both countries on an equality. If the three opinions wholly irreconcileable people of Ireland were continually exasperated by her just demands not being granted when the most obvious arguments were brought forward and not a single reply in favour, or justification or explanation of, the existing state of things was advanced from the front Treasury Benches, in that case he proclaimed that all the opposition of Irish Members was necessary; and, for his part, he should join them, and declare open war with the English Government for their neglect and disregard of the interests of Ireland. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member who has just sat down, and who represents what I may call a small Irish borough, has told us that he has heard, happily not in this House, that an opinion has been expressed to the effect that no political vitality remained in the small Irish boroughs. I venture to think that the hon. Member's presence proves the contrary. I was gratified to hear from the hon. Gentleman that, although he complains that a large number of the inhabitants of Drogheda are not qualified to use the franchise, yet if that boon were conferred upon them the decision of the constituents would not deprive him of the honour of representing them. That is a matter of some congratulation, and I feel sure that we are all very glad to listen to the hon. Member when he stands up to address us. But I am bound to say that he has not, in his remarks to-night, done much to clear up a difficulty which I have felt throughout this debate. We are called upon, on this occasion, to do that which is never very convenient-not to discuss or express an opinion upon a measure presented in the form of a Bill, but to express our approval of the principle contained in an abstract Resolution. I am far from saying that that is a matter we ought never to entertain; but when that abstract Resolution is presented to us, and we are asked to affirm a principle of great importance, we ought to be told what the principle is upon which we are asked to decide. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland said there was no difference, he thought, among us upon that point. I thought him a little too sanguine at the moment; but immediately afterwards rose the noble Lord, and after he had spoken I could not help thinking that there were entertained upon the matter. In the exercise it. That principle may be ments, to obtain a perfectly fair and offered for our confirmation. But then reliable expression of the voice and opicomes the noble Lord, who is a prime nions of their own country. No doubt authority upon the other side of the the time may come when it may be deHouse, and puts forward a wholly dif- sirable to review again the working of ferent principle from the others, and one our representative system; but I do not which I am bound to say, for my own think that we should act wisely in unpart, I entirely accept as the true prin- dertaking that review at the present ciple. The noble Lord said the question time. It is not so very long since the is, how are we to obtain a fair repre- last settlement was made, and we resentation of Ireland as a whole? That member that, not only in 1867, but in is the question which we have always on the years that preceded it, and for some this side of the House-which I, at all time before, the country was agitated, events, have been in the habit of putting and it is not desirable to revive again in all electoral discussions-namely, that question until we can deal with it what is the best way of obtaining a as a whole. An Act for Ireland was fair representation of the whole country? passed about the same time, and the That question ought, no doubt, to be noble Lord and the right hon. Member approached in a fair and thoughtful for Bradford have stated that that was spirit, and you will find that it is one passed under a misapprehension on the that carries you very far. It carries part of the Minister who was responyou to the question of the distribution sible for its introduction. I have not of power, and to the mode in which considered the speech of my noble minorities are to be represented; for you Friend Lord Mayo on that occasion; cannot get a fair representation of the but it was, I apprehend, made in 1867. country as a whole, unless you have [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: 1868.] Then it was some means by which the representation made after the passing of the English of minorities is secured. It also raises Reform Bill, and therefore with a full other questions, which, if you deal with knowledge on the part of the House of the franchise, you ought to consider. the legislation for England. But the The principle involved in the Resolution main question we now have to consider we are asked to pass is by no means is whether we shall pass a Resolution one that has been elaborated in the way which really settles nothing whatever, in which a proposition of reform of this and which will affirm a principle of kind ought to be. I say that we take a which there are at least three different right view of our position in holding versions entirely inconsistent with one that changes in the representation-another. I hope, under the circumwhich must necessarily be a source of disturbance to the public mind-must be of such a character as to embrace a proper settlement of all parts of the question. I agree with those who have said that there are anomalies in our present system of representation, not only in Ireland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom; but I say that, upon the whole, we have a fairly working representative system. At present, it is one which enables us to obtain a very reasonable and fair expression of the opinion of the country, and I may say particularly that of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the present system does not secure the return of Members who represent the feeling of the people of Ireland; but those same hon. Gentlemen always claim to speak in the name of Ireland; and I think we may fairly assume that, however imperfect the system may be in its details, yet we do contrive, by our present arrange stances, that the House will vote in favour of the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair. MAJOR O'GORMAN was not quite sure whether the Government laboured under the impression that if the franchise in Ireland were extended in the same manner as in England, none but Home Rule Members would be returned by Irish constituencies to that House. In his opinion, that impression, if it existed, was entirely erroneous. The Irish people were essentially Conservative, and the lower one descended into the social structure, the more Conservative would Irishmen be found. If hon. Members doubted his statement, he would bring illustrations in support of his argument. The noble Lord, who was now Prime Minister of this country, defeated and turned out of Office the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich because the latter introduced a £7 Franchise Bill, which was too revolutionary for the noble Lord; but the moment the noble Lord himself came into power he introduced household suffrage, apparently a much more revolutionary measure, and what had been the result? The noble Lord had found Conservatives in the lowest ranks of Englishmen. The opening of the Constitution had placed the hon. Gentlemen, whom he had now the pleasure of seeing opposite, on Conservative Benches. Let them make in Ireland a similar experiment. The £7 franchise never would have returned a Conservative majority. Household suffrage had done it. "Si monumentum requiris circumspice." Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 256; Noes 187: Majority 69.-(Div. List, No. 4.) Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Motion, by leave, withdrawn. RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL. (Mr. Anderson, Sir Thomas Chambers, Sir James Lawrence.) [BILL 48.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Anderson.) MR. ONSLOW observed that the Bill was before the House last Session, when the second reading was passed by the narrow majority of 2. If it had been supposed that the Bill would be discussed that night, he thought more hon. Members would have stayed in their places to have voted against it. He believed that last Session but for the Bill being overshadowed by the discussions of the Dunkeld Tolls Bill, the narrow majority of 2 in favour of the second reading would have been turned into a large majority against. In the Preamble of the Bill it was stated that racing in the vicinity of the Metropolis was inconvenient and prejudicial to the interests of the public. That assertion he denied, in the belief that the grievance was entirely sentimental. It appeared to him that if racing were to be suppressed in the Metropolis it must also be suppressed in every other part of the Empire. If that were to be done, and the hon. Member would bring in a Bill to that effect, the question could be discussed on its merits. But he failed to see what earthly good could possibly be effected by putting a stop to racing within a certain number of miles round the Metropolis. They would thereby put an end to the amusement of a great number of people, and that without any practical benefit whatever. He failed to see how the Metropolis would be benefited by this Bill, nor why such a provision as the suppression of races within 10 miles from Charing Cross should not be equally applied to Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool. Why should London alone be deprived of its racemeetings? At the present time, they had only a very few racecourses within 10 miles of the Metropolis; there were Kingsbury, Streatham, the Alexandra the suppression of those meetings they Palace, and, perhaps, Croydon. By would deprive the people of the Metropolis of a legitimate amusement, which so many thousands of them were in the habit of enjoying, simply because a small number had misbehaved themselves. He felt confident of this-that if the police did their duty there would be no disorderly conduct, and it was only where the police had been conspicuous by their absence that any "scenes" had taken place. The hon. Member had said that he did not wish to do away with race-meetings, but only to bring them under the jurisdiction of the magistrates. He apprehended that if brought under the jurisdiction of the magistrates for the purpose of being licensed, in a very short time all the meetings would be done away with. If there were abuses in those race-meetings, there were also abuses on the racecourses in other parts of the country. It was invidious to single out London alone and suppress race-meetings in its vicinity, and yet permit them to go on in every other part of England. Why had that Bill been brought in? had been an agitation got up by certain Metropolitan builders, who found that they could not let their houses well nor sell their land; and they thought if these race-meetings were abolished it would much improve their property. In his opinion, the agitation against these race-meetings had been got up solely by these building speculators. These men had been over-speculating in the purchase of land and in the building of houses, and they imagined that there There was just a chance of letting these houses, with legitimate racing, but to put a stop if these races were done away with. At to the ruffianism of suburban meetings. all events, they thought that whatever Last year they had had speeches from happened they could not be worse off the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire than they were at present. If the hon. (Mr. Chaplin) and from the Chief SecreGentleman would bring forward some tary for Ireland, in which they stated measure to prevent fraudulent transac- that this was a legitimate matter for the tions on the part of Directors of public Jockey Club to deal with, and if left to Companies in this country, he would that body they said the evil would be give him his hearty support; but he met. But had anything been done? hoped the second reading of this Bill The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, would not be passed, as he believed it in speaking against the Bill, said that if one that would do no good whatever, the Jockey Club did not interfere then while it would put restrictions upon a he would assist in putting down these legitimate amusement of the people of meetings. He could not help thinking this country, and was an egregious ex- that the absence of the hon. Member ample of piecemeal legislation. He moved was not quite accidental; but if he were that the Bill be read a second time that there they would probably hear that the day six months. Jockey Club had done nothing. If the Jockey Club would, by any indirect rule, show the House that they were putting down these meetings perhaps that would be sufficient. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill had said that this was a sentimental grievance; but the fact was that persons attending these meetings in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis took to destroying the peace of the district, and these meetings were held six or eight times a year. It had also been asked why the magistrates should interfere in these matters? It was a principle well known to the Common Law that if persons wished to meet in any great numbers, even for the purpose of a fair, they could not do so without the sanction of the Justices. All they sought by this Bill was to put that law into effect, and stop meetings which were only held to bring together people not for fair racing, but for the collection of gate money, and to increase the trade of public-houses. SIR JOHN ASTLEY cordially seconded the Motion. He was at a loss to know why the hon. Member for Glasgow should have put this Notice upon the Paper. He had never seen the hon. Gentleman at a racecourse, and he had very frequently attended racemeetings; and he rather fancied that the hon. Gentleman had never been at a race-meeting in his life. Under these circumstances, in his opinion, he was not the sort of man to point out to the House how race-meetings should be conducted. The population of London was very large, and needed a good many outlets for enjoyment; and he could not understand why they should not be permitted to have races within a 10 miles' radius, when it only interfered with the enjoyment of one or two cantankerous individuals. If the hon. Member understood more of the matter, he would see that magistrates, although a very intelligent sort of men, were not exactly fit persons to judge as to whether race-meetings should be held. The Jockey Club, of which he was a member, was, in his opinion, much better qualified to order race-meetings than the magistrates. He hoped the House would not pass the second reading of the Bill. MR. J. LOWTHER said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made some reflections on his observations last year. It was true that he had told the House that the races of England were more properly left in the hands of the Jockey Club than in those of the magistrates; and he still entertained the opinion that while the licensing of refreshment-booths and so forth was under the existing law very properly confided to the magistrates, the other arrangements relating to race-meetings should be intrusted rather to the Jockey Club than to the magistracy. The hon. and learned Gentleman had further asked what had been done by the Jockey Club since the last year? He seemed to answer that question to his own satisfaction by saying that nothing had been done. Of course, he (Mr. J. Lowther) was only speaking his own opinion on this subject, and not that of Her Majesty's Government, and he would therefore venture to answer the question. He would affirm that the Jockey Club had done a great deal. First of all they had, by a notice issued last year, requested that no gentleman should act as a steward of any of these race-meetings unless satisfied, upon proper inquiry, that such meetings would be well conducted. It was pointed out that such a notice as that would be scarcely sufficient to answer the object. He had been twitted with the inadequacy of that notice, and the attention of the Jockey Club had been called to the subject. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who he was sorry to see had left the House, acting as steward of the Jockey Club, had caused notice to be issued with regard to race-meetings to the effect that the stake-holders should be prohibited from inserting advertisements until the persons conducting the meeting had made every arrangement for the due maintenance of order. The Jockey Club had thus taken all steps in their power to place matters upon a proper footing, and he would ask, what more could the Jockey Club do? What more could they do to redeem the undertaking made by him on their behalf last year? The effect of the notice to which he had referred prohibited the publication of the advertisements in the official calendar, which acted in this way-that if a horse, in defiance of the refusal of the Jockey Club to advertise, was run, it was from henceforth debarred from ever taking part in any races held under the auspices of the Jockey Club. SIR HENRY JAMES: Has one meeting been discontinued in consequence? MR. J. LOWTHER: The meeting of West Drayton has been discontinued. SIR HENRY JAMES: That was before the notice. MR. J. LOWTHER said, he had also reason to believe that the meeting had been discontinued at Kingsbury; that was to say, would be discontinued for the future. Perhaps some hon. Members were not aware that flat racing did not take place at this period of the year; and therefore he was perfectly correct, from a grammatical point of view, not withstanding the criticisms of one or two hon. Members opposite, in saying that the meeting at Kingsbury would for the future be discontinued. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also referred to another meeting that at Streatham; and he might say it was more than probable, from what he had heard, that no meeting would henceforth take place there. The result was this-that the existing state of the law was fully sufficient to put down any nuisance that prevailed, and what was asked by the promoters of the Bill was that they should force an open door, and that a law should be passed to effect a purpose already accomplished without it. SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS thought the object of the Bill should be fully before the House. They were asked to put down an universally admitted unmitigated nuisance. The best authorities in the House on matters of racing did not venture to utter one syllable in favour of the meetings sought to be suppressed. There must be some good arguments in favour of the great racemeetings of this country. But all they wanted to do by the present Bill was to put down an unmitigated nuisance. The mischief produced by these suburban meetings was absolutely indescribable, and by passing the Bill the Jockey Club would be saved the trouble of suppressing them. It must also be admitted that up to the present time the Jockey Club had not made much progress in their suppression. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON could not allow what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to pass without some observation. He ventured to think, notwithstanding the strong assertions that had been made as to the active part taken by the Jockey Club, and the results which had happened in consequence of their action, that that action had had no practical effect. It was from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman himself that they would find one of the strongest arguments for the passing of this Bill. He had admitted to the House that in the neighbourhood where these races were held it was impossible to let houses. [Mr. J. LowTHER: I never said anything of the sort.] He took down the words which he was under the impression were uttered by the right hon. Gentleman; but they must have fallen, as the right |