HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, April 27, 1866.

MINUTES.]- PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-Land
Drainage Supplemental*; Inclosure; Na-
tional Gallery Enlargement*; Dean Forest
Inclosure.*
First Reading-National Gallery Enlargement
[124]; Land Drainage Supplemental * [125];
Inclosure [126].
*

amples :-An estate worth £5,000 paid for court fees in Ireland £25, in England £9 5s.; an estate worth £20,000 paid £100 in Ireland, and only £25 10s. in England; and an estate worth £100,000 paid no less than £500 in Ireland, and only £68 10s. in England. In England, from October, 1862 (when Lord Westbury's Act passed), to June, 1865, there were 291 applications for registry of title. In Ireland in 1864 it appeared by the volume of Judicial Statistics the declarations of title were only thirteen. These expenses, then, manifestly operated as a bar to the registration of Estates in Ireland. He wished to know, whether the Government would take steps to have these charges reduced to a proper amount?

Second Reading-Representation of the People
[68].
Considered as amended-Contagious Diseases
[117].
Third Reading-Superannuations (Officers Me-
tropolitan Vestries and District Boards) * [52],
and passed.

ELECTORAL STATISTICS.-PETITION. MR. DISRAELI presented a petition THE EARL OF BELMORE said, he had from certain electors of Rochdale, stating had the honour of bringing this subject that the petitioners had noticed, with great before the notice of their Lordships on a surprise, that the number of the working previous occasion, when his noble Friend classes upon the Parliamentary register the Under Secretary of State for War in the borough of Rochdale was stated in (Lord Dufferin) informed the House that the Government Returns to be only 68. The the Government had the subject under their petitioners had made inquiries as to the consideration. He desired to know whe-number of working men on the Parliather the Government would soon be in a position to make known their decision upon the subject?

LORD DUFFERIN said, there was no objection whatever to producing the Returns moved for by the noble Marquess. With regard to the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore), he regretted to say that he was still unable to supply him with the information he required, the entire subject being still under the consideration of the Treasury.

Motion agreed to.

mentary register that came within the instructions of the Poor Law Board, and they found the number in one township to be 68, in another 53, and in a third 105, making a total in the three townships of 226, and this did not include any overseers, superintendents, or foremen, not employed in daily manual labour. He had another petition to present from Birstal, signed by Mr. Enoc Wedgly, who requested him to say that he was a strong Liberal in politics, stating that he was chairman of the Board of Guardians, and that, according to the Returns prepared by the direction of the Poor Law Board, out of a constituency in

Papers ordered to be laid before the one parish of 680, there were 197 working

House.

CONFERENCES.

Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have considered their Lordships Message of the 24th day of this Instant April relative to Conferences relating to Addresses to Her Majesty, under the Provisions of the Act 15th and 16th Vict. Cap. 57., and have agreed to the following Resolutions :

"That the Commons are willing to send to the Lords by Message, without a Conference, any Communication desiring the Concurrence of the Lords to any Address to Her Majesty, under the Provisions of the Act 15th and 16th Vict., Cap. 57., to which the Commons may have agreed, unless at any Time the Lords should desire to re

ceive the same at a Conference."

House adjourned at half past Five
o'clock, to Monday next,
Eleven o'clock.

men. The petitioner expressed surprise
that the accuracy of this Return had been
denied in a petition presented to the
House, and stated that the guardians had
made strict inquiries, and had satisfied
themselves of the strict accuracy of the
statement furnished by their clerk. The
petitioner further stated that, although a
considerable number of these working men
did keep beer houses, or small shops, such
shops, or beer houses, were attended to by
their wives or other members of their
families, and that they themselves all
worked as potters or colliers, or in some
other form of manual labour, at weekly
wages. Another petition, which he had
been asked to present, was from Ashton-
was very much to the
under-Lyne, and
same effect. It stated that, according to

the Electoral Returns, the number of working men in the constituency was 188, whereas the actual number, as sent up by the clerk of the union was 350, and the reduction had been made by the exclusion of overlookers in cotton mills and others who were employed in manual labour at weekly wages. [Mr. CRAWFORD: What is the prayer of these petitions?] Order read, for resuming Adjourned prayer of the petition from Ashton-underon Amendment proposed to QuesLyne is for inquiry into the number of work- tion [12th April], "That the Bill be now ing-class electors, and also into the circum-read a second time ;" and which Amend

