point which he did not think was at all settled by the Bill as it stood. Where there were two or more tenants in common or joint tenants, how was it to be decided which of the joint tenants was to be entitled to the franchise? As the Bill now stood, it appeared to him to be left entirely to chance who might be the first to apply, because the Eevising Barrister would scarcely be entitled to refuse to insert a man's name upon the Register, on the ground that some other person might apply who had, perhaps, a larger interest in the property than the man who claimed to be registered. It would be obviously unfair that a man possessing the minor interest should, by the mere accident of having made a prior application, be placed upon the Register, whereas the person who had the larger interest was entirely shut out. The question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, how they proposed to meet that objection? and in order to enable them to give an explanation, he would move formally the omission of the word "where" from the beginning of the sub-section.

said, he was not at all surprised at the right hon. Baronet raising that question, because he quite admitted that a theoretical difficulty did present itself. But they were now following old legislation in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Act of 1867. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] At any rate, the right hon. Baronet was associated with the Party who were responsible for it, and under the 27th section of the Act of 1867 the number of persons entitled to vote as joint occupiers in a county was limited to two. No more than two persons could vote as joint occupiers in a county. The section did not refer to boroughs; but in the Bill of 1867 under the £12 Occupation Clause, two occupiers only could vote even if there were 10, 12, or any other number of occupiers. The same provision was contained in the Scotch Reform Act of 1868, that two occupiers only were entitled to vote. From that time to this no practical difficulty had been experienced in settling the question as to who was entitled to the vote. Seventeen years had, therefore, elapsed, and as there had been no difficulty the matter in some way had settled itself, and he could not find that any objection had ever been made to this provision of the Acts of 1867 and 1868. If more than two persons did apply, the first comers were placed on the Register, and so long as they were there no other person could be placed upon it. He presumed that if any difficulty ever arose in the registration the first applicant would be the person whose name was inserted upon the Register, and it was obviously impossible for the Revising Barrister to decide that only the man who had a greater interest than another should have a vote, and that the man who had the minor interest should be kept off the Register. Parliament was well aware of what had been done in the Act of 1867, when they applied the same principle to the Act of 1868 for Scotland, and, as no practical difficulty had ever occurred on the subject, it had been thought wise to follow the existing rule, and to make no distinction of persons.

asked whether a practical difficulty might not arise in the case of property being left to two sons by a father—say, for instance, a farm worth £500 a-year? Both might go into occupation as farmers and joint tenants; but brothers, as hon. Members well knew, were not always of the same political opinions. One might be a Liberal and the other a Conservative, and he wanted to know what would be done in a case of that kind?

said, that no such case could arise, but both would come under the provisions of the Bill and be entitled to votes. It was only in cases where there had been a conveyance of property to tenants in common, or joint tenants, that the difficulty arose.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had failed to explain how, under the Scotch Act of 1868, if several claimants equally entitled as joint tenants to be placed on the Register made a claim, their application was disposed of.

said, he had only answered the question which had been put to him by his hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer), and he had intended to point out that no difficulty would arise except in the case of the conveyance of the property, because where the names of more than one person appeared on the occupation rate as occupying a farm for the legitimate purpose of cultivation, every tenant who made his claim would be entitled to a vote; but in other cases of tenants in common or joint tenancy, the persons whose names would appear on the Eegister would be those who made the first application. He believed that no difficulty had occurred on the subject of occupation under the Scotch Act of 1868; and with regard to other matters, it would be necessary in Scotland to exercise in future the same discretion which had been exercised without difficulty in the past.

said, he would move the omission of the subsection altogether.

The Committee have not yet reached the point when it would be regular to move the omission of the sub-section.

said, that in that case, he would move the omission of the next words in the subsection — namely, "either as joint tenants or," although he thought, as the Amendment appeared on the Paper, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) was entitled to move the next. He objected altogether to the disfranchisement of joint tenants. He was unable to see on what grounds those who held a material interest in the country, and were capable citizens, were to be deprived of their right of voting.

rose to Order. He wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?

I cannot tell yet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, however, perfectly in Order.

said, he thought it was a great pity that the hon. Member had not waited to hear what he had to say. An objection had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to joint owners or rent-chargers, on the ground that they had no interest in the land. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that property should really be property, and that the owner should have a genuine connection with the district for which he claimed to be qualified to vote. But how was it possible to argue that joint tenants of a property and tenants in. common had no interest and were not connected with the land? It was not the abuse of a thing to which they should have regard, but the use of it. The fact that here and there instances could be found where joint tenancies and even tenancies in common might have been created for the purpose of giving voting power, was no reason whatever why the principle should be done away with altogether. The abuse of a principle was no justification for getting rid of the principle itself. Nobody would contend that joint tenants or tenants in common were not capable citizens, and why should they be disfranchised when Parliament was about to enfranchise a large number of persons who paid little or nothing for their holdings? They proposed to disfranchise joint tenants and tenants in common of an estate worth £10,000 a-year, while they were enfranchising others who might only pay an occupation rent of 20s. a-year. More than, that, they were establishing a service franchise.