the Exchequer has thrown imputations of | opinions which he deeply censures, it is the gravest and most damaging character on the floor of this House, and on the floor on all Members on this side of the House, of this House alone, that he ought to imand indeed upon all those who support the pute these sentiments to them. I venture Amendment of the noble Earl. He was to say that the Chancellor of the Exchenot content with throwing those imputa- quer may search the annals of the House tions in the House itself where, indeed, of Commons in vain to find a precedent they appeared in a milder and more modi- for a leader of this House going down to fied form, but when the debate was ad- a provincial audience and telling them that journed, as has been said, from this House those who oppose him in debate are guilty to another place, and when the right hon. of sentiments on which he casts the gravest Gentleman went down to Lancashire, censure. I followed the right hon. Gentlewhere there were no opponents to answer man in order to make my protest against him, and where he could make what state- the use of such weapons as he had resorted ments he pleased without fear of being con- to with reference to the working classes. tradicted, he made accusations of a most Sometimes we are told we distrust them, damaging character against those who sometimes that we insult them, sometimes oppose this Bill. He told his audience that we detest them, sometimes that we that Members on this side of the House are anxious to exclude them from all share readily and earnestly accepted the imputa- in the political government of the country. tion that they treated the working classes I can quite understand when you have as an invading army. Now, I venture to nothing to say for your Bill, and nothing to say there is not the slightest foundation for say against the Amendment, it is very the imputation which the Chancellor of the convenient to shower dirt on those who Exchequer threw upon us. When first he oppose the measure; but I will venture made it, I protested against it, because I, to say that the right hon. Gentleman canin common with my hon. Friend the not obtain from the words of any speaker Member for Stoke, were the only speakers on this side of the House anything to who followed the right hon. Gentleman in justify the odious charge he has made the debate, and I concluded that by some against us. For myself, I will venture to strange misapprehension he had drawn make my confession of faith on the subject from our words that we accepted that most of the working classes. I feel there are damaging imputation. I have since ascer- two tendencies to avoid. I have heard tained, however, that it was not from our much on the subject of the working classes words that the right hon. Gentleman drew in this House which I confess has filled the imputation he made against us; but me with feelings of some apprehension. solely, it appears, from the interpretation It is the belief of many hon. Gentlemen he was pleased to put on a cheer which he opposite that the working classes are to thought he heard from this side of the be our future Sovereign, that they are House. The right hon. Gentleman had to be the great power in the State, against remarked in his speech that we looked on which no other power will be able to the working classes as an invading army. stand; and it is with feelings of no small And if the right hon. Gentleman ima- horror and disgust that I have heard from gined at the time that he heard from many hon. Gentlemen phrases which sound, this side of the House some inarticulate I hope unduly, like adulation of the Soassent to that proposition-a fact which I vereign they expect to rule over them. believe is absolutely destitute of foundation, Now, if there is one claim which the why did he not attempt to fix the odious House of Commons has on the respect of charge at the moment when it could be the people of this country, it is the great contradicted and disproved? But he goes historic fame it enjoys-if it has done anydown to Liverpool, and there, before a thing to establish the present balance of select audience of his friends, admitted by power among all classes of the community, tickets, tells them, in effect, that the Con- and prevent any single element of the servative party looked upon the working Constitution from overpowering the rest, classes as an invading army. Now, it it is that in presence of all powers, howdoes not seem to me that such conduct is ever great and terrible they may have consistent with the obligations which a been, the House of Commons has always leader of the House of Commons ought to been free and independent in its language. accept. If the leader of this House has It never in past times, when Kings were occasion to impute to any of its Members powerful, fawned upon them. It has al

ways resisted their unjust pretences. It of treating it as a saleable commodity. The always refused to allow any courtierly minority, more influential, more deeply ininstincts to suppress in it that solicitude terested in public affairs, will be liable to for the freedom of the people of this coun- the temptation of treating it not as a saletry which it was instituted to cherish. I able commodity, but as something to get should deeply regret, if at a time when it for them laws with respect to taxation and is said we are practically about to change property, specially favourable to them as our Sovereign, and when some may think a class, and, therefore, dangerous to all that new powers are about to rule over the other classes of the community. That is country, a different spirit were to influence the temptation to which you are exposing and inspire the House of Commons. No- the working man by giving him the franthing could be more dangerous to the chise. I say further that you are exposing reputation of the House, nothing more him to it more than other classes of the fatal to its authority, than that it should community for this simple reason, that he be suspected of sycophancy to any power, is poorer. It is perfectly true that the either from below or above, that is likely poor have their virtues as well as the rich, to become predominant in the State. My and that the rich have their vices as well own feeling with respect to the working as the poor. But the vices of the poor men is simply this-we have heard a great have, unfortunately, a special bearing on deal too much of them, as if they were their fitness for the exercise of political different from other Englishmen. I do rights. The poor are liable more than the not understand why the nature of the rich to be tempted if you place in their poor or working men in this country should hands anything that is pecuniarily converbe different from that of any other English- tible. A great deal of odium has been man. They spring from the same race. cast on some Members of this House beThey live under the same climate. They cause they have stated that the working are brought up under the same laws. classes are more venal than the rich. That They aspire after the same historical model is not true as to their nature, but it is true which we admire ourselves; and I cannot as to the temptations to which they are understand why their nature is to be thought exposed. It is ridiculous to say that £50 better or worse than that of other classes. will not tempt a man more of whose inI say their nature, but I say nothing about come it forms a third or a fourth than one their temptations. If you apply to any of whose income it forms only the thirtieth class of the community special temptations, or fortieth part; and therefore all bribes you will find that class addicted to special whether in the direct form of money value, vices. And that is what I fear you are do- or in the indirect form of class legislation, ing now. You are not recognizing the fact must be expected to operate more on the that, dealing with the working classes, you working classes than on any other class are dealing with men who are Englishmen of the community. It is not a paradox, in their nature, and who have every English but a simple truism, that a man who is virtue and vice; you are applying to them hungry will care more for a good dinner a special training, and yet refuse to look than one who has already dined. But, forward to the special result, which all Sir, that seems to me to be the simple who know human nature must inevitably truth about-I will not say the working expect. Those Members who have sat on classes, for I dislike to treat any particular Election Committees will, I think, agree vocation as distinct and separate in this with me, that the franchise is a conver- community-but as to those who have less tible commodity. It has a value, indeed, property in the country. In proportion as in two ways. The franchise has a direct the property is small, the danger of mismoney value to those who do not care much using the franchise will be great. You about public affairs in the way of bribery. may cover that by sentiment, you may atIt has an indirect value to those who do tempt to thrust it away by vague declacare about public affairs in the way of mation, but as a matter of fact and as a encouraging unjust and special class legis- matter of truth it will remain all the same. lation. If you give the franchise to those And now, Sir, having spoken in this way who may naturally be tempted to misuse about the working classes, I shall sum up, it, you must expect that the larger propor- as far as I can, what seems to me the retion who are not deeply interested in public sult of the debate that we have had in reaffairs will be liable to the temptation-Ispect to the Amendment of the noble Earl. do not say they will always yield to it-I do not know whether the idea may have [Second Reading-Eighth Night.

been present to other Members on this side of the House, but it appears to me that there has been seemingly a kind of demon that has attended all the Members of the Government and speakers upon that side of the House, which has forced them, in spite of themselves, always to speak in such a way as virtually to support the Amendment of the noble Earl. Everything the supporters of the Bill have said has been really an argument in favour of the Amendment. Take the Government first. The Government began by holding very cavalier language on the subject of the Franchise Bill. They at first did not in the least care to deal with the re-distribution of seats. It is true the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not absolutely say so, but he used language which bore no other interpretation than that he intended to bring in the Seats Bill next year. Well, the right hon. Gentleman was driven from that position, and then he said the Seats Bill was to be brought in this year, but only formally, and then the right hon. Gentleman again gave way, and stated that that Bill should be made a matter of standing or falling by the Government; and now we are told that a yet further step is to be made, and that the Seats Bill is to be pressed pari passu with the Franchise Bill, in order to satisfy the scruples of some of the supporters of the Government. I feel a difficulty, however, in believing that statement, because as soon as I heard of it, I referred back to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion, and it appeared to me that it was impossible for a statesman to give a stronger pledge that such a course should not be taken than was then given by the right hon. Gentleman; and in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, at a later period of the evening, make any such announcementwhich I hope for his own sake he will not do-I should like to read to the House what he said at the beginning of this debate with reference to pushing forward the Seats Bill. In moving the second reading of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman spoke as follows:

"Allowing for full and free discussion regarding the subject, we could not expect that the two portions of it would be dealt with, and still less of the other portions of it, within the ordinary and usual duration of the Session. But, beyond that, I have stated, as is well known, that we for our parts, from motives of duty, decline to proceed with any other part of the subject until the fate of the Franchise Bill is determined. When

its fate is determined it will then be for us to review our position."

Now, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of that declaration, should state that he will proceed with the Seats Bill pari passu with the Franchise Bill-that is to say, will proceed with it before the fate of this Bill is determined, he will in effect be admitting that he has departed from the motives of duty which originally actuated him-and the House will take notice that such a proceeding will entirely dispose of that question of time which the right hon. Gentleman made so much of when he introduced the Bill. He then insisted strongly that there were only twenty-four nights between the 12th of April and the practical close of the Session at the disposal of the Government, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, and out of these twenty-four nights twelve would be needed for the financial business of the Government, so that twelve only remained for the Reform Bill, and, therefore, he argued, and argued in an unanswerable way, if you once granted that he ought to have introduced the matter this Session at all, that it was impossible to proceed with the Franchise Bill, and also with the Seats Bill in the present Session. If, however, these rumours which are flying about are correct, and if the right hon. Gentleman does pledge himself to proceed with the Seats Bill pari passu with the Franchise Bill, it will follow that he did not use that argument about the time of the House with any personal conviction that it was correct. I suppose the Solicitor General for Scotland, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would tell us that it was part of a Parliamentary manoeuvre and that it was impossible to get a majority without it, and, according to the modern morality of Governments, I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will think that a perfectly satisfactory reason for having pressed upon the House of Commons an argument in which they themselves did not believe. But, to use an expression once used by a friend of the right hon. Gentleman's, I do not like to see "unnecessary humiliation," and I think that if the right hon. Gentleman makes any attempt to influence votes by such a concession he will be submitting himself to unnecessary humiliation. It is a very painful thing to see a man eat dirt at any time, but it is a much more painful thing to see a man eat dirt when you know he will not be paid for it, and my fear is