rose to Order. He asked the Chairman whether the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were regular, and had any bearing upon the sub-section before the Committee?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or," and as long as his re- marks are addressed to that point they are perfectly in Order.

thought that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), instead of interrupting the proceedings, had better go to dinner. The Bill proposed to place upon the Register a vast number of electors, and yet, while doing that, and enfranchising persons who had a very small stake in the country, this clause proposed to exclude and disfranchise the owners of joint tenancies and tenancies in common who were largely interested in the property of the country. What would be the result of passing the new service franchise? He presumed that in Scotland thousands of persons would be enfranchised under it, including shepherds, gamekeepers, and others in domestic service, and while those persons were to be put upon the Register, tenants in common and joint tenants were to be excluded. He knew himself of more than one case where, in order to avoid the payment of heavy duties, a father and son had purchased together a considerable estate, and yet only one of them was to be allowed to vote, the other losing his right and capable citizenship. He did not think that the answer of thehon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to which of the joint tenants was to be preferred was at all satisfactory. The hon, and learned Gentleman had referred to an old Act of Parliament, and then to the Acts of 1867 and 1868, in which a similar provision appeared to have been got in by hap-hazard, and he said that no inconvenience or difficulty had been experienced in consequence. On the other hand, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had heard of cases where very great inconvenience had taken place in this respect, and he thought that in new and important legislation of this kind it would be better to prevent any anomalies or difficulties of the kind. But the existence of anomalies did not affect the principle of his objection that they were about to disfranchise the owners of property who were associated with the district for no reason whatever except that the Government thought that, in some cases or other, the rights and privileges of joint tenants or tenants in common had been so dealt with as to lead to inconvenience. He begged to move the omission of the words "either as joint tenants or."

said, he hoped the Committee would hear some reasons from Her Majesty's Government for retaining the provision proposed to be omitted from this subsection. He was quite ready to admit, as all of them must admit, that there had been great abuses in the way of creating fagot votes, under a system which the sub-section was intended to check. He would venture, however, to point out that these abuses had not been brought about so much by the facility of creating the joint tenancies or tenancies in common referred to in the section, as by the fact that the constituencies had been small in numbers, and that, therefore, the creation of fagot votes conferred a large power on the holders, and might have a material effect upon the result of an election. But if the franchise were extended as Her Majesty's Government proposed, this would no longer be the case, for it would be perfectly absurd for any person owning an estate to create these joint tenancies or tenancies in common simply for the purpose of placing persons upon the electoral roll, because it was obvious that the number of these persons would be so very small in comparison with the new electorate that it would really not be worth while to enter upon such a course in order to swamp the opinions of the resident and properly qualified electors. That, he believed, would be the real safeguard against these abuses in the future; and, therefore, he thought the Committee ought to have some reason from Her Majesty's Government why it was that they proposed to make a change in the law, which, even according to the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, might possibly prove an injustice as between the joint owners of property—an injustice which the hon. and learned Gentleman also admitted that he did not see his way to remedy, but which, by the omission of the subsection now under discussion, would be guarded against. He must say that it seemed to him Her Majesty's Government had gone quite far enough in the way of disf ranehisoment by passing the 1st sub-section of the clause. He did not deny that it dealt with a matter which the Prime Minister rightly said was not in the nature of a corporeal hereditament. But the present sub-section dealt with another matter altogether. It was a case of a bonâ fide form of ownership, in respect of which a joint owner or an owner in common ought, in all fairness, to be as well able to vote as if he were the sole owner. If there had been no abuses, no one would have ventured to propose the disfranchisement of these owners. His own opinion was that abuses would be sufficiently checked by the mode in which it was proposed to extend the franchise, and, therefore, the retention of this sub-section was really unnecessary.

said, there was a broad distinction between joint tenants and tenants in common. In the first case, there was no partition, and the estate passed to the survivor of them. They, in fact, constituted one ownership; and it might be reasonable to treat them on that footing for the purpose of the franchise, giving, in fact, one vote only for the entire property. But with respect to tenants in common, the case was different. They had separate and independent estates and intei'psts in. the propeity, which they could alienate, or which passed to their heirs or devisees on their respective deaths, and they had a right to call for and enforce an actual partition of the property at any time; and he therefore thought that tenants in common were fairly entitled to enjoy the right of voting, and that their claim ought to be considered in dealing with the franchise.

said, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that he was in favour of retaining tenants in common, and of striking out joint tenants; but he was unable to say that he agreed in the views of the hon. Gentleman. In order to save time, he might say that as far as the Government were concerned they regarded the present discussion as representing the discussion upon the whole of the sub-section. He would, therefore, say at once that the Government would adhere to the sub-section. They were willing, as he had said before, to give a vote to a property qualification even although it might include non-residence, and even although, in, some cases, the persons enfranchised might have very little interest in the locality. In that way, property would be represented; but they desired to surround that representation of property with certain safeguards, and not to allow it to be used simply as a pretence for obtaining the vote. How was it that fagot votes had been created? They had been created by giving votes to many persons who had only an interest in one tenement. The Government endeavoured to get rid of that difficulty by taking a provision contained in an old Act of William III., which enacted that not more than a single vote should be permitted for one and the same house or tenement. Words to that effect had been introduced into the present clause, and the Committee were asked to go back to the wisdom of the legislation adopted 200 years ago, and to give one vote only for a single tenement. The Government, however, had been more generous than, the Legislature in the time of William III., because in certain cases they had allowed one tenement more than one vote—namely, where the right accrued through inheritance, marriage settlement, or will; but wherever attempts were mane to split up the qualification by transference of the property to a great number of persons so as to give votes to those who had no real or substantial interest in the tenement, they went back to the old legislation of the time of William III., and said that only one such person should be entitled to vote, whether the persons in question were joint tenantsor tenants in common— the intention was to allow one vote, and one vote only, for a single tenement. As he had pointed out, the Government had recurred to the legislation of the Reign of William III.; but in 1867 the Bill of the Conservative Government said that only two occupiers should vote for a single tenement, and all that had just been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might, with equal force, have been urged against the legislation of 1867. The only alteration made by the present Bill was that, whereas by the Act of 1867 two occupiers were allowed to vote for the same tenement, the present Bill took only one owner instead of the two occupiers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember that the Prime Minister had already referred to an instance in Scot-land in which 40 votes had been created for one tenement. Her Majesty's Government wished to put a stop to such a state of things, and to prevent the creation of fictitious votes for the sole purpose of conferring the franchise on persons who had no real interest in the property.

said, that a technical distinction existed in England between joint tenants and tenants in common. Although precisely the same distinction did not exist in Scotland, the same objectionable practice had been resorted to for the purpose of creating fagot votes. It had long ago been discovered that a similar description of tenure afforded peculiar facilities for the creation of the same evil of fagot voting. All that was necessary was to divide the annual value among the number of persons it was wished to enfranchise. An indefinite number of votes might be created in that way, and in Scotland they had become so familiar with the system that there were instances in which 40 voters qualified for what would be called in England a single tenement. In the present Bill the Government endeavoured to preserve the rights of property, and all the legitimate claims of property were carefully safeguarded in the later part of this provision. Where the acquisitions of interest were not fictitious, and where there were evidences of good faith, the Bill preserved to them their capacity of conferring the vote. Rights obtained by descent, by marriage, by co-partnership, or by will, were preserved; but in other cases, where they were obviously fictitious and only acquired for the purpose of giving the vote, they were done away with.

said, he thought the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was a very strong one against the general principle of the Bill—namely, the extension of household franchise to counties, and, so far from being a protection against fagot voting, the provisions of the Bill would afford ample opportunities for the creation and multiplication of fictitious votes; all that it would be necessary to do was to pay the rates and give a man a key of the street door, and they would be able to create at once as many fagot votes as they liked. Indeed, he thought the Bill ought to have had a provision inserted in the Preamble to this effect — "Whereas it is desirable to extend the principle of fagot voting." He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment, because he desired to enter his protest against this disfranchising process, whereby joint tenants and tenants in common, who were associated with the land itself, were to lose the rights as electors which they had enjoyed from time immemorial.

said, the Government had now enunciated their views with regard to the extension of the franchise, and had fully exemplified what the real principle of the Bill was. They refused to acknowledge any of the rights or privileges of property in the franchise, and spoke of them as incorporeal hereditaments. Surely, the Public Debt of this country had become a property; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister emphatically declared that he would not acknowledge that kind of property as entitling the owners of it to enjoy the franchise. This was a very serious declaration, because the right hon. Gentleman also excluded taxation —either general taxation or local taxation—as an element of qualification. The right hon. Gentleman established this rule and principle when he was about to add 2,000,000 to the electorate —2,000,000 of persons who were certainly not be identified by their possession of property. He was ready to admit that he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had formerly written—that the tendency of this democratic change would probably be in the direction of establishing again the principle of the protection of labour in this country; and he trusted that that protection would not be limited to protection for the property of the country, but would be extended to the competition of foreign nations.

I must request the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment, which is to omit from the clause the words "either as joint tenants or."

apologized, raid said, he would bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. At the same time, he thought it was only fair, seeing that these arguments had been adduced upon the subject-matter of the clause, to make the observations he had made. He would now sit down, subject to the authority of the Chair, by repeating that he had learnt a lesson from the discussion which had taken place.

said, he would make an appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaveu (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) not to press his Amendment. His object in making the appeal was this. There was a distinction to be drawn between the case of joint tenants and tenants in common, as had heen pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be bettor to keep tenants in common in the Bill, and to strike out joint tenants. He thought such a course would fully accomplish the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to treat joint tenants as if they were in precisely the same position as tenants in common, which, as a matter of fact, was not the case. If the Government were in favour of giving the vote to one of these classes of tenants, then those who ought to have it were tenants in common and not joint tenants. Personally, he did not see why several persons who enjoyed the same rights as tenants in common should not have the privilege of the franchise. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, so that the Committee might be in a position to proceed at once with the discussion of the real question at issue.

said, he had gathered from the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that they were now really engaged in a discussion of the merits of the entire sub-section, and that the vote they would be asked to give, as accepted by the Government, would be upon the Amendment to leave out Hub-section 2. The Amendment of his right hon. arid learned Friend the Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) applied to a portion of the sub-section only; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had also an Amendment upon the Paper lower down, for the omission of the subsection. As it did not seem to be generally understood, he wished to know from the Attorney General if he was right in the impression that they were now engaged in discussing the entire sub-section?

said, he thought it was understood that the vote would be taken upon the entire sub-section.

suggested that the Division should be taken upon the word "either." The object of those who agreed with him would, he thought, be best attained by the withdrawal of the Amendment now before the Committee, and the substitution of an Amendment to omit the word "either." That would leave it open to retain joint tenants, or tenants in common, provided that the Committee agreed to take one or the other, but not both.

The Question before the Committee is to omit the words "either as joint tenants or." Does the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) press that Amendment?

No; I will withdraw it.

moved to omit from the sub-section the word "either."

said, he had an Amendment which he should like to move at the end of the clause, with the object of making the clause clearer.

said, he rose to move the Amendment standing in hia name, the object of which was to limit the number of owners of land or tene- ments proposed by the clause to be entitled to vote by reason of their carrying on trade or business as partners on such land or tenements. It occurred to him that the term "partners" was a little too comprehensive. In that county of Scotland represented by the Prime Minister (Edinburghshire) there was a large number of oil-making Companies, and he could see nothing in the Bill, as it stood, which would prevent the partners in those Companies, however numerous they might be, from being put on the Register and voting. The words of the clause wore—"and are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon." His object in proposing this Amendment was to prevent any possible abuse of the intention of the clause by a large number of partners carrying on trade or business, and with that view he had in his Amendment put down the number of persons who should be entitled to be registered as voters at six, which number was taken from the Joint Stock Companies Act.

said, the Government were not disposed at present to accept the Amendment. So far as the persons forming Joint Stock Companies were concerned, the Company as such would be the occupier, and no member of the Company simply because he had shares in it would be entitled to vote. The clause contemplated people who were engaged as partners in trade or business personally on the conditions specified, and not as members of a Company. Then with regard to partners not members of Companies, bearing in mind the safeguards contained in the clause, the Government saw no reason why the number of persons entitled to be registered and to vote should be confined within the limit proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, inasmuch as they considered that in practice the abuse apprehended by him would not arise.

pointed out that the wording of the clause was alternate; it was "or"—not "and"— where they occupied the land or tenement.

said, he desired to call the attention of the Attorney General to the wording o£ the clause which rendered it necessary, for the purpose of this franchise, that certain businesses or trades should be carried on. He had no doubt that the intention of the Government was to include the class of persons whom he was about to refer to; but the words of the clause were—

"Where" (such owners) "occupy the land or tenement, and are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon."

Now, it was clear that this wording covered the case of owners occupying land for the purpose of farming; but he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that it might not be sufficiently comprehensive, because he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) conceived it possible that owners occupying land as woodland, or for grazing purposes, might not be held to be carrying on business as farmers. If his view were incorrect, he should be glad to hear a statement from the Attorney General on the subject.

said, the Government were quite at one with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire not to exclude from the franchise persons occupying the land for purposes of the kind indicated, and which they believed would come within the words "carrying on trade."

objected to the words "restriction on fagot votes," and proposed to substitute the words "prohibition of multiplication of votes," which stood at the head of the section.

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport was discussing the wording of a marginal note which was not part of the Bill. If the hon. and learned Member would communicate with him. any suggestion he had to make on this point should receive attention.

said, that the words proposed to be substituted were perfectly innocent, and he could discern no reason why the Attorney General should object to his suggestion. The drafting of the next clause showed that he was perfectly consistent, the same wording, "Assimilation of Occupation Qualification," having been placed both at the heading of the clause and in the margin